We had our discussion last night on regret. Since everyone around the table happened to be born outside of Canada, immigrant experiences became the channel for discussing regret.
Hind sight seems to be integral with our feeling of regret. That in itself should tell us that regret results from a biased view from after the fact.
We seem to be very sensitive to what we don't have while taking what we have for granted which easily lead to regret versus appreciation for the good that we have done.
Particularly for major decisions such as immigration. When an immigrant meet friends who did not immigrate or seeing one's school friends years later, it is easy to get into comparisons and feel regret where the experience in the new country come up short.
However, these comparisons of narratives over years of our lives are narratives of a journey that involved many decisions along the way as well as probabilities of outcomes from these many decisions that form the final result ending the narrative.
It is easy to pile it all on the initial decision to immigrate or to choose a particular first job and attribute the comparison result to that one initial decision.
However, much like bridge players that go through various bids to form a contract and go through rounds of decisions in playing their cards, the final outcome depends on the sum total of the bidding and card playing decisions rather than one bidding error in the beginning.
On top of which, the luck involved in the distribution of cards, the response of one's partner in bidding and playing, the luck and competence of the opponents, all factor into the final bridge score for the game.
We may experience regret when faced with the comparison with our former school mates or coworkers who did not immigrate but it is too harsh for us to blame ourselves for the one decision at the point of departure in our comparison with our previous peers.
Many immigrants decide to leave their homeland to settle in a new country in order to have a brighter future for the next generation.
I have no doubt that it is a very sincere intention but through these discussions, I realized that this selfless perspective also inoculate immigrants against the harsh realities of adapting to a new culture, struggling to get started in a new land, and likely starting over from the bottom of a new career after some accomplishment in their homeland.
Even if the financial and material yard sticks do not compare favorably for their decision to leave their original country, these immigrants can rest well that they have made a worthy sacrifice to improve the lot of their children. We have hope for our children's future and hope keeps us going.
The other aspect of hind sight is that we often think of our selves years ago as we are today. We take for granted the years of experience and wisdom that we have accumulated in the mean time and tended to be too harsh on our previous selves.
The feeling of regret can signal us that there is a learning opportunity from this experience. At the same time, we can make more allowance for ourselves. Maybe we should celebrate the wiser vision we have now rather than regretting the lack of vision we had years ago.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Saturday, December 22, 2012
12/28/2012 Regret
This coming Friday, we are discussing regret.
I trust that we have all experience regret. For some of us, it is a strong, perhaps negative emotion that motivates us to change, to avoid having to experience that negative emotion again in the future.
Will we regret later on if we do not take that trip? Will we regret not finishing our "bucket list" when in our death bed? Will we regret not spending more time with our love ones while we can still do so?
Why do we feel regret at all?
Is it because it is an evolutionary trait that helps us survive the natural threats around us? Maybe it is the most easily startled and worrying animals that survive better? Maybe the worry free among us did not survive as well as the worrier among us?
Does it have something to do with hindsight, that looking back, we have a different perspective and also conveniently forget some of the other worthwhile things we were doing while not doing what we are regretting?
Just because we feel the emotion of regret, does it mean it is justified?
Maybe we should not regret at all. What is done is done, it is the future that we can do something about and there is no point in wishing things were different in the past.
There are those who seem to be able to go through life without the burden of guilt (and therefore regret). Are we better to absolve ourselves of responsibilities for our actions? We live in a world of interlocking events and seldom can we say we were solely responsible for certain events. Why should we blame ourselves as much as we do?
Can we avoid guilt and regret by adjusting our expectations of ourselves? Should we?
When we say we are doing our best, is that a way of avoiding guilt and regret by limiting our expectation to what effort we can expand rather than what outcome we should expect?
We live in a world that is governed by probabilities, nothing is ever for sure. Is that good enough reason to not have expectations of outcomes? How do we plan anything if we cannot reasonably expect results?
Are we doomed to have regrets?
Let's hear your ideas and comments.
I trust that we have all experience regret. For some of us, it is a strong, perhaps negative emotion that motivates us to change, to avoid having to experience that negative emotion again in the future.
Will we regret later on if we do not take that trip? Will we regret not finishing our "bucket list" when in our death bed? Will we regret not spending more time with our love ones while we can still do so?
Why do we feel regret at all?
Is it because it is an evolutionary trait that helps us survive the natural threats around us? Maybe it is the most easily startled and worrying animals that survive better? Maybe the worry free among us did not survive as well as the worrier among us?
Just because we feel the emotion of regret, does it mean it is justified?
Maybe we should not regret at all. What is done is done, it is the future that we can do something about and there is no point in wishing things were different in the past.
There are those who seem to be able to go through life without the burden of guilt (and therefore regret). Are we better to absolve ourselves of responsibilities for our actions? We live in a world of interlocking events and seldom can we say we were solely responsible for certain events. Why should we blame ourselves as much as we do?
Can we avoid guilt and regret by adjusting our expectations of ourselves? Should we?
When we say we are doing our best, is that a way of avoiding guilt and regret by limiting our expectation to what effort we can expand rather than what outcome we should expect?
We live in a world that is governed by probabilities, nothing is ever for sure. Is that good enough reason to not have expectations of outcomes? How do we plan anything if we cannot reasonably expect results?
Let's hear your ideas and comments.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Meeting on "What is a home"
We had a small group last night discussing what makes a home.
A sense of safety, familiarity, connections with our love ones, and economic viability were agreed as the ingredients for making a place feel home like.
For modern day nomads, they arrange every new home they go to about the same way they did the last to get the sense of constancy as they have move from city to city. We all need anchors in our lives to feel settled and choose different aspects to get this constancy.
The sense of safety is a personal evaluation and psychological. We have all experienced the sense of home when crossing the border back to our home country. Very often there is no immediate difference other than symbols of the flag but our mental feel is disproportionately large compared to the actual change in environment involved in crossing the border.
Our sense of safety is also disrupted in the case of a burglary into our home. We may feel violated and not able to restore our sense of safety anymore.
This leads to the thinking that the sense of safety, so important in making us feel at home at any one location is mostly psychological.
I recall my university days when we moved up from renting a room to renting the top floor of an old house upon graduation. There were no doors leading to the top floor to keep our living space separate from the tenants of the rest of the house and yet we never felt unsafe in that environment.
We may be young and naive then but it shows the blurry boundary of nativity versus hard experience. Where is the happy medium between blissful ignorance and inability to trust?
Joseph mentioned that he will not be able to return to his home town where he grew up as the economic circumstances have changed and there is no gainful employment to be had there anymore even though a lot of the people may still be there. This brought up the point that home is not just a location but that location also change with time. We may be nostalgic about that location because we have memories of the past there. Nostalgia is more emotion over reality and best not relied on to be relived.
Connections to our loved ones, a sense of feeling welcomed are certainly major reasons for feeling at home. Sandra talked about feeling at home in regular annual events such as car shows where she can expect to see familiar faces and do familiar activities that reinforce her sense of belonging to that community as a strong feeling of being at home.
That may speak to the significance of festivals and major events such as Christmas, Thanksgiving and such where one's bonds with family and community are reinforced in a predictable, comforting fashion.
This is all good, but it still begs the question, why are we creatures of habit?
One answer may be that we need more brain power to deal with exceptional events and we would prefer more things to be routine so that we can relegate it to our subconsciousness. We are not conscious of walking our familiar streets but stress and concentration sets in when we are in a strange environment that require us to watch every step.
Yet we become bored if routine dominate our lives. We yearn for travel and excitement, discovery.
We want well arranged, interesting travel that is safe, and to expectations.
Is there such a thing?
Maybe we travel just so that we can come home afterwards.
A sense of safety, familiarity, connections with our love ones, and economic viability were agreed as the ingredients for making a place feel home like.
For modern day nomads, they arrange every new home they go to about the same way they did the last to get the sense of constancy as they have move from city to city. We all need anchors in our lives to feel settled and choose different aspects to get this constancy.
The sense of safety is a personal evaluation and psychological. We have all experienced the sense of home when crossing the border back to our home country. Very often there is no immediate difference other than symbols of the flag but our mental feel is disproportionately large compared to the actual change in environment involved in crossing the border.
Our sense of safety is also disrupted in the case of a burglary into our home. We may feel violated and not able to restore our sense of safety anymore.
This leads to the thinking that the sense of safety, so important in making us feel at home at any one location is mostly psychological.
I recall my university days when we moved up from renting a room to renting the top floor of an old house upon graduation. There were no doors leading to the top floor to keep our living space separate from the tenants of the rest of the house and yet we never felt unsafe in that environment.
We may be young and naive then but it shows the blurry boundary of nativity versus hard experience. Where is the happy medium between blissful ignorance and inability to trust?
Joseph mentioned that he will not be able to return to his home town where he grew up as the economic circumstances have changed and there is no gainful employment to be had there anymore even though a lot of the people may still be there. This brought up the point that home is not just a location but that location also change with time. We may be nostalgic about that location because we have memories of the past there. Nostalgia is more emotion over reality and best not relied on to be relived.
Connections to our loved ones, a sense of feeling welcomed are certainly major reasons for feeling at home. Sandra talked about feeling at home in regular annual events such as car shows where she can expect to see familiar faces and do familiar activities that reinforce her sense of belonging to that community as a strong feeling of being at home.
That may speak to the significance of festivals and major events such as Christmas, Thanksgiving and such where one's bonds with family and community are reinforced in a predictable, comforting fashion.
This is all good, but it still begs the question, why are we creatures of habit?
One answer may be that we need more brain power to deal with exceptional events and we would prefer more things to be routine so that we can relegate it to our subconsciousness. We are not conscious of walking our familiar streets but stress and concentration sets in when we are in a strange environment that require us to watch every step.
Yet we become bored if routine dominate our lives. We yearn for travel and excitement, discovery.
We want well arranged, interesting travel that is safe, and to expectations.
Is there such a thing?
Maybe we travel just so that we can come home afterwards.
Monday, December 10, 2012
12/14/2012 What is a home?
This coming Friday at the Ideas Cafe, we will be discussing what gives us a feeling of home.
What is the definition of home?
In its most basic sense, it is where we eat, sleep, rest, and store our belongings.
As we extend it from the physical to the emotional and psychological meaning, home is also where we have refuge from the weather, where we feel safe, where we can relax and let our guard down.
Home is where we grow our families, build memories and experiences.
Our hometown is a community that we are a part of, that we belong.
So far so good.
How do nomads define home?
In modern societies where we are expected to change our jobs many times during our career including almost continuous changing of our "home" locations, how do we feel "at home"? Traveling salesman, military families, corporate troubleshooters, and many other occupations now require constant moving. How do these families handle this?
One theory is that we are creatures of habit. Home provides the familiarity that we need in order to relax. The sooner we accepts things as they are, the faster we become familiar with them and easier we are in adapting to new situations.
Does this make constant movers more flexible and accepting of differences?
Maybe the feeling of home is more a state of mind, how we can relax in our surroundings, how others can make us feel "at home".
If we perceive threats from every direction, we will not feel at home.
Again we are faced with the balance of the two extremes. On the one hand we have the ever vigilant person ready to handle any threats wherever he is but he will likely never relax and feel at home even in his own house. This person is likely a "survivor" who can live through more threats compared to the average person.
On the other hand, we have the person that can be considered "Pollyanna-ish", who is oblivious to the near misses that could have harmed him, but are relaxed much more often than the average person. He trust others freely, opening himself to possible harm but also connecting to a lot more friends and relationships.
How do we navigate between these two extremes while holding on to our precious worldly goods that gives us familiarity and comfort so that we can find home wherever we are, whichever community we are in?
Can we have multiple homes?
Why are we creatures of habit anyway?
What is the definition of home?
In its most basic sense, it is where we eat, sleep, rest, and store our belongings.
As we extend it from the physical to the emotional and psychological meaning, home is also where we have refuge from the weather, where we feel safe, where we can relax and let our guard down.
Home is where we grow our families, build memories and experiences.
Our hometown is a community that we are a part of, that we belong.
So far so good.
How do nomads define home?
In modern societies where we are expected to change our jobs many times during our career including almost continuous changing of our "home" locations, how do we feel "at home"? Traveling salesman, military families, corporate troubleshooters, and many other occupations now require constant moving. How do these families handle this?
One theory is that we are creatures of habit. Home provides the familiarity that we need in order to relax. The sooner we accepts things as they are, the faster we become familiar with them and easier we are in adapting to new situations.
Does this make constant movers more flexible and accepting of differences?
Maybe the feeling of home is more a state of mind, how we can relax in our surroundings, how others can make us feel "at home".
If we perceive threats from every direction, we will not feel at home.
Again we are faced with the balance of the two extremes. On the one hand we have the ever vigilant person ready to handle any threats wherever he is but he will likely never relax and feel at home even in his own house. This person is likely a "survivor" who can live through more threats compared to the average person.
On the other hand, we have the person that can be considered "Pollyanna-ish", who is oblivious to the near misses that could have harmed him, but are relaxed much more often than the average person. He trust others freely, opening himself to possible harm but also connecting to a lot more friends and relationships.
How do we navigate between these two extremes while holding on to our precious worldly goods that gives us familiarity and comfort so that we can find home wherever we are, whichever community we are in?
Can we have multiple homes?
Why are we creatures of habit anyway?
Monday, November 26, 2012
11/30/2012 Morality of framing an issue
This coming Friday at the Ideas Cafe, we are discussing how issues are presented and discussed.
Framing.
We naturally think of adding a set of frames to a picture or photograph to make it stand out, present it in a better light, or bring out a particular quality by the contrast derived from the frame.
So it is when we choose to discuss an issue. The introduction, the setting, the background picture, and even the identity of the presenter, all contribute to the overall feel of the issue, how we consider it, and what path the discussion or thought process will follow.
Just this past Wednesday at the philosopher's cafe in New Westminster, Mano was trying to present the idea that too much of popular history was portrayed as due to heroes and outstanding individuals when the prevailing sentiment and circumstances at the time was likely more dominant than the simplified picture of attributing events to a particular personality like Lincoln, Newton, or Einstein, to name a few.
The discussion became very lively as to whether it was the individual or the circumstance that set the course of history.
I can't help but think that if the topic was introduced differently; say to name the type of influences we have on history, whether it be weather, geography, disease, industrial innovation, religion, etc., we will end up with quite a different discussion. Maybe we will end up with a conclusion that there are many factors influencing history rather than the debate of whether it was the heroes or the circumstances.
Knowing the importance of how an issue is introduced and framed, is it fair game for the presenter to put their take of the issue in the introduction?
How obligated is the presenter to present ideas that he disagree with?
When does omission enter the territory of not telling the truth?
There are just so many perspectives when considering how to present an issue, how is one to choose?
Media reporters quite predictably keep their audience in mind and shape their reports to the audience' perspective. Does it not lead to insular thinking when the audience is not challenged and always have "yes man" reporters catering to them?
It seems that it is almost impossible to have a neutral framing for an issue. Maybe it is up to each of us to be vigilant of the source, presentation, and tone of the issue and be on guard.
Given that we always seems to be thinking and discussing in a serial manner with one thought or idea triggering the next, we are always vulnerable to how the issue discussion got started.
Perhaps it is best to have several minds with different backgrounds and leanings for the discussion. At least we have a chance to choose which way to branch off after the discussion issue is launched, inevitably in one particular direction.
Seems to me we are talking about the ideas cafe discussions!
Let's hear your thoughts this Friday!
Framing.
We naturally think of adding a set of frames to a picture or photograph to make it stand out, present it in a better light, or bring out a particular quality by the contrast derived from the frame.
So it is when we choose to discuss an issue. The introduction, the setting, the background picture, and even the identity of the presenter, all contribute to the overall feel of the issue, how we consider it, and what path the discussion or thought process will follow.
Just this past Wednesday at the philosopher's cafe in New Westminster, Mano was trying to present the idea that too much of popular history was portrayed as due to heroes and outstanding individuals when the prevailing sentiment and circumstances at the time was likely more dominant than the simplified picture of attributing events to a particular personality like Lincoln, Newton, or Einstein, to name a few.
The discussion became very lively as to whether it was the individual or the circumstance that set the course of history.
I can't help but think that if the topic was introduced differently; say to name the type of influences we have on history, whether it be weather, geography, disease, industrial innovation, religion, etc., we will end up with quite a different discussion. Maybe we will end up with a conclusion that there are many factors influencing history rather than the debate of whether it was the heroes or the circumstances.
Knowing the importance of how an issue is introduced and framed, is it fair game for the presenter to put their take of the issue in the introduction?
How obligated is the presenter to present ideas that he disagree with?
When does omission enter the territory of not telling the truth?
There are just so many perspectives when considering how to present an issue, how is one to choose?
Media reporters quite predictably keep their audience in mind and shape their reports to the audience' perspective. Does it not lead to insular thinking when the audience is not challenged and always have "yes man" reporters catering to them?
It seems that it is almost impossible to have a neutral framing for an issue. Maybe it is up to each of us to be vigilant of the source, presentation, and tone of the issue and be on guard.
Given that we always seems to be thinking and discussing in a serial manner with one thought or idea triggering the next, we are always vulnerable to how the issue discussion got started.
Perhaps it is best to have several minds with different backgrounds and leanings for the discussion. At least we have a chance to choose which way to branch off after the discussion issue is launched, inevitably in one particular direction.
Seems to me we are talking about the ideas cafe discussions!
Let's hear your thoughts this Friday!
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Meeting on "Everything in moderation"
We had our meeting last night on the topic of "Everything in moderation, is there a universal standard for moderation?"
First thing I learned from Shula was that Aristotle and possibly Buddha were thinking of how to be virtuous with the Aristotelian mean and Buddha's "middle way". This may be different from our everyday life approach to decision making where we may be more thinking of how to be successful in a particular endeavor or just living life in general.
Second thing that Shula pointed out was that especially in the case of wanting to be successful, we first have to know what we are aiming for and defining what success is. Thereafter, we can figure out what are the elements that contribute to that success and the way to get there.
Richard thought moderation suggests mediocrity, uninteresting and boring whereas we seem to be drawn towards excellence. However, we may admire the achievements of an Olympian athlete in their achievements but we likely do not want to live the life of the athlete dedicating all their time to training for the sport.
Maybe moderation is about doing more things well than doing one thing remarkably well. So renaissance man like Di Vinci who is good in art as well as science deserves more admiration than someone dedicated to one narrow field.
While I started off thinking that "everything in moderation" is an aphorism that is mostly used in hind sight and not much use going forward, Shula's second point about having a goal is illuminating.
It is such a simple thing, that we cannot take a journey efficiently unless we know where we are aiming for. Thereafter, my engineering background kicks in to define the optimization process of what to do depending on the priorities of saving time or energy to get to the destination.
Yet in life, it is not so simple to always know what destination we are aiming for. We change our target with new information or experiences. Our priorities also change making an optimization master plan not always that productive.
"Everything in moderation" is a form of hedging our bets to handle the vagueness in our goals and our lack of complete understanding of the world.
It results in less efficiency towards a particular goal but makes some moderate progress towards a number of broad areas that we may change into later on.
How else can we handle decision making when we have insufficient information?
So "everything in moderation" perhaps should be "most things in moderation except when you are an expert"
If we are expert in a particular area and our goals are quite firm, then there is no point in moderation. Just take the best path to the goal.
But then, when are we ever that sure?
Do experts know all there is to know about a subject to justify this type of confidence?
How do they know what they don't know if they don't know what they don't know?
First thing I learned from Shula was that Aristotle and possibly Buddha were thinking of how to be virtuous with the Aristotelian mean and Buddha's "middle way". This may be different from our everyday life approach to decision making where we may be more thinking of how to be successful in a particular endeavor or just living life in general.
Second thing that Shula pointed out was that especially in the case of wanting to be successful, we first have to know what we are aiming for and defining what success is. Thereafter, we can figure out what are the elements that contribute to that success and the way to get there.
Richard thought moderation suggests mediocrity, uninteresting and boring whereas we seem to be drawn towards excellence. However, we may admire the achievements of an Olympian athlete in their achievements but we likely do not want to live the life of the athlete dedicating all their time to training for the sport.
Maybe moderation is about doing more things well than doing one thing remarkably well. So renaissance man like Di Vinci who is good in art as well as science deserves more admiration than someone dedicated to one narrow field.
While I started off thinking that "everything in moderation" is an aphorism that is mostly used in hind sight and not much use going forward, Shula's second point about having a goal is illuminating.
It is such a simple thing, that we cannot take a journey efficiently unless we know where we are aiming for. Thereafter, my engineering background kicks in to define the optimization process of what to do depending on the priorities of saving time or energy to get to the destination.
Yet in life, it is not so simple to always know what destination we are aiming for. We change our target with new information or experiences. Our priorities also change making an optimization master plan not always that productive.
"Everything in moderation" is a form of hedging our bets to handle the vagueness in our goals and our lack of complete understanding of the world.
It results in less efficiency towards a particular goal but makes some moderate progress towards a number of broad areas that we may change into later on.
How else can we handle decision making when we have insufficient information?
So "everything in moderation" perhaps should be "most things in moderation except when you are an expert"
If we are expert in a particular area and our goals are quite firm, then there is no point in moderation. Just take the best path to the goal.
But then, when are we ever that sure?
Do experts know all there is to know about a subject to justify this type of confidence?
How do they know what they don't know if they don't know what they don't know?
Saturday, November 10, 2012
11/16/2012 Everything in moderation, is there a universal standard for moderation?
This coming Friday, we are discussing moderation at the Ideas Cafe.
Everything in moderation seems like a good idea. Aristotle have the Aristotelian mean, Buddha preaches the "middle way" between the life of an ascetic and the luxury life of a prince.
Often when things are not going right, the conclusion is that we have err towards excess or not enough of some quality and that we should have some but not too much of whatever that was under consideration.
However, that is hindsight.
Going forward, how do we know we have achieved moderation?
Faced with a choice of 4, 8, or 12 oz steak on the menu, the 8 oz steak seems the right choice. What if the choice is 8, 12, or 16 oz?
What if we recall that the doctor recommended red meat only occasionally? Maybe even the 4 oz steak is too much?
Seems to me that to get to moderation, we need to define what the upper and lower limits of consideration is. How do we do that?
Maybe we should see what everybody else is doing and use that to establish the range from which we can establish moderation. Wisdom in crowds. If the whole crowd is going the wrong way, at lease we are only half wrong!
But what if the whole crowd is going over the cliff like lemmings? Halfway over the cliff is just as bad as a quarter or three quarters over the cliff.
How about going with what is available? As in the Buddha example, the ascetic is starving himself to avoid all material goods while the prince is at the extreme point of riches. Surely that defines the range?
With such a wide range, what is considered the middle way? Skipping a meal here and there? Well fed and enjoying the pleasures of food but not other pleasures?
Are there practical guides towards achieving moderation in what we do?
How does this advice work with the excellence argument, that we should strive to be the best in what we do? That mediocrity is to be avoided?
Should we ignore both moderation and excellence and just do what we want?
Should we use these to our advantage to justify whatever it is we are doing?
Everything in moderation seems like a good idea. Aristotle have the Aristotelian mean, Buddha preaches the "middle way" between the life of an ascetic and the luxury life of a prince.
Often when things are not going right, the conclusion is that we have err towards excess or not enough of some quality and that we should have some but not too much of whatever that was under consideration.
However, that is hindsight.
Going forward, how do we know we have achieved moderation?
Faced with a choice of 4, 8, or 12 oz steak on the menu, the 8 oz steak seems the right choice. What if the choice is 8, 12, or 16 oz?
What if we recall that the doctor recommended red meat only occasionally? Maybe even the 4 oz steak is too much?
Seems to me that to get to moderation, we need to define what the upper and lower limits of consideration is. How do we do that?
Maybe we should see what everybody else is doing and use that to establish the range from which we can establish moderation. Wisdom in crowds. If the whole crowd is going the wrong way, at lease we are only half wrong!
But what if the whole crowd is going over the cliff like lemmings? Halfway over the cliff is just as bad as a quarter or three quarters over the cliff.
How about going with what is available? As in the Buddha example, the ascetic is starving himself to avoid all material goods while the prince is at the extreme point of riches. Surely that defines the range?
With such a wide range, what is considered the middle way? Skipping a meal here and there? Well fed and enjoying the pleasures of food but not other pleasures?
Are there practical guides towards achieving moderation in what we do?
How does this advice work with the excellence argument, that we should strive to be the best in what we do? That mediocrity is to be avoided?
Should we ignore both moderation and excellence and just do what we want?
Should we use these to our advantage to justify whatever it is we are doing?
Saturday, November 3, 2012
11/9/2012 Should a country be able to control its citizens for what they do outside the country?
Next Friday at the Ideas Cafe, we are discussing the power of the state in controlling its citizens.
This topic was suggested by Rafi based on a recent incident of a Canadian who served jail sentence in Thailand. Upon returning to Canada, the Canadian authorities said they may be pursuing charges for actions that the person committed overseas and had served time for.
Admittedly, it is for child pornography for which there is no excuse. However, should our government have jurisdiction of what we do while overseas? It is always in these cases that civil liberties can be trespassed because of the nature of the crime but the question remains.
Should they punish us again for something that we already serve time for?
What if a US citizen do something like using pot in Amsterdam which is legal there but not legal in the US? Should they be punished after returning to the US?
There was recently a rush for US citizens overseas to denounce their US citizenship because the US internal revenue service said all US citizens overseas are liable for US income taxes even though they may not have lived in the US for many years.
What are the obligations of the citizens of a state while out of the borders of the state?
What are the obligations of the state to its citizens overseas?
Can a Canadian citizens living generations overseas still enjoy protection from Canada?
What about voting rights?
A lot of countries agree with each other to tax residents instead of citizens. So taxation and social benefits are based on where one resides rather than one's citizenship. Is that the right way to go? What happens when the resident and citizen states are in some kind of political or military conflict?
The origin of the state is explained by Thomas Hobbes as a social contract for the citizens to co-operate with each other by mutually giving up the liberties that other citizens also give up and submit ourselves to the rules of the collective state to enforce these rules.
Does this apply when we are outside the physical borders of the state?
Are we entering a new social contract when we enter the physical borders of another state?
Is our social contract with our state forever until we denounce our citizenship?
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Meeting on is pleasure a sin?
Definitely not!
So said the small group we had last night at Halloween.
Shula reiterated her position that sin is defined by religion, a deity that set the rules for us to trespass before we become a "sinner".
What about civil and criminal code established by our society and when we breach those? Well, that is committing an illegal act but different than having sinned which laid on an extra layer of guilt and obligation to the deity.
Imagine the concept of original sin and having "fallen". We are guilty and obligated before we came into existence.
In this non religious world view, pleasure is on its own, something pleasant to us, a positive feeling in seeing or feeling something performing well or happening as it should.
If it affect others negatively, then we need to be aware of the effect on others but having a pleasurable experience is not "sinful", "wrong", or in any form inappropriate.
Then why is sin and guilt such a pervasive feeling in society?
I can't help feeling that there is a hint of post modernist view in saying that there is nothing inappropriate with pleasure at all. The implication is that everything is fine if a person thinks so, that there are no fixed rules.
Makes me think that religion's grip on humanity may be rooted in
1. That we grew up with rules before we can think for ourselves. Our parents and teachers laid out what we can and cannot do, with consequences of punishment or reward based on our breaking or adhering to those rules. This set us up to accepting rules imposed on us by religion using the deity as their authority.
2. That rules simplify our daily living. If we have to evaluate everything that we do in terms of its implication to our future and to others, we will freeze in our tracks and not make much progress. Rules simplify all this to commonly accepted dos and don'ts allowing us to move on and only stop to contemplate the major issues in terms of implications.
3. That with rules come enforcement, there has to be deterrent in order for the rules to have effect. Heaven, Hell, sin follows. There also have to be policing and judgment. Here, organized religion cannot help themselves from being the judge and also sellers of forgiveness.
4. That pleasures involving material possessions, lust, gluttony, sloth, are all appealing to our hedonistic side with sometimes averse effects to our long term well being. Having rules is a simple way to balance off the long term considerations against our short term urges. Having a deity from religion adds more weight to the rule.
Unfortunately, the order and efficiency afforded by rules brought in other issues. Rule makers and enforces are often tempted by the power entrusted in them. Guilt weighs heavy on us for breaking the rules and "sinful pleasures" arise from nothing more than just breaking the rules.
Small price to pay or not worth the neurosis? Either way, to me, the important thing is to understand the underlying cause.
Our discussion also drifted to the source of sexual repression over the ages. Raffi said it all has to do with property rights, that we only want to pass property on to those who are truly our own children. Therefore the importance of sexual fidelity to both the heavy responsibility of raising children as well as passing on one's inheritance.
This view is supported by the behavior of matriarchal societies with communal property such as Polynesian societies that were not monogamous.
Does this mean that sexual conservatism is no longer valid now that we have good birth control?
So said the small group we had last night at Halloween.
Shula reiterated her position that sin is defined by religion, a deity that set the rules for us to trespass before we become a "sinner".
What about civil and criminal code established by our society and when we breach those? Well, that is committing an illegal act but different than having sinned which laid on an extra layer of guilt and obligation to the deity.
Imagine the concept of original sin and having "fallen". We are guilty and obligated before we came into existence.
In this non religious world view, pleasure is on its own, something pleasant to us, a positive feeling in seeing or feeling something performing well or happening as it should.
If it affect others negatively, then we need to be aware of the effect on others but having a pleasurable experience is not "sinful", "wrong", or in any form inappropriate.
Then why is sin and guilt such a pervasive feeling in society?
I can't help feeling that there is a hint of post modernist view in saying that there is nothing inappropriate with pleasure at all. The implication is that everything is fine if a person thinks so, that there are no fixed rules.
Makes me think that religion's grip on humanity may be rooted in
1. That we grew up with rules before we can think for ourselves. Our parents and teachers laid out what we can and cannot do, with consequences of punishment or reward based on our breaking or adhering to those rules. This set us up to accepting rules imposed on us by religion using the deity as their authority.
2. That rules simplify our daily living. If we have to evaluate everything that we do in terms of its implication to our future and to others, we will freeze in our tracks and not make much progress. Rules simplify all this to commonly accepted dos and don'ts allowing us to move on and only stop to contemplate the major issues in terms of implications.
3. That with rules come enforcement, there has to be deterrent in order for the rules to have effect. Heaven, Hell, sin follows. There also have to be policing and judgment. Here, organized religion cannot help themselves from being the judge and also sellers of forgiveness.
4. That pleasures involving material possessions, lust, gluttony, sloth, are all appealing to our hedonistic side with sometimes averse effects to our long term well being. Having rules is a simple way to balance off the long term considerations against our short term urges. Having a deity from religion adds more weight to the rule.
Unfortunately, the order and efficiency afforded by rules brought in other issues. Rule makers and enforces are often tempted by the power entrusted in them. Guilt weighs heavy on us for breaking the rules and "sinful pleasures" arise from nothing more than just breaking the rules.
Small price to pay or not worth the neurosis? Either way, to me, the important thing is to understand the underlying cause.
Our discussion also drifted to the source of sexual repression over the ages. Raffi said it all has to do with property rights, that we only want to pass property on to those who are truly our own children. Therefore the importance of sexual fidelity to both the heavy responsibility of raising children as well as passing on one's inheritance.
This view is supported by the behavior of matriarchal societies with communal property such as Polynesian societies that were not monogamous.
Does this mean that sexual conservatism is no longer valid now that we have good birth control?
Saturday, October 27, 2012
10/31/2012 Is pleasure a sin?
For the Ideas Cafe this coming Wednesday, we are discussing whether pleasure itself is a sin.
The topic came to me after reading a post from the New York Times about the Vatican's reaction to a catholic nun's endorsement of masturbation as an acceptable practice.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/opinion/dowd-is-pleasure-a-sin.html?_r=0
We couldn't help starting the discussion in last evening's meeting when the group got wind of this topic for the next meeting.
Shula did not think there is such a thing as sin. Unless we accept the doctrine from a holy book, we have no set standards for sin which I take to be the result of acting against the doctrine. But is being immoral for an atheist also being sinful?
Temptation, sin, guilt, punishment, repent; what a wealth of ideas to discuss!
Then there seem to be the built in trepidation that may occur when we are having a lot of fun. Do we not have experiences when we were really enjoying ourselves that it was unreal and that we may better be careful that we may be doing something we shouldn't be?
My first experience in driving a convertible was such that when a police car passed by I was struck with concern that I maybe given a ticket. But for what? It was such an unusual experience that the police must be able to interpret "driving with undue care and attention" into this!
So is guilt and pleasure closely associated in our upbringing? That we must "pay" for pleasure in some way?
Raffi offered that it may be our evolutionary response that we start getting ready to prepare for the end of pleasure while we are in the middle of it just so that we are better at surviving afterwards. Of course this takes us away from enjoying the pleasurable moment but perhaps it is the price we pay for being the better survivors of the species.
Yet why does the church have to suppress the pleasurable aspects of sex? That it should only be for procreation and not for recreation? That we should feel sinful if we enjoy it?
Does it serve any purpose?
Can we safely dispense with the guilt without any negative consequences to regret later?
Maybe like "winning" discussed in the last meeting, sex is such a powerful motivator that we need to control it in some way so that it does not take over to become the purpose of our being?
Like winning, perhaps sex is just provides the incentive to achieve procreation and later on to promote stable family to nurture children?
Can we have sex with no guilt if we satisfy the bargain of having children and bringing them up?
Masturbation on its own is also full of complexity. As the traditional opinion of sex being heterosexual give way to acceptance of same gender sexual preferences, is it time to also accept sex as something that can be an individual solitary act?
Is this degeneration of our social norms or liberalization in our thinking?
The topic came to me after reading a post from the New York Times about the Vatican's reaction to a catholic nun's endorsement of masturbation as an acceptable practice.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/opinion/dowd-is-pleasure-a-sin.html?_r=0
We couldn't help starting the discussion in last evening's meeting when the group got wind of this topic for the next meeting.
Shula did not think there is such a thing as sin. Unless we accept the doctrine from a holy book, we have no set standards for sin which I take to be the result of acting against the doctrine. But is being immoral for an atheist also being sinful?
Temptation, sin, guilt, punishment, repent; what a wealth of ideas to discuss!
Then there seem to be the built in trepidation that may occur when we are having a lot of fun. Do we not have experiences when we were really enjoying ourselves that it was unreal and that we may better be careful that we may be doing something we shouldn't be?
My first experience in driving a convertible was such that when a police car passed by I was struck with concern that I maybe given a ticket. But for what? It was such an unusual experience that the police must be able to interpret "driving with undue care and attention" into this!
So is guilt and pleasure closely associated in our upbringing? That we must "pay" for pleasure in some way?
Raffi offered that it may be our evolutionary response that we start getting ready to prepare for the end of pleasure while we are in the middle of it just so that we are better at surviving afterwards. Of course this takes us away from enjoying the pleasurable moment but perhaps it is the price we pay for being the better survivors of the species.
Yet why does the church have to suppress the pleasurable aspects of sex? That it should only be for procreation and not for recreation? That we should feel sinful if we enjoy it?
Does it serve any purpose?
Can we safely dispense with the guilt without any negative consequences to regret later?
Maybe like "winning" discussed in the last meeting, sex is such a powerful motivator that we need to control it in some way so that it does not take over to become the purpose of our being?
Like winning, perhaps sex is just provides the incentive to achieve procreation and later on to promote stable family to nurture children?
Can we have sex with no guilt if we satisfy the bargain of having children and bringing them up?
Masturbation on its own is also full of complexity. As the traditional opinion of sex being heterosexual give way to acceptance of same gender sexual preferences, is it time to also accept sex as something that can be an individual solitary act?
Is this degeneration of our social norms or liberalization in our thinking?
Meeting on Winning and wanting to be right
We had our Ideas Cafe meeting last night on why we want to win and be right.
Shula suggested that it may be a survival instinct to win and that non social animals like tigers are more territorial than wanting to be the best among their peers. Being non social, by definition they do not live in groups and have no peers.
Dan mentioned that we routinely let children win at games to bring them happiness and build their confidence, even if it caused us to have a tinge of uneasiness that we do not get to win ourselves. That speaks volumes about how wanting to win is innate in us and as adults we can suppress it while using it to advantage in dealing with others.
Winning and being right seems to be part of us being social animals and wanting the approval and admiration of others in our social group.
As mentioned in the previous blog post, mothers know how to use winning as a motivator to get their unwilling toddler to get going.
So are there similarities in chasing win after win compared to chasing after a higher and higher euphoria from drugs or some other stimulus?
The win at the local arena no longer seem satisfying. The athlete or musician needed the win from the next bigger event against more worthy competitors that requires more effort and resources.
Eventually, this leads to the Olympic type events which requires complete dedication of one's time and resources while still being an "amateur".
There seem to be a striking similarity with the drug addict giving up more and more of the rest of his life in order to get the next high with an increasing larger dose.
Maybe winning and being right belongs to one of those human conditions that make us feel good but we also need to be aware of its intoxicating potential.
In the larger picture, should we not let our rational part of our emotional-rational two part consciousness make the long term planning, prioritize what it is we want, then aim with the appropriate allocation of our limited time and resources?
Winning can be used by our rational self as motivators towards these long term goals but it should not become the goal setting mechanism for our lives.
Shula suggested that it may be a survival instinct to win and that non social animals like tigers are more territorial than wanting to be the best among their peers. Being non social, by definition they do not live in groups and have no peers.
Dan mentioned that we routinely let children win at games to bring them happiness and build their confidence, even if it caused us to have a tinge of uneasiness that we do not get to win ourselves. That speaks volumes about how wanting to win is innate in us and as adults we can suppress it while using it to advantage in dealing with others.
Winning and being right seems to be part of us being social animals and wanting the approval and admiration of others in our social group.
As mentioned in the previous blog post, mothers know how to use winning as a motivator to get their unwilling toddler to get going.
So are there similarities in chasing win after win compared to chasing after a higher and higher euphoria from drugs or some other stimulus?
The win at the local arena no longer seem satisfying. The athlete or musician needed the win from the next bigger event against more worthy competitors that requires more effort and resources.
Eventually, this leads to the Olympic type events which requires complete dedication of one's time and resources while still being an "amateur".
There seem to be a striking similarity with the drug addict giving up more and more of the rest of his life in order to get the next high with an increasing larger dose.
Maybe winning and being right belongs to one of those human conditions that make us feel good but we also need to be aware of its intoxicating potential.
In the larger picture, should we not let our rational part of our emotional-rational two part consciousness make the long term planning, prioritize what it is we want, then aim with the appropriate allocation of our limited time and resources?
Winning can be used by our rational self as motivators towards these long term goals but it should not become the goal setting mechanism for our lives.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
10/26/2012 Why is it so important to win and be right?
This coming Friday at the Ideas Cafe, we will be discussing why it is so important for us to win and to be right.
From a very young age, children seem to be motivated by wanting to win. Parents use this to their advantage to motivate as well as bring happiness to their children.
This desire to win and to admire winners continues as we grow. The Olympics, any kind of sport, popular music, career advancement, all appears to be built on the winning motivation. The measurement of good is based on being better than others.
There is no doubt that comparison with others in similar situations is the easiest way of measuring success and this may indeed be the appeal of winning; that it validates whatever we do as successful.
But why is successful appealing?
Can we say the same about wanting to be right?
In any group discussion, very often the group separates into camps representing the various argument on the issue. In most political discussion, the party line becomes easy separation points for groups to form. Soon the discussion becomes a competition to be right rather than listening to others, to possibly reframe and modify one's viewpoint to improve understanding of the issue.
Here, the wanting to be right strikes a remarkable similarity to wanting to win. Is it possible that the desire to win is overtaking the supposed aim to discuss and reach better understanding?
When I first started wondering about this, Mike suggested that it is all about sex. That winning is what gives us alpha male or queen bee status, that we are biologically programmed to want to win over others of our species in order to try to rise to be leader of the social group and to enjoy the fruits of being the leader.
The fact that we wanted to win at a young age certainly suggest that it may be biologically programmed but I am always careful about the "hard wired" explanation as it tends to provide an easy end to a search for answers.
Are there other ideas about the attractiveness of winning and being right?
Would non social animals care to win?
If it is indeed a biological aspect of our being, would it be better for us to try to put it aside? It will certainly ease our anxiety and help us reach contentment.
Winning at the Olympics and other pinnacles of achievement is certainly laudable. But are there more worthwhile lives aimed at a more rounded existence rather than giving everything else up in order to excel in one thing?
By definition, only a very small minority can be breaking the Guineas book of records, or win at the Olympics. Winning as a strategy tends to create a lot more losers than winners.
Is there not value in appreciating good music instead of always looking for the best available?
If suffering is inevitable in life, then isn't there something in failure for us to value as well?
Let's have your ideas at this Friday's discussion and comments on the blog.
From a very young age, children seem to be motivated by wanting to win. Parents use this to their advantage to motivate as well as bring happiness to their children.
This desire to win and to admire winners continues as we grow. The Olympics, any kind of sport, popular music, career advancement, all appears to be built on the winning motivation. The measurement of good is based on being better than others.
There is no doubt that comparison with others in similar situations is the easiest way of measuring success and this may indeed be the appeal of winning; that it validates whatever we do as successful.
But why is successful appealing?
Can we say the same about wanting to be right?
In any group discussion, very often the group separates into camps representing the various argument on the issue. In most political discussion, the party line becomes easy separation points for groups to form. Soon the discussion becomes a competition to be right rather than listening to others, to possibly reframe and modify one's viewpoint to improve understanding of the issue.
Here, the wanting to be right strikes a remarkable similarity to wanting to win. Is it possible that the desire to win is overtaking the supposed aim to discuss and reach better understanding?
When I first started wondering about this, Mike suggested that it is all about sex. That winning is what gives us alpha male or queen bee status, that we are biologically programmed to want to win over others of our species in order to try to rise to be leader of the social group and to enjoy the fruits of being the leader.
The fact that we wanted to win at a young age certainly suggest that it may be biologically programmed but I am always careful about the "hard wired" explanation as it tends to provide an easy end to a search for answers.
Are there other ideas about the attractiveness of winning and being right?
Would non social animals care to win?
If it is indeed a biological aspect of our being, would it be better for us to try to put it aside? It will certainly ease our anxiety and help us reach contentment.
Winning at the Olympics and other pinnacles of achievement is certainly laudable. But are there more worthwhile lives aimed at a more rounded existence rather than giving everything else up in order to excel in one thing?
By definition, only a very small minority can be breaking the Guineas book of records, or win at the Olympics. Winning as a strategy tends to create a lot more losers than winners.
Is there not value in appreciating good music instead of always looking for the best available?
If suffering is inevitable in life, then isn't there something in failure for us to value as well?
Let's have your ideas at this Friday's discussion and comments on the blog.
Monday, October 8, 2012
10/12/2012 Genetically engineering ethical babies, a moral obligation?
This coming Friday at the Ideas Cafe, we will be discussing genetically engineered babies and whether it is parents' responsibility to do this.
This topic was suggested to me by Dan following an article in the Telegraph in Britain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9480372/Genetically-engineering-ethical-babies-is-a-moral-obligation-says-Oxford-professor.html
In the article, an Oxford ethics professor said that since we know that genes affect someone's personality that it is our ethical responsibility to ensure future generation be better persons through gene manipulation.
After all, we already screen for Down syndrome and other disabilities as well as some illnesses, why not go one step further and ensure we have a future generation full of well tempered, intelligent, and patient people? Why leave things to chance? Or, at least, why don't we improve the odds of success towards a better next generation?
Predictably, all the response are negative if you take a look at the comments to the article.
We genetically manipulate pets do get dogs of a certain characteristic, we graft plants to get better fruits or flowers, (seedless watermelons!) but it is a taboo subject when it comes to humans.
There is already a lot of anxiety about genetically modified foods so perhaps there is a segment of society that is uncomfortable with genetic manipulation of plants even though the practice of grafting to combine plant species have been practiced for a long time. (Apples are genetically modified from crabapples and some say that apples did not exist in the era of Jesus Christ, never mind the garden of eden)
What is the argument in favor of a random genetic process as we have now? Is randomness a fundamental requirement for evolution and selection of the fittest?
Maybe we just do not trust anyone, never mind parents to take on the crucial decisions of genetic manipulation. So we are not doing something worthwhile because we cannot decide who should be doing this?
Or is the whole genetic manipulation thinking tainted by people like Hitler trying to develop a superior race? When can we shake off the horror of eugenics from Hitler and science fiction ?
Sperm banks in the artificial insemination business already advertise sperms from donors who are graduates or students in famous universities. Women are attracted to intelligent man who are good providers to be their life mate. Men are attracted to good looking women and some believe that it is an indication of good health. These are all traits that positively affect their children. So we are already doing genetic selection in a basic fashion. What is wrong with improving the process?
This topic was suggested to me by Dan following an article in the Telegraph in Britain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9480372/Genetically-engineering-ethical-babies-is-a-moral-obligation-says-Oxford-professor.html
In the article, an Oxford ethics professor said that since we know that genes affect someone's personality that it is our ethical responsibility to ensure future generation be better persons through gene manipulation.
After all, we already screen for Down syndrome and other disabilities as well as some illnesses, why not go one step further and ensure we have a future generation full of well tempered, intelligent, and patient people? Why leave things to chance? Or, at least, why don't we improve the odds of success towards a better next generation?
Predictably, all the response are negative if you take a look at the comments to the article.
We genetically manipulate pets do get dogs of a certain characteristic, we graft plants to get better fruits or flowers, (seedless watermelons!) but it is a taboo subject when it comes to humans.
There is already a lot of anxiety about genetically modified foods so perhaps there is a segment of society that is uncomfortable with genetic manipulation of plants even though the practice of grafting to combine plant species have been practiced for a long time. (Apples are genetically modified from crabapples and some say that apples did not exist in the era of Jesus Christ, never mind the garden of eden)
What is the argument in favor of a random genetic process as we have now? Is randomness a fundamental requirement for evolution and selection of the fittest?
Maybe we just do not trust anyone, never mind parents to take on the crucial decisions of genetic manipulation. So we are not doing something worthwhile because we cannot decide who should be doing this?
Or is the whole genetic manipulation thinking tainted by people like Hitler trying to develop a superior race? When can we shake off the horror of eugenics from Hitler and science fiction ?
Sperm banks in the artificial insemination business already advertise sperms from donors who are graduates or students in famous universities. Women are attracted to intelligent man who are good providers to be their life mate. Men are attracted to good looking women and some believe that it is an indication of good health. These are all traits that positively affect their children. So we are already doing genetic selection in a basic fashion. What is wrong with improving the process?
Saturday, October 6, 2012
What is suffering for?
I went to an SFU philosopher's cafe on Thursday about suffering and there were some interesting points discussed.
The first point that hit me was the differentiation between pain and suffering. While we may assume that pain leads to suffering. Some at the meeting wanted to separate the two and define suffering as more the psychological reaction to pain, hunger, loss, and other physical events.
There were quite a few at the meeting that disagree that pain and hunger does not necessarily lead to suffering but I think it is definition of terms that is causing the confusion here. If we want to carry on with the normal understanding of physical suffering due to physical pain, hunger, cold etc, we can call the other reaction the psychological component of suffering.
The position raised was that people suffer psychologically because they are wishing things are different, that they are not in pain, hunger etc. If they were to accept the situation and instead move on with their lives, or take concrete steps to deal with the situation, they will not have psychological suffering.
One young lady there mentioned that her father is suffering from worrying about her single status as in his mind she should be married and "settled" by now. However, she herself does not feel any suffering at all and therefore, this is an example of expectations causing the suffering.
It is certainly true that a lot of angst is caused by questions of "why me, why now etc" when something terrible happens. There is a lot of suffering when a loved one leaves or dies. Funerals are for the living and grieving is a way of coming to terms with reality, adjusting our expectations, and eventually ending our suffering when we accepts the new "normal".
The moderator raised the noble aspect of suffering. Well known people like Nelson Mandala and Gandhi are notable because they endure physical pain and suffering that stirred the masses through empathy and highlighted the inequity of the political systems they were under.
Suffering is also used in christianity to impressed their followers on how much they owe Jesus for the suffering done on the follower's behalf, to clear them of their original sin.
Suffering is therefore a ready tool to connect to strangers through empathy.
Then there are the joys of emotional attachment through falling in love followed by the inevitable suffering to come upon separation. Should we avoid the euphoria of falling in love to avoid the inescapable suffering later on? Can one be detached to avoid suffering but still relate to others in the human race?
For me, change is part of life. The inescapable ups and downs of our life is what makes it worth living. Someone at the meeting said she tried detachment for a while and it worked but it can lead to depression. I am not surprised. Humans are very adaptable creatures, we adjust ourselves to the situation and actually need change to keep us feeling alive. Suffering is as much part of the picture as euphoria and joy. I am not sure if we can have joy without suffering at some point.
Comments?
The first point that hit me was the differentiation between pain and suffering. While we may assume that pain leads to suffering. Some at the meeting wanted to separate the two and define suffering as more the psychological reaction to pain, hunger, loss, and other physical events.
There were quite a few at the meeting that disagree that pain and hunger does not necessarily lead to suffering but I think it is definition of terms that is causing the confusion here. If we want to carry on with the normal understanding of physical suffering due to physical pain, hunger, cold etc, we can call the other reaction the psychological component of suffering.
The position raised was that people suffer psychologically because they are wishing things are different, that they are not in pain, hunger etc. If they were to accept the situation and instead move on with their lives, or take concrete steps to deal with the situation, they will not have psychological suffering.
One young lady there mentioned that her father is suffering from worrying about her single status as in his mind she should be married and "settled" by now. However, she herself does not feel any suffering at all and therefore, this is an example of expectations causing the suffering.
It is certainly true that a lot of angst is caused by questions of "why me, why now etc" when something terrible happens. There is a lot of suffering when a loved one leaves or dies. Funerals are for the living and grieving is a way of coming to terms with reality, adjusting our expectations, and eventually ending our suffering when we accepts the new "normal".
The moderator raised the noble aspect of suffering. Well known people like Nelson Mandala and Gandhi are notable because they endure physical pain and suffering that stirred the masses through empathy and highlighted the inequity of the political systems they were under.
Suffering is also used in christianity to impressed their followers on how much they owe Jesus for the suffering done on the follower's behalf, to clear them of their original sin.
Suffering is therefore a ready tool to connect to strangers through empathy.
Then there are the joys of emotional attachment through falling in love followed by the inevitable suffering to come upon separation. Should we avoid the euphoria of falling in love to avoid the inescapable suffering later on? Can one be detached to avoid suffering but still relate to others in the human race?
For me, change is part of life. The inescapable ups and downs of our life is what makes it worth living. Someone at the meeting said she tried detachment for a while and it worked but it can lead to depression. I am not surprised. Humans are very adaptable creatures, we adjust ourselves to the situation and actually need change to keep us feeling alive. Suffering is as much part of the picture as euphoria and joy. I am not sure if we can have joy without suffering at some point.
Comments?
Sunday, September 30, 2012
3-Oct-12 Is lobbying good for democracy?
This coming Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe, we are discussing the pros and cons of lobbying in democratic government.
Lobbyist pushing the point of view of particular interest groups seems to be a staple in democratic governments. We cringe at the thought of big business or pharmaceutical industry hiring high price advocates to promote their narrow point of view to our politicians.
Worse still, we worry about them donating and subsidizing our elected officials with election campaign funds or some other benefit.
We elect our representatives to parliament to govern and make good policies and yet we don't have complete confidence in their ability to look after the interest of the country and its citizens while influenced by lobbyists.
Is lobbying harmful to a democracy? Can something be done?
It seems to me that lobbyists are no different than lawyers arguing a case for their client.
When we are involved in a court case, we hire lawyers familiar with the legal system to advise and represent us to put the best light on our case.
Lobbyist, I presume, are people who are familiar with the workings of parliament and work with their clients to put the best light on their client's appeal to the law makers.
In the court case scenario, we have either the judge or jury to decide on the lawyer's representation of the case. In the parliament's scenario, we have our elected politician to balance the view point from the various competing lobbyist as well as other considerations to draft new legislation or modified existing ones.
Lobbyist are involved with all kinds of causes. Besides big business, the environmental groups, organized labor, volunteer organizations, just about anyone who is interested in making a change to the status quo.
So what can be wrong with lobbying?
For starters, groups with more money and resources ended up with more persuasive power and they do not necessarily represent the interest of the general population.
Lobbying also narrow focus on issues and runs the danger of loosing sight of the big picture, it can also oversimplify issues into left right politics, labeling issues and building walls of opposing views instead of promoting discussion.
But the alternative of not allowing lobbying seems to be stopping free speech. Are we not lobbying when we want to speak to our member of parliament about an issue?
With limits on campaign contributions, we are already limiting how single organizations can influence political party and politicians.
In Canada, there is a commissioner overseeing lobbying and handling complains and conflict of interest situations. https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/eic/site/012.nsf/eng/h_00000.html
What else should be done?
In the end, should we not just concentrate on encouraging better politicians to stand for office?
Let's hear your ideas this Friday.
Lobbyist pushing the point of view of particular interest groups seems to be a staple in democratic governments. We cringe at the thought of big business or pharmaceutical industry hiring high price advocates to promote their narrow point of view to our politicians.
Worse still, we worry about them donating and subsidizing our elected officials with election campaign funds or some other benefit.
We elect our representatives to parliament to govern and make good policies and yet we don't have complete confidence in their ability to look after the interest of the country and its citizens while influenced by lobbyists.
Is lobbying harmful to a democracy? Can something be done?
It seems to me that lobbyists are no different than lawyers arguing a case for their client.
When we are involved in a court case, we hire lawyers familiar with the legal system to advise and represent us to put the best light on our case.
Lobbyist, I presume, are people who are familiar with the workings of parliament and work with their clients to put the best light on their client's appeal to the law makers.
In the court case scenario, we have either the judge or jury to decide on the lawyer's representation of the case. In the parliament's scenario, we have our elected politician to balance the view point from the various competing lobbyist as well as other considerations to draft new legislation or modified existing ones.
Lobbyist are involved with all kinds of causes. Besides big business, the environmental groups, organized labor, volunteer organizations, just about anyone who is interested in making a change to the status quo.
So what can be wrong with lobbying?
For starters, groups with more money and resources ended up with more persuasive power and they do not necessarily represent the interest of the general population.
Lobbying also narrow focus on issues and runs the danger of loosing sight of the big picture, it can also oversimplify issues into left right politics, labeling issues and building walls of opposing views instead of promoting discussion.
But the alternative of not allowing lobbying seems to be stopping free speech. Are we not lobbying when we want to speak to our member of parliament about an issue?
With limits on campaign contributions, we are already limiting how single organizations can influence political party and politicians.
In Canada, there is a commissioner overseeing lobbying and handling complains and conflict of interest situations. https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/eic/site/012.nsf/eng/h_00000.html
What else should be done?
In the end, should we not just concentrate on encouraging better politicians to stand for office?
Let's hear your ideas this Friday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)