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!

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?

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?

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?

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?