The most important thing in life is balance, how is balance measured?

Last night we had an interesting discussion about the topic of balance in life.

My original thought was to address the work, family, personal time type juggling that a lot of people, especially women face these days.  However, Gerry thought the discussion was going to be about harmony, balance in art and nature. For Gerry, nature, good art are examples of good balance.  It is difficult to pinpoint but perhaps it is one of those things where we know when we see it. The problem here is that "balance" is used to describe almost everything natural and good to the point that we cannot figure out what balance is.

Mano thought that the word balance is now overused in oriental mysticism to describe something good without knowing or being nailed down to what it is.  Perhaps proportioning better describe the work life split we sometimes find so difficult to draw a line on.

Through the discussion,  it occurred to me that when people distress over work-life balance, they are actually trying to optimise or try to get the most they can in achieving career and personal success. The pursuit of the optimum or trying to maximize one's time or energy is always an inherently dangerous thing to do.  It implies that there is only a very narrow target that one would be satisfied which in turn means one will be disappointed most of the time.

This is all the more difficult due to the impossible task of trying to foretell the fruitfulness of one's investment in one's efforts towards work or personal life.

So claiming that there is a "balance" in the work-personal life compromise is really an illusion as this perfect balance can only be set with hindsight and often with regret of what "should have been done".

It is likely that through inevitable comparison with others at work and personal life situations we feel that we ought to do better in either or both of these area.  Not the hard nose compromising exercise as implied by the word "balance".  We want it all, not the compromise.

Bruce raise the idea of whether people like Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela are "in balance" as they go through the difficult stages of their lives.  They seem to be above the social pressure that was forced on them and we do not think of them as someone who would wonder if their life is in balance.

This implies that it is clear vision of their goals and their attitude that help them fight off the crushing social pressure from the outside.

Perhaps it is clear goal and positive attitude that will get us out of this optimising, compromising regretting state, worrying whether we could have gotten more if we had just spent our time and energy in a wiser, better proportion. In grand causes like those for King and Mandela, the job is never done, any progress is good progress, so there is no regrets.

Mano object to comparison to figures like King and Mandela as that is just not how we live our lives.  It leads us to feel we are losers compared to these giants and that is not the case.  It is not the proper comparison bar.

While I agree with Mano on this, the interesting thing is that King and Mandela's jobs are never done while we tend to envision end goals for our careers and personal lives.  Regrets come from falling short of these goals.

Therefore,  while it is good to have targets to aim for, we should also be thankful for what we have achieved. To have contentment versus the nagging consciousness of tasks left undone and territories to conquer.

Maybe this is the "balance" we should be looking for when looking at our lives, the balance of contentment versus challenges to come.

There just is no simple answer is there?

While we were discussing balance, somehow we also talked about group dynamics in bullying. Gerry thought that besides the bully and the victim,  there is usually a rescuer.

Bruce said he learned from a seminar that there is usually the bully, the victim, and the bystander.  The bystander is actually helping the bully through inaction and the bully gets emboldened by this inaction.  Therefore the bystander's position is way more important than the bystander thinks.

All in all, an interesting evening discussion.

Religion in the 21st century

I went to a Simon Fraser University philosopher's cafe discussion on religion in Maple Ridge this evening.

The moderator Larry Green started off the discussion with what he thinks are the three characteristic of religion:

1.  That it offers a personal god for people to relate to, to appeal to, and to feel that someone is looking after them.

2.  That religion establishes a stable social order (the 10 commandments) by telling people how to behave.

3.  That it provides something that is sacred.  By that Larry meant something that is out of the understanding of our earthly world and something that we are not expected to know and cannot know.

Adam said that religion provides a sense of purpose for us.  Will felt that this purpose can be badly placed as in the case of the terrorist for 9/11.  Will also mentioned Christopher Hitchen's point that human society have been operating for thousands of years before Moses came down the mountain with the tablets.  There cannot be a society full of rape, murder, and stealing before the ten commandments as the social group will simply not last with that chaos.  Therefore religion is using what is already accepted as good social practice and turned it into the commandments.

Some thought that atheists are just as dogmatic and have faith in science instead of religion.

Will reminded us that the definition of faith is to believe without evidence, and trust is the expectation of future behaviour based on past experience.  Using science and logic as a method and procedure is based on observation and evidence.  If the evidence do not support the current scientific understanding,  then science based think will change to an explanation that will include the new evidence.  This is therefore the opposite of faith.

Religion is necessarily dogmatic in that it claims to know everything because god knows everything.  Therefore,  it is impossible for religion to change its position if it knows it was right all along.  For a previous pope to condemn Galileo and for the last pope to pardon him means one of the popes got it wrong.  If this means they are not dogmatic, it also means we cannot trust the judgement from the pope as the can no longer claim they are always right as they are the messengers of god.

Science start off not knowing and base knowing on observation and how it fit theories proposed. If new observations do not fit the existing theory, the theory is revised to include the new observation,  therefore science is not dogmatic as it is always changing as more evidence is gathered.

Some mentioned the good things that religion has given us such as the Salvation Army and other charitable organizations that have help the disadvantaged.  But there are also non religious charitable organizations doing good.  Good people do good things,  bad people do bad things.  Religion uses the incentive of heaven and the threat of hell to make less good people do good things.  But religion also use those incentives as reason for good people to do bad things such as the crusade, or converting others to their faith.

There is also the talk of the consoling aspect of religion,  that in times of trouble,  it is good to know that there is a god to look up to for help to get through the tough times.

The trouble is,  didn't god have something to do with the bad things happening?  Didn't he caused it to happen?  If it was the work of the devil, why did god allowed it?  If god was testing our will,  will appealing to him do any good?

Larry's three points on religion and Will's quote of Hitchens on social order before Moses and the 10 commandments make me think of the following comparison.

Imagine we are back in the second grade and playing in the playground.  There was a bully among our group and for him,  might is right.  The social order is based on the bully's might and the group survived, though perhaps uncomfortably.

One of the group members though comes forward and say that he has a brother in sixth grade and his older brother told him that the group should not listen to the bully but should follow a different set of rules as told by this sixth grader.  The bully was controlled on the threat of the sixth grader coming on his younger brother's bidding.  Besides, the rest of the second graders were also getting bolder because of this and though the bully can take each of them on,  he is hesitant to take them all on at once.

All the second graders now feel that there is a new better social order as the power is a bit more spread out than when the bully was the rule and that through one of them,  they can look to the sixth grader for protection and advise.

It is not necessary for the sixth grader to show up,  just the thought of the existence of this protector and the reinforcing comments from the leader was enough to build confidence among the second graders and console them when things don't work out.

They believe that some day,  they will individually get a chance to meet the sixth grader who, according to the leader, knows all about what is going on.  So they better all behave according to the rules set out by the leader.

Sixth grade is so far beyond second grade that it is impossible for the second graders to know the ways of the sixth grader.  It is sacred.

Maybe the leader of the second graders did not have a brother in sixth grade but made it up in order to control the bully and become the leader.

Maybe the leader dreamt or was deluded into thinking he had a brother in sixth grade.

It turned out that sixth grade is indeed different than second grade,  but not that much.

Mean while,  in the next school and playground,  a similar scene is played out, but the leader of the second graders has several brothers in higher grades and they have different specialities that the second graders can go to for advice.......

The two groups of grade twos met at a field trip and they both claim that their grade six protector(s) is(are) more powerful than the other group's and that theirs is the one with the true sacred powers and a fight erupted between the two groups, both confident that their own sixth grade protectors will show up to beat the other side up.

How much further should I go with this????

Are we out of the second grade yet?

Why do we hate?

This evening we discussed the sources of hatred and how we can deal with it.

Mark started the discussion by differentiating repulsion from hate.  Repulsion and attraction are human biological responses with indifference in the centre.  Hate requires a social component.  We can be repulsed by cockroaches and bad food but we hate some one of a different social group.

Mano further expanded this by saying there is a difference between our earth and our world,  one being physical and biological while the other is our social construct.  Mano further believes that hate is a characteristic that is easy for humans to fall into and we need to guard against that.  It is also something that is nurtured and reinforced until it becomes acceptable without scrutiny within our own social group.

Bruce thinks that the cure to neutralise hate is education but Shula felt that hate is an emotional rather than a rational response so it is not easy for rationality to overcome this negative emotion.

Rafi sited various examples of racial hatred that existed in society where the target of the hatred is a very small number in the society and most members of the society have not met or knew any member of this small targeted group.

A lot of the hatred are in handed down traditional attitudes, jokes, practices that are accepted but not questioned.

Political leaders may take advantage of hate as a way of mobilizing the population but the propensity has to be there to start off with.

Mano suggested that one way to recognise hatred being perpetrated by someone is to see if emotional buttons are being pressed by their claims and the content of facts versus implied but not proven conclusions.

There was a lot of discussion about us versus them or the "other" and that hatred of others is sometimes used to build a tighter social group among the "us".  Does this means that we will always have a tendency to find and hate the "other" since we want to build our social group?

Bruce felt that conversations and discussions with the "other" is what will neutralise hatred.  We often avoid communicating with our "enemies" and never get to find out the common ground we have with them.

Joseph thought that social media is breaking down the stereo types in society and minimizing the distance in communicating with people from other parts of the world.

What came out of the discussion for me is that it is easier to promote hatred than trust as hatred is based on suspicion and speculation where as trust requires repeated demonstrations of considerations for others.  Therefore we need to recognise this imbalance in cognition and put suspicion based theories under a much harsher light.  Don't let our fears of the unfamiliar (therefore suspicion) get the better of us.  Recognise that our emotional response needs to be verified by rationality.

Great discussion!

Cosmetic surgery, why is it acceptable to cure but not to enhance?

Last Wednesday,  we had a discussion about our society's attitude towards cosmetic surgery.

Cosmetic surgery started during the world wars when people were disfigured by burns and war wounds and there was a great need to help people get back to normal lives and integrate into everyday society.

Since then,  the enhancement side of cosmetic surgery became a branch and business on their very own.  Celebrities and people in the entertainment business who regard their public persona as their most valuable asset feel the need and benefit of enhancing their appearance to help and maintain their professional lives.

The public at large however, still feel that cosmetic surgery is "unnatural".  That it is needed to repair disfigurement but somewhat vain to enhance.

Unfortunately,  I was not able to get people at the Ideas Cafe to agree that we feel uneasy about cosmetic surgery.  The group felt that whatever people want to do is their business and we should not pass judgement on their preferences.  The most we can say is that they are not spending their money wisely if some other aspect of their lives are deprived in some way because of spending money in cosmetic surgery or if they are taking undue health risk because of cosmetic surgery.

Dan did express a feeling that he found himself not trusting the judgement of a man with a "bad hair job".  Perhaps cosmetic surgery is one marker of a person's values and their decision making.

What was also interesting was that no one found it unusual about the example of a woman faced with breast reconstruction after a mastectomy from breast cancer, that she chooses a "better shape and size" than before. We may as well make it better while we are at it, but to enhance something before it is "broken" is a different matter.

I was therefore not able to explore the nuance of presenting a better appearance through cosmetic surgery when we obviously are attracted to people who are better looking.

On a similar plane, we accept make up as part of our social lives.  We may even feel that ladies who do not wear make up for an important occasion may not be taking the occasion seriously.

How do we feel about someone who is wearing "too much" make up?  How much is too much?

Perhaps the right amount of make up is when people notice the good looks but not aware that make up is involved.

Maybe that would apply with cosmetic surgery as well,  that it should seem natural and not man made.

In other words,  the deception needs to be well executed and not noticed.

Viewed this way,  it is like white lies and other "social graces",  we know it happens, we know it lubricates and smooths the social transactions,  and we leave it there. We assume the best and do not probe beyond.

We do not ask if someone's beautiful photograph is air brushed to remove blemishes, we let ourselves be carried along in the deception that there really are natural born immaculate beauties in Hollywood with enduring youth and unbelievable figures.

I understand that cosmetic surgery is very popular in Brazil and people discuss it openly as part of health care.  The poorer classes sees it as small luxuries for themselves and also as a way to possibly break out of their class through beauty as often shown on soap operas on TV.  

A different level of deception acceptance?

Aren't humans wonderfully interesting?