Archive for the ‘cacophony’ Category

Sam Harris gone nuts and confirms evolutionary relatedness between skunks’ butt and human “intelligence”

May 30, 2011

A propos de skunks’ butt, at HP, Sam Harris confirms the notion that you can get a butt rather than a functioning brain writing “Morality without a free will-ie”.

Sein und liebe…. in the times of c(h)olera.

April 26, 2011

I wrote ‘colera” instead of “colera”: in spanish, colera translates as cholera or rage. Love in the times of cholera. The rage of Achilles.(Colera is much better word-weight wise- than rage, or anger as often done: “Sing Oh goddess the rage (colera) of Achilles….” (the english  translations of the Iliad are plain awful)). Garcia Marquez is happy to inspire me.

Rage can be argued is the zeitgeist of these times. The rage of the teapartiers. The rage of Beck. The rage of Bachmann. The rage against niqabs and burkas.  The rage of Trump not only claiming Obama is an illegal alien (illicit), but also somehow got unto school-Columbia & Harvard mind you-without grades. The rage of bad officiating in every sports league: worldwide malaise. And the complicity of the commentators. Not sure about the NHL. My rage against the Canucks: whats wrong with them? The rage of Hitchens clamoring for NATO forces of right  “taking out” Qaddafi: why doesnt he asks for assassinating Qadaffi? He doesnt have the cojones to ask Obama for ordering it: please Mr president assassinate Qaddafi. Actually, the exact verb is “kill” as it is done in front of the cameras, Kennedy was assassinated; MLK was assassinated.

 The cast of cowards remains current as they sinergize each others’ rage. Easy rage against easy targets (targets that are unlikely to notice you): Qaddafi, illicit  aliens, the poor, religionists, Jones, more.

 Where is the rage of the justs?

The scientific character of this-idiot-nation

March 17, 2011

Robert W Benson at huffpost (Emeritus Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles)

“You might think that the revolution of Internet-blogging-networking technology would work to spread sound scientific knowledge more broadly, but you would be wrong. The new technology spreads a cacophony of voices in which the pre- Enlightenment folks are not only equal, but more numerous and dominant than the voices of reason. Journalist Charles Pierce not long ago wrote an essay on Idiot America, followed by a book of that name, in which he argued that

the rise of Idiot America today represents–for profit mainly, but also, and more cynically, for political advantage and in the pursuit of power–the breakdown of a consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people whom we should trust the least are the people who best know what they’re talking about. In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a preacher, or a scientist, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert.
Moreover, the new technology is not working alone. You have the likes of oil interests such as Koch Industries and Exxon Mobil funding a phalanx of anti-science spokesmen, think-tanks and lobbyists. They put their money into sowing doubt about the scientific consensus, as many of these same people did on tobacco, ozone and acid rain, playing on the fact that the way science works is to set up repeated challenges of the evidence by peers, but ignoring that scientific consensuses do indeed exist– otherwise, we would not have made the progress we did on tobacco, ozone and acid rain.”

“None of this would have surprised historian Richard Hofstadter who won a Pulitzer in 1964 for his book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. Starting with the colonies, Hofstadter shows how the vast underlying stratum of anti-elite, anti-reason, anti-science Americans has frequently erupted into political and cultural action. These are folks who never heard of the Enlightenment of the 18th century, and do not experience a lot of reason, logic or the empirical method in their daily lives. They live by “common sense,” personal relationships and superstition. They have always been with us, and there are a lot of them. Their outburst into today’s anti-science global warming mania would just be the latest chapter in Hofstadter’s book.”

We agree in the assessment regarding the cacophonic yakking and yapping that obscure the issues.

Civilization and its discontents: Mourning.

February 23, 2011

Recuerde el alma dormida,
avive el seso y despierte
contemplando
cómo se pasa la vida,
cómo se viene la muerte 5
tan callando,
cuán presto se va el placer,
cómo, después de acordado,
da dolor;
cómo, a nuestro parecer, 10
cualquiera tiempo pasado
fue mejor.”

Jorge Manrique ca 1450, Coplas por la muerte de su padre

Sigmund Freud in 1929 in page 24 and later in C. III, wrote this elegant and eloquent summary of the human condition in “Das Unbehagen in der Kultur (“The Uneasiness in Culture”)” (Civilizations and its discontents).


“The three sources from which our suffering comes: the superior power of nature; the feebleness of our bodies and the inadequacy of the relationships which adjust the mutual relationships of human beings in the family, the state and society”.

Little else can be added to our condition beyond this statement. Siggies’ theme was the conflict between our biology and “civilization” (where the biology unfolds).

Wikipedia offers this modicum for the user: “In this seminal book, Sigmund Freud propounds his perspective by enumerating what he sees as the fundamental tensions between civilization and the individual. The primary friction, he asserts, stems from the individual’s quest for instinctual freedom and civilization’s contrary demand for conformity and instinctual repression. Many of humankind’s primitive instincts (for example, the desire to kill and the insatiable craving for sexual gratification) are clearly harmful to the well-being of a human community. As a result, civilization creates laws that prohibit killing, rape, and adultery, and it implements severe punishments if such rules are broken. This process, argues Freud, is an inherent quality of civilization that instills perpetual feelings of discontent in its citizens” Well, kinda wellput.

The point being that the discussion of our evolutionary fate-remember 2012 is next year- rests on a compassionate discussion of liberating, sensible, paths of behaviour leading to mitigation of suffering, pain, personally and socially. The mitigation of suffering is a good project. Maybe the only project. ( Opposite of being the cacophonic sophistai most are, including the cuasi-demential messianic claims of Kurzweil, which have more followers than several cults and go nowhere). (Somehow Kurzweil reminds me of Harris, the robot).

Dr Otto Dorr, a chilean psychiatrist, last book: The word and the music (La palabra y la musica) reflexiones on the poetry of Rainier Maria Rilke (the powerful german poet) braids poetry, psychiatry and some evolution in a beautiful, poignant argument: how mourning is “adaptive”. The book arrived via Steam Boat sent by a dear gracious ladyfriend through her son. Thank you M. One concern in Dr Dorrs’ work is the biological/psychological contexts of “mourning”-‘grief’. Mourning to deal with unmitigated suffering, with pain. Void. Angst. Mourning is easily grasped when we think of grieving a lost child, a lost-“naturally”-spouse, a dead parent (not euthanasic tricks involved). Building on previous work Don Otto adresses how the death of a child is a form of extreme bereavement, perhaps unbearable for some. Darwin reflected on mourning in his Expression of Emotions and Freud did too in “Mourning and melancholia”. It has been hard (for me at least) to trace the original observations in CD Expressions regarding mourning among the animals, nonetheless the idea that Darwin considered “grief and mourning” (not the same really) adaptive is clear. And clearly grief, impacted his work and life when he lost Annie. The impact in his work likely positive, as Dorr argues, with others, for an increase in mental acuity after loss, and his life, physical and animical, negatively, as he could not deal with the monstrosity of her childs death: life unmanifested. Unrealized natural process, unlike the death of parents, which are “natural”.

In: Normal Grief: Good or Bad? Health or Disease? ,Loretta M. Kopelman, Philosophy, Psychiatry, Psychology, Volume 1, Number 4, December 1994, pp. 209-223 argues:

“It might seem rather
easy to make the case that grief is instrumentally
bad or not useful, since it is associated with pain,
morbidity, mortality and loss of function. Yet
Darwin (1955 [1872]), Freud (1959 [1917]) and
Pollock (1978) argue that the capacity for normal
grief, overall, is useful and adaptive. The
good of normal grief generally outweighs the bad
when we consider its meaning in the life of a person
or animal. In describing the similarities in
how animals, adults, and infants react to grief,
Darwin suggests that grief reactions may be
instinctive, and the grieving process may have
evolved because it is adaptive for animals”.

Back to Dorr. Lucidly, Don Otto discusses how mourning, helps restructuring “personality” (psyche) to confront the weight of the loss of the loved ones. But this not always happens, especially in the case of extreme grief, i.e.: the loss of a child, or when facing the sucide of a loved one. It crossed my mind that CD never ‘recovered’ from the death of 10 year old Annie. He couldnt mourn her in a way to reach atonement. Although he wrote a ‘pious’ eulogy for his daughter there was always the underlying theme of unavoidable anger and wrath.

When confronted with the question of God, his argument from suffering defines his existencial pain as a father, without recourse facing the death of his child.
In a 1873 letter to N.D. Doedes,CD writes:
….” I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is”.

Dr Dorr makes a cogent review of pain/grief/mourning in the face of the death of a child, and he ‘disgresses’ into suicide with a fascinating overview of the pertinent psychiatry. Painful to read if it is a “close” subject.

Thus, CD, concern was inmense suffering (his own) as a landmark discussing the possibility of God, chained to his analysis of suffering. The point here is not his belief, but the fact that Annie’s loss threw him in an irreversible journey of pain and suffering, unmitigated by a divine hand or for that matter nobodys’. (or is it anybodys?).

PS: Today is year 1 of the 8.5 earthquake in Chile. Many testimonies were recorded. The testimonies of loosing children were unbereably painful.