This coming Wednesday, we are discussing detachment from our emotions and passions as a strategy to handle suffering and pain that we experience in life.
Buddha is said to have been surprised as a young prince of the sickness and death he saw outside his palace and later on concluded that suffering is an inescapable part of life. His advice is to be detached from our emotional reaction to suffering and pain to handle this inevitable part of our life.
The Greek stoics also counsels that we should follow reason and strive to be free of "the passions", so that we will not be affected by the negative things that happen in life out of our control.
So now that we are detached and free of the passions, what motivates us? Do we just sit back and watch the world go by?
While both approaches seems to be aimed at handling the negative things we face in life, one can't help but feel that these two approaches are also at the expense of cutting back on one's ability to be fully engaged with all that is available in life and be enthusiastic in whatever one undertakes.
So, the questions is: Can we be detached and engaged? If not, can we be selectively detached for the bad times and fully engaged in the good times?
How do we know when to be detached and when to be fully engaged?
Maybe it is a risk taking venture, we need to risk disappointment and suffering in order to have life sustaining feeling of achievement and pleasure? Kind of a gamble or lottery?
Suffering may be unavoidable, but perhaps joy is also achievable if we engage and keep trying?
Optimism may be the other perspective. Why do we see suffering and pain as the final defeat of an endeavor rather than a temporary setback on the road to a higher achievement and reward?
Just like how mutual funds can always make their fund performance look good by picking the beginning and end of the measuring period for the performance of their funds, our assessment of our life situation depends on when we do the assessment.
Do it at the depth of despair and life is truly miserable. Review life after a significant achievement and things cannot be better.
Maybe the so call inevitable suffering is a learning opportunity for one to improve on one's tactics, skills and approaches. After all, no one scores a success at the first try with any worthwhile challenge, it generally follows after a few smaller failures that let us hone our skills.
What doesn't kill us makes us strong. Is it not all in how we look at it?
If it does kill us, then we are not around to care!
Detachment or enthusiasm, let's hear your choice at the coming Wednesday discussion!
Friday, May 25, 2012
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Discussion on Peace, Order, and Good Government
We had our discussion at the Ideas Cafe yesterday about the constitutional ideals of Peace, Order, and Good Government for Canada, and Liberty, Freedom, and the Pursuit of Happiness for the United States.
It is interesting that these mottoes actually seem to reflect the different character of the two countries.
Shula pointed out that relatively speaking, the federal government in the US did not have much power until foreign issues such as the Spanish American war and the two world wars rallied the need for a stronger central government while the Canadian federal government have always had more central power.
Historically, the fact that the US started from a revolution against British taxes perhaps made them a bit more prone to idealism in their aspirations. The Canadian federation was formed later, evolved under British rule, and had already had a lot of loyalist that came to Canada from the US as they did not want to be part of the US revolution.
The Canadian tone therefore is naturally more accommodating to the then British rulers, the loyalists, as well as the founding British and French groups.
Mano pointed out that there was an effort to sell the benefits of good government as part of the reason to join the Canadian confederation. Whether it is the postal service, the RCMP, the railroad that link the country, it was pointed out that these are services that individual provinces would not have without joining the confederation.
In fact, part of the enticement for British Columbia to join the Canadian confederation was the promise of building the railroad across the Rockies to link up with the rest of Canada. This was to fight off thoughts of BC joining the north west US states and draw the US-Canada border at a more northern latitude.
Dan wonders if the dominant influence of the Hudson's Bay Company in Canada's development may have also been the push for peace, order, and good government. After all, these are the conditions that traders and merchants flourish; in a stable, lawful environment.
It is indeed ironic that peace, order, and good government are the very infrastructure that allows the citizens to have liberty, freedom, and pursuit happiness. Even if it sounds a bit boring, and somewhat confining, it seems to be the more productive of the two. Kind of like the means to the end.
Sounding off about the end is perhaps not as productive as concentrating on providing the means.
Of course, afterwards, looking up in Wikipedia showed that Peace, Order, and Good Government is not only used in Canada but also mentioned in Australia and New Zealand at one time or another. It certainly has a hint of the British civil service promoting itself to the colonies.
We may have bought it and called it our own.
It is interesting that these mottoes actually seem to reflect the different character of the two countries.
Shula pointed out that relatively speaking, the federal government in the US did not have much power until foreign issues such as the Spanish American war and the two world wars rallied the need for a stronger central government while the Canadian federal government have always had more central power.
Historically, the fact that the US started from a revolution against British taxes perhaps made them a bit more prone to idealism in their aspirations. The Canadian federation was formed later, evolved under British rule, and had already had a lot of loyalist that came to Canada from the US as they did not want to be part of the US revolution.
The Canadian tone therefore is naturally more accommodating to the then British rulers, the loyalists, as well as the founding British and French groups.
Mano pointed out that there was an effort to sell the benefits of good government as part of the reason to join the Canadian confederation. Whether it is the postal service, the RCMP, the railroad that link the country, it was pointed out that these are services that individual provinces would not have without joining the confederation.
In fact, part of the enticement for British Columbia to join the Canadian confederation was the promise of building the railroad across the Rockies to link up with the rest of Canada. This was to fight off thoughts of BC joining the north west US states and draw the US-Canada border at a more northern latitude.
Dan wonders if the dominant influence of the Hudson's Bay Company in Canada's development may have also been the push for peace, order, and good government. After all, these are the conditions that traders and merchants flourish; in a stable, lawful environment.
It is indeed ironic that peace, order, and good government are the very infrastructure that allows the citizens to have liberty, freedom, and pursuit happiness. Even if it sounds a bit boring, and somewhat confining, it seems to be the more productive of the two. Kind of like the means to the end.
Sounding off about the end is perhaps not as productive as concentrating on providing the means.
Of course, afterwards, looking up in Wikipedia showed that Peace, Order, and Good Government is not only used in Canada but also mentioned in Australia and New Zealand at one time or another. It certainly has a hint of the British civil service promoting itself to the colonies.
We may have bought it and called it our own.
Friday, May 18, 2012
23-May-12 Peace, order, and good government versus freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
This coming Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe, we are discussing the national character of Canada versus the United States.
The rest of the world sees these two countries as rather similar with Canadians perhaps a bit more reserved compared to the typical American. However, to those of us living in these two countries, there is a world of difference, starting with our national motto set out in our constitution.
While we seldom look at the goals that our respective countries aspires to be on an everyday basis, it is interesting to look at the example of Canada's and the US.
The Canadian aim of Peace, order, and good government and the US aim for freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness seems to capture the difference of the two countries almost to a T.
Is this a case of channeled thinking, that we are led by history and upbringing to have the values we have? something in our drinking water? or generations of immigrants truly choosing the country whose value appeal to them the most?
Peace, order, and good government seems so little to ask compared to the lofty goals of the US. Is Canada aiming for contentment by getting the basics right versus being an over achiever in pursuing the impossible ultimate goal of the US?
Some say that goals should be set high so that we are pushed to excellence, that we embark on a journey that will not end too soon. After all, it is the journey, not the destination, that matters.
But with lofty goals comes a continual sense of striving, of never seemingly having enough, of not appreciating everyday things that we have, thereby neglecting them. The constant drive to improve also lead to wanting to help improve others, resulting in interference however unintentional it may be.
Maybe the two aspirations are rooted historically that Canada is from loyalist to Britain while the US started from a revolution against the same British government. Should we continue to live our lives a few hundred years later under this influence?
Peace, order, and good government is not actually that easy to achieve in today's turbulent world. In a twisted kind of way, it is actually the foundation for a vibrant free market economy that the US is so keen to have. In calling for less and less government, the US runs the danger of having less and less oversight to prevent free riders that profit at the expense of everyone else by taking advantage of flawed rules in the market.
Is this a case of striving for lofty goals while neglecting the basics?
As usual, all comments and ideas are welcomed and I look forward to your ideas at the Wednesday meeting coming up!
The rest of the world sees these two countries as rather similar with Canadians perhaps a bit more reserved compared to the typical American. However, to those of us living in these two countries, there is a world of difference, starting with our national motto set out in our constitution.
While we seldom look at the goals that our respective countries aspires to be on an everyday basis, it is interesting to look at the example of Canada's and the US.
The Canadian aim of Peace, order, and good government and the US aim for freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness seems to capture the difference of the two countries almost to a T.
Is this a case of channeled thinking, that we are led by history and upbringing to have the values we have? something in our drinking water? or generations of immigrants truly choosing the country whose value appeal to them the most?
Peace, order, and good government seems so little to ask compared to the lofty goals of the US. Is Canada aiming for contentment by getting the basics right versus being an over achiever in pursuing the impossible ultimate goal of the US?
Some say that goals should be set high so that we are pushed to excellence, that we embark on a journey that will not end too soon. After all, it is the journey, not the destination, that matters.
But with lofty goals comes a continual sense of striving, of never seemingly having enough, of not appreciating everyday things that we have, thereby neglecting them. The constant drive to improve also lead to wanting to help improve others, resulting in interference however unintentional it may be.
Maybe the two aspirations are rooted historically that Canada is from loyalist to Britain while the US started from a revolution against the same British government. Should we continue to live our lives a few hundred years later under this influence?
Peace, order, and good government is not actually that easy to achieve in today's turbulent world. In a twisted kind of way, it is actually the foundation for a vibrant free market economy that the US is so keen to have. In calling for less and less government, the US runs the danger of having less and less oversight to prevent free riders that profit at the expense of everyone else by taking advantage of flawed rules in the market.
Is this a case of striving for lofty goals while neglecting the basics?
As usual, all comments and ideas are welcomed and I look forward to your ideas at the Wednesday meeting coming up!
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Meeting on spam and viruses in a free society
We had our meeting last night about email spam and computer viruses in relation to the free society that we live in.
The discussion was diverse as usual.
I proposed my two ideas for fighting spam email. One is to charge for email so that at one or two cents per email, it will not cost normal users a lot but it will incur significant cost for spammers who send out millions of emails with the hope of getting a few replies.
While this initially was well received, on further discussion, it became clear that it will only work if somehow everyone has to pay for email and not just the ordinary users. If it is the Internet Service Provider that is doing the charging, then the spammers will find some way to send email free. Worse yet, the ISP may give discounts for volume users which then negate the whole idea.
My second idea of coming up with an app or program to allow us to send a reply to the spammer once an hour for the next ten days was met with more approval. The idea is that if the spammer is looking for the few replies out of the millions of emails sent out, and a significant portion of the recipients reply repeatedly, then it will jam up the spammer.
However, the significant thought came from Mano who asked why is it illegal for an aggressive business to advertise themselves? Do they not have the right to send out advertising in a free society?
My thought was that never mind an aggressive business, in a free society, shouldn't anyone of us be able to contact and communicate anyone without the authorities telling us not to?
If that is so, then businesses have every right to try to tell us about their business and products.
Spam may be irritable but if we somehow make it illegal to send widely distributed emails, then we may start banning billboard advertising next. What comes after that in the banned list is up to our imagination.
So irritable as it is, in a free society, it may be up to us to change the channel on the TV station that we don't want to watch rather than trying to ban that channel from coming on the air.
Therefore, we may just have to keep ignoring the spam email that we don't want to maintain our freedom to communicate with other members of our society.
Deceptive practices is another thing. Emails that pretends to be from someone else, lies to get people to send money, messages trying to get people to give up their passwords are all in the deceptive category and our legal system should catch up to them.
There was discussion about the various bad viruses around but Joseph mentioned that hackers can be broadly divided into two categories. The first is the teenager that tries to break into someone's network just to cause trouble. With a firewall and antivirus software, that should make that teenager move on to the next easier target.
The second category is the serious hacker working full time at his craft. He is after databases in banks, large businesses, and governments so that he can turn around and sell whatever information he is able to steal and sell that information at a profit to someone else. These professional hackers have no interest in the average computer user and we have nothing to fear of them.
Freedom comes at a price, junk mail is part of it!
The discussion was diverse as usual.
I proposed my two ideas for fighting spam email. One is to charge for email so that at one or two cents per email, it will not cost normal users a lot but it will incur significant cost for spammers who send out millions of emails with the hope of getting a few replies.
While this initially was well received, on further discussion, it became clear that it will only work if somehow everyone has to pay for email and not just the ordinary users. If it is the Internet Service Provider that is doing the charging, then the spammers will find some way to send email free. Worse yet, the ISP may give discounts for volume users which then negate the whole idea.
My second idea of coming up with an app or program to allow us to send a reply to the spammer once an hour for the next ten days was met with more approval. The idea is that if the spammer is looking for the few replies out of the millions of emails sent out, and a significant portion of the recipients reply repeatedly, then it will jam up the spammer.
However, the significant thought came from Mano who asked why is it illegal for an aggressive business to advertise themselves? Do they not have the right to send out advertising in a free society?
My thought was that never mind an aggressive business, in a free society, shouldn't anyone of us be able to contact and communicate anyone without the authorities telling us not to?
If that is so, then businesses have every right to try to tell us about their business and products.
Spam may be irritable but if we somehow make it illegal to send widely distributed emails, then we may start banning billboard advertising next. What comes after that in the banned list is up to our imagination.
So irritable as it is, in a free society, it may be up to us to change the channel on the TV station that we don't want to watch rather than trying to ban that channel from coming on the air.
Therefore, we may just have to keep ignoring the spam email that we don't want to maintain our freedom to communicate with other members of our society.
Deceptive practices is another thing. Emails that pretends to be from someone else, lies to get people to send money, messages trying to get people to give up their passwords are all in the deceptive category and our legal system should catch up to them.
There was discussion about the various bad viruses around but Joseph mentioned that hackers can be broadly divided into two categories. The first is the teenager that tries to break into someone's network just to cause trouble. With a firewall and antivirus software, that should make that teenager move on to the next easier target.
The second category is the serious hacker working full time at his craft. He is after databases in banks, large businesses, and governments so that he can turn around and sell whatever information he is able to steal and sell that information at a profit to someone else. These professional hackers have no interest in the average computer user and we have nothing to fear of them.
Freedom comes at a price, junk mail is part of it!
Saturday, May 5, 2012
9-May-12 Spam, viruses, scams, are they inevitable, or even necessary in a free society?
This coming Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe, we will be discussing spam and viruses in email and internet.
Most of us are likely getting used to spam and junk email as one of those things we have to put up with to enjoy the convenience of email. But why do we have to put up with it?
Email is so cheap (free) for spreading messages to a lot of people that it is much cheaper than regular junk snail mail for advertising. The thinking goes that even if only a very small percentage respond to the junk email, it would have made it worth while for the originator of that junk email.
The very quality that makes email good (free) also makes it good for junk email. It seems inevitable that we will have junk email so long as email is free.
Computer viruses on the other hand, is more like graffiti. Quite apart from viruses that may be aiming for a particular gain for the originator, some viruses are created just because the creator thinks that it is their way to make their mark, to prove their ability to beat the system.
Some hackers that created viruses to attack systems claim that they are merely pointing out the vulnerability of the systems out there and how easy it is to break them. They almost claim that they are doing the public a service in spotlighting these weaknesses so that it will be addressed before real criminals break them.
That begs the question as to whether petty thieves are doing us a favor so that we will spend more effort and money fortifying our homes before the real thieves come to call.
The common thread for spam and viruses is that these are characteristics of ecosystems in a free society. There are no supreme being deciding which email or computer app is legitimate and which ones are spam or virus.
We don't want that supreme being (dictator) anyway.
It is up to the community of email and internet users to respond in democratic fashion.
So how do we handle spam and viruses?
In response to suggestions in the last meeting for a more prescriptive action for our discussions, I offer the following as a starter and invite you to come forth with your ideas for fighting spam and viruses.
1. Do not forward messages from unknown sources or chain letters. I assume that these are just ways for people to troll for more legitimate email addresses in order to sell these to spammers.
2. Do not enter "free" draws, another way to get your email address to send you spam.
3. Come up with a program or app that will reply to a spam mail with a useless message every hour for the next day or two. Maybe if enough people do this, it will clog the spammer with useless messages and overflow his mailbox. Hopefully, it will be like finding a needle in a haystack for him to pick out the few response that he is interested in buried in the sea of reply spam.
4. Charge for sending email. If it cost us a few cents to send email, it will not be much for normal email traffic but will discourage spammers. Then we can filter out people who did not pay to send their email.
Any other ideas?
Viruses are difficult to combat but perhaps we can look at non technical approaches?
1. How can we make it socially not cool to hack?
2. Make hacking an annual competition event sponsored by someone like Microsoft so that the best hackers get acknowledged but is also publicized so we know what they do and can fix the security holes that they identified for us.
3. Can we charge for replicating a program so that the computer owner have to be notified and explained to as to why a program needs to be replicated because he is paying a small fee for it? This will stop programs from being replicated everywhere and without the owner's knowledge.
Other ideas?
Most of us are likely getting used to spam and junk email as one of those things we have to put up with to enjoy the convenience of email. But why do we have to put up with it?
Email is so cheap (free) for spreading messages to a lot of people that it is much cheaper than regular junk snail mail for advertising. The thinking goes that even if only a very small percentage respond to the junk email, it would have made it worth while for the originator of that junk email.
The very quality that makes email good (free) also makes it good for junk email. It seems inevitable that we will have junk email so long as email is free.
Computer viruses on the other hand, is more like graffiti. Quite apart from viruses that may be aiming for a particular gain for the originator, some viruses are created just because the creator thinks that it is their way to make their mark, to prove their ability to beat the system.
Some hackers that created viruses to attack systems claim that they are merely pointing out the vulnerability of the systems out there and how easy it is to break them. They almost claim that they are doing the public a service in spotlighting these weaknesses so that it will be addressed before real criminals break them.
That begs the question as to whether petty thieves are doing us a favor so that we will spend more effort and money fortifying our homes before the real thieves come to call.
The common thread for spam and viruses is that these are characteristics of ecosystems in a free society. There are no supreme being deciding which email or computer app is legitimate and which ones are spam or virus.
We don't want that supreme being (dictator) anyway.
It is up to the community of email and internet users to respond in democratic fashion.
So how do we handle spam and viruses?
In response to suggestions in the last meeting for a more prescriptive action for our discussions, I offer the following as a starter and invite you to come forth with your ideas for fighting spam and viruses.
1. Do not forward messages from unknown sources or chain letters. I assume that these are just ways for people to troll for more legitimate email addresses in order to sell these to spammers.
2. Do not enter "free" draws, another way to get your email address to send you spam.
3. Come up with a program or app that will reply to a spam mail with a useless message every hour for the next day or two. Maybe if enough people do this, it will clog the spammer with useless messages and overflow his mailbox. Hopefully, it will be like finding a needle in a haystack for him to pick out the few response that he is interested in buried in the sea of reply spam.
4. Charge for sending email. If it cost us a few cents to send email, it will not be much for normal email traffic but will discourage spammers. Then we can filter out people who did not pay to send their email.
Any other ideas?
Viruses are difficult to combat but perhaps we can look at non technical approaches?
1. How can we make it socially not cool to hack?
2. Make hacking an annual competition event sponsored by someone like Microsoft so that the best hackers get acknowledged but is also publicized so we know what they do and can fix the security holes that they identified for us.
3. Can we charge for replicating a program so that the computer owner have to be notified and explained to as to why a program needs to be replicated because he is paying a small fee for it? This will stop programs from being replicated everywhere and without the owner's knowledge.
Other ideas?
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Meeting on morality of spies
We had the Ideas Cafe last night discussing the morality of spies and undercover agents.
The utilitarian argument of national security and the need to protect ourselves from bad people was the prevailing argument. The end justified the means.
This is so different from our usual notion of individual rights, privacy, and just plain human decency and honesty.
The idea that got me thinking was Shula's point that countries have to deal with other countries where there is no contract or agreement with each other. There is often a lack of trust as these are two sovereign entities with no obligation to do anything for the other party.
Without a social contract, there are no rules and no way of anticipating outcomes, or talking about predictable rules of behavior. Therefore it is important to have spies to monitor the other country to get knowledge and early warning of what is to come.
The meeting discussion moved around to various other branches but I did not get a satisfactory conclusion of how the state can force its citizens to follow the rule of law and yet break some of those same rules of law with its spies operating in other countries.
It is only after the meeting that it came to me that spies and undercover agents operates by the rules of jungle where survival at any cost is the rule.
By contrast, stable, civilized society operating under the consistent rule of law is completely opposite. Citizens agree to conduct themselves in an environment of trust and relying on the government and judicial systems to settle disputes. In return, these citizens no longer need to arm themselves, keep tap of possible enemies, and can concentrate on improving their lives in other ways.
Countries do not subject themselves to a world government and system of laws because of concern for loss of sovereignty, have not contract with the other countries and therefore must go back to assuming the worst and be constantly vigilant.
The same applies to the criminal element in our society that decids to operate outside of the social contract that most of us operate under. Law enforcement agencies therefore have to walk this fine line of deciding whether they are dealing with people who are abiding by the law or people who are not. For those who are not, the law of the jungle applies and undercover agents are required to deal with them.
All this also underscores how wasteful the law of the jungle is compared to a trusted environment where everyone agrees to a civil code with predictable outcomes.
We want to enjoy the efficiency, growth, and stability of the lawful society but it is always tempting for the free rider elements of our society to enrich themselves by not following the rules.
When it comes to the international scene, there are no governing body to ensure predictable outcomes.
Maybe that is the argument for countries to form alliances, trade pacts, unions so that they can at least operate more predictably within the alliances. The European Union more or less eliminated the borders protocol for the countries in that union and Brussels set out uniform practices for their member countries in various practices within the union.
In the perfect world, we all prosper by subjecting ourselves to predictable rules of conduct to achieve stability and efficiency.
In the real world, there is discord and free riders trying to gain from the compliant majority.
This leads ideally into next weeks discussions on spam and virus on our computer and internet system, whether it is inevitable, and whether it can be eliminated.
The utilitarian argument of national security and the need to protect ourselves from bad people was the prevailing argument. The end justified the means.
This is so different from our usual notion of individual rights, privacy, and just plain human decency and honesty.
The idea that got me thinking was Shula's point that countries have to deal with other countries where there is no contract or agreement with each other. There is often a lack of trust as these are two sovereign entities with no obligation to do anything for the other party.
Without a social contract, there are no rules and no way of anticipating outcomes, or talking about predictable rules of behavior. Therefore it is important to have spies to monitor the other country to get knowledge and early warning of what is to come.
The meeting discussion moved around to various other branches but I did not get a satisfactory conclusion of how the state can force its citizens to follow the rule of law and yet break some of those same rules of law with its spies operating in other countries.
It is only after the meeting that it came to me that spies and undercover agents operates by the rules of jungle where survival at any cost is the rule.
By contrast, stable, civilized society operating under the consistent rule of law is completely opposite. Citizens agree to conduct themselves in an environment of trust and relying on the government and judicial systems to settle disputes. In return, these citizens no longer need to arm themselves, keep tap of possible enemies, and can concentrate on improving their lives in other ways.
Countries do not subject themselves to a world government and system of laws because of concern for loss of sovereignty, have not contract with the other countries and therefore must go back to assuming the worst and be constantly vigilant.
The same applies to the criminal element in our society that decids to operate outside of the social contract that most of us operate under. Law enforcement agencies therefore have to walk this fine line of deciding whether they are dealing with people who are abiding by the law or people who are not. For those who are not, the law of the jungle applies and undercover agents are required to deal with them.
All this also underscores how wasteful the law of the jungle is compared to a trusted environment where everyone agrees to a civil code with predictable outcomes.
We want to enjoy the efficiency, growth, and stability of the lawful society but it is always tempting for the free rider elements of our society to enrich themselves by not following the rules.
When it comes to the international scene, there are no governing body to ensure predictable outcomes.
Maybe that is the argument for countries to form alliances, trade pacts, unions so that they can at least operate more predictably within the alliances. The European Union more or less eliminated the borders protocol for the countries in that union and Brussels set out uniform practices for their member countries in various practices within the union.
In the perfect world, we all prosper by subjecting ourselves to predictable rules of conduct to achieve stability and efficiency.
In the real world, there is discord and free riders trying to gain from the compliant majority.
This leads ideally into next weeks discussions on spam and virus on our computer and internet system, whether it is inevitable, and whether it can be eliminated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)