The Trials of an American Dilettante

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Position and Quality

A couple of days ago, I was speaking with Soulless Hedonist and he theorized that all language was really just a communication of “good” and “bad”. This view perhaps came in reaction to pedants who enjoy using large words and complicated syntax to say rather simple thoughts. Certainly, language can be reduced, but can it really be reduced so drastically? It seemed a little far-fetched and I believe Soulless Hedonist was putting this theory forward with heavy irony

Jokingly, I said, “so, language is really just binary code? We just speak ones and zeros,”. I then theorized that our friend Shoffy spoke completely in unary- “awesome, awesome, awesome,”

Though I do not think Soulless Hedonist or I realized it at the time, but we may have actually been on to something.

Nearly the entire world has adopted a decimal (base-10) number system. We have ten symbols to represent ten different concepts (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). The repetition of these symbols in different positions conveys different meanings. Position is as important as the symbols. For instance 93 is different from 39 since the position one to the left of the starting positions means “multiply by ten”. With decimal points, fraction lines, superscript and positions to the right, above and below, human beings can represent quite a few numbers. In fact, there are an infinite number of positions allowing us to represent an infinite number of numbers. A few numbers escape the system- irrational numbers like pi cannot be represented.

Now, lets bring this back to Soulless Hedonist’s theory that human beings speak binary. A binary system is identical to the decimal system except there are only two symbols (0, 1). Position, though, is equally important (though, using powers and fractions in a binary system isn’t quite so much fun). 10 equals two since the position one to the left of the starting position means “multiply by two”.

Though, we have a great number of words and concepts in English, it is possible that each is merely a conveyor of position and a communicator of positivity of negativity. The word “childlike” is positive and “childish” is negative, but the position is the same. The word “delicious” is in the position of taste and “comfortable” is in the position of touch, but both are positive.

Now, of course, there are some differences here. With language, symbols are communicating position. Additionally, the interaction between position and quality produces unpredictable results. “Childlike” is positive, but “mule like” is negative. And what of seemingly neutral words like “jump” or “sky”? Yes, language is a rather complicated things and it is unlikely that Soulless Hedonist’s theory holds much water past the communication of adjectives.

And what of Shoffy and his unary language? The interesting thing about unary is that position makes no difference. 111 equals three and 11111 equals five. No matter where you place a number, it has the same meaning. As with Shoffy, position makes no difference. Everything is “awesome” no matter where he is, what time it is or who he is with.

Friday, September 23, 2005

Love, Work and the Process of Elimination

A couple of blogs ago, I wrote some about the two major foci of our lives- love and work. I said they are the ubiquitous and elusive keys to happiness that are able to affect our lives more than anything else. I realized, though, that perhaps the dilettante’s way of life is a little different from most people’s. “The Interview” (see September 14th) is actually never pursued by many.

The dilettante is a wanderlust that searches and searches for happiness. He or she will switch jobs and switch loves trying to find the best one. Eventually, I imagine, the dilettante tires and settles on the least bad job and the least bad mate. Experience from testing waters has shown the dilettante that things could be worse and that is (somewhat) satisfying. Something close to contentment is achieved through a process of elimination.

There is an opposite of the dilettante is what I refer to as a “barnacle”. The barnacle will stick to something that comes along, usually the first tolerable thing, and just be content. They pity the dilettante who is never content and who must endure the painful “Interview”. There is no need for a process of elimination. The barnacle is either lazy or delusional or perhaps both. Though, they convince themselves that they are just really lucky:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28554

Of course, many people would say there is a third the way. There are people that believe in absolute satisfaction in employment and love. You’ll meet these jackasses sometimes. They say they “love” their job or they speak of their mate as a “soul mate”. This concept often keeps a dilettante searching or convinces a delusional barnacle to stay put. It is hogwash, though. As science class has taught us, absolute anything is impossible (see the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics and psychology tells us that human wants keep us desiring more and more.

Logically, though, we should assume that there is a job or person that is better than the one we have. Most of, though, eventually become monogamous and settle on a career. Why the change? Why stop the hunt? Time, effort and risk become factors. Say you take the LSAT and get a 175. Do you risk taking the test again? You could score higher or lower. At some point, things become “good enough”. For the dilettante, it is after exhaustion. For the barnacle, it is immediate.

Monday, September 19, 2005

Dialectics and the Refusal to Let Go (or How I Learned to Hate Hegel and Socrates)

On nearly every subject, we have ideas and opinions. We believe in things, we like things and we accept concepts as facts. Furthermore, we are constantly met with ideas and opinions that vary from ours. How do we cope with contradiction? Well, there seem to be a few methods.

Socrates had a method. Say you have an idea like “John is a nice guy”, but you are also able believe that everything that your friend, Max, says is truth. Say Max says, “John is an asshole”. What to do? Well, Socrates would say that if Max speaks truth, than John cannot be a nice guy. This is pretty simple and pretty logical. If you have a hypothesis and something comes about that is in contradiction, the hypothesis is false. Game over.

Of course, human beings are not so logical and much more practical. Along came Hegel with a different method (well, in truth it wasn’t really Hegel, but everything is attributed to him anyway). Hegel claimed there is a thesis, which is supposed truth. An antithesis then comes about which contradicts it. From the thesis and antithesis comes a synthesis, which is closer to the real truth and which becomes the new thesis. Say you believe “John is a nice guy”, the thesis. Max who speaks truth claims, “John is an asshole”, the antithesis. A synthesis might form of “John is a nice guy, but Max perceives him as an asshole”, “John is an asshole, but I perceive him as a nice guy” or “John is somewhat of a nice guy”.

Now, there is a problem with both methods. For being truth-finders, they do a pretty shitty job. Say a person believes the Bible is absolute truth and along comes Darwin with a thesis about natural selection. With the Socratic method, they reject Darwin outright. With the Hegel’s dialectic, they synthesize the thoughts into intelligent design. Sure, with Hegel, one is closer to the truth, but if one started with Darwin and was presented the Bible, one would end up further from the truth. Basically, both Socrates and Hegel can be used to find the truth, but can just as easily fail.

What neither of system tests is the validity of assumptions. Read any of Socrates’ dialogues and you can easily pin point where his opponents go wrong. They all end up agreeing to bad assumptions and then get trapped and end up conceding to ridiculous contradictions. Why would anyone agree that “good” and “evil” are inherently separate? Why would anyone believe that Max speaks truth? Why would anyone believe the Bible is the absolute authority?

Hegel is even worse in that he is not even logical. Antitheses, which are infinite in number, are chosen and, therefore, subjective. This makes the new synthesis subjective and rhetorical. I can choose the antithesis of “clouds are red”. The synthesis, no matter what it is, will involve the putrefication of this ridiculous idea.

Most practical people do not live entirely by the Socrates and Hegel. Most people let things go. Eventually, enough evidence appears that they go back and change assumptions. Eventually, enough fossils are found in the ground to show that Darwin is correct and the Bible is not. Eventually, Max says some things that are not true. Eventually, Bush does enough insane shit to lose support.

It usually takes an overwhelming amount of evidence to overturn an assumption. I am not sure if this is a good or bad thing. How many times must someone wrong one before they are not assumed to be a friend? How many political beliefs must one have to switch one’s party? Who knows? I know my grandfather will never switch any of his assumption until he dies. He’s one-hundred percent Socrates.

But, as they say, when you “assume”, you make a reasonable conjecture based on given facts.

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

The Interview

In life, most our time is focused on the achievement of two major things- love and work. They are both ubiquitous, yet we seem to have trouble finding a good version of either. They are significant to us; they are the major causes of life changes and migration for people. When it comes down to it, without a good job and a good mate, we feel unsatisfied. They are also the two main things in life that involve massive preparation and a grueling interview process.

When we are young, jobs and love are fleeting. Boys ask girls to “go together” or “go out” and instantly they are mated. Paper routes and minimum wage jobs are just as easy to obtain. Though rejection is possible, asking is still all that is required to achieve.

As we grow older, the process becomes more arduous as the stakes are raised. Relationships are not just based on holding hands and reputation. Sex and the potential for marriage and procreation are added to the mix. With jobs, real responsibility and substantial salaries are on the line. Thus, an interview process is added. One false move within the process and the interviewer will know that the applicant is not suited for the position.

Say you design your resume incorrectly or call too soon. You’re out. Say you act too nervous or you do not come off as intelligent? You’re out. Say you answer a question like “where do you see yourself in five years?” or “what do you do in your spare time?” honestly. You’re out. (“I don’t fucking know” and “watch TV and masturbate” are the wrong honest answers)

We all want to get to the point where we can just be trusted, but so much must be done to prove it. College and graduate school are prerequisites not for the education (little I learned in class has ever helped me professionally), but for proving that one can commit to responsibility. Having a bunch of hobbies is not for the sharing that interest necessarily, but to prove that one isn’t a depressing do-nothing that sits on the couch.

The interview process has become so cumbersome that many of us have given up on achieving the goals we want. Some jobs and individuals have such a competitive interview process that we do not even bother. Luckily, as many of us have learned, the interview process can be successfully circumvented with the help of people called friends. If your friend works somewhere or your friend knows someone, you have an in. Sure, there are still some prerequisites, but the process of vouching allows one to jump to the head of the line and bypass much of the massive interview process. It’s all about connections.

Now if only my friends had better ones…..

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

The One Conversation

My Labor Day weekend reminded me, once again, of the odd yet widespread practice of paying attention to a topic once and then “moving on”. I arrived in Chicago and saw old friends and told them briefly of what I had been doing in the many months since I had seen them last. After that, my life never came up again. I returned to DC and told my friends about my Labor Day fun and, again, the topic never came up again.

This moving on was not because more interesting topics came up. It was not because I explained every event or every detail either. Plenty of ground could have been covered and huge, relevant events were missed and not touched upon. My feelings, my insight or simply elaboration could have sustained these newly old topics, but, alas, old topics are rarely revisited.

The most extreme example of this came when I returned from China at the age of 23. After a year in Shanghai, I had experienced enough to write volumes about. People politely asked me “how was China?” Not knowing where to start on such a massive question, I responded with simply “really different”. After a few short anecdotes, the conversation shifted and was never again revisited. It was an entire year, unable to be shared (much like my other twenty-seven).

This phenomenon occurs elsewhere as well. Many people complain that important stories are only covered for one day in the media. After that one day, they are no longer “news” and are no longer interesting. The public quickly forgets about the issue and moves on. On the other hand, types of stories that have on going changes like Scott Peterson, Bush vs. Gore and hurricane Katrina get daily, and thus, massive attention.

Why does humanity do this to itself? Why does it pass on potentially fascinating and useful subjects that have depth in favor of ever-changing shallow subjects? Why do people go straight for the sports page rather than reading an in depth article on troubles in Africa?

Mental fatigue may play a large role. There is only so much a mind can take on at once. Ever-changing subjects remind people of a background and slowly build off that. Vast, new subjects tire people with confusing and distant ideas. Empathy may play another large role. People cannot to relate to a huge, sudden and abstract event, but can relate to slow-changing every-day occurrences.

Over all, though, the phenomenon of “moving on” shows that the practice of conversation is rather insular. People seem to join in conversations not for new information, but to hear about things they already know about (or at least mostly know about). People want verification of the observations they have made about the universe and not confusing information about life’s frontiers.

Banal shared experience trumps the life of a voyager. The slight variations of the daily grind entertain society for millennia, but the greatest of adventures are only good for one conversation, if that.

Thursday, September 01, 2005

The Esoteric Inner Self

Headlines across the country refer of the crisis New Orleans as anarchy. Looting, shootings and panic are commonplace. Back in the civilized world, we stare at the television and wonder how this could occur. When helter-skelter occurs in Africa or the Middle East, Americans usually blame it on the fact that these are lesser peoples. New Orleans, though, is American and now is being called “a third world country”. Now others (namely dickheads) may claim that racial and cultural differences are the reason for New Orleans’ chaos. I think it is something else.

Eight years ago, and then again seven years ago, I was mugged. Both events are very clear in my mind. The thing most striking about the situations was not the mugging itself, but my reaction to it. In both situations, I ran and let out a high-pitched scream. I didn’t plan on doing that. In retrospect, it wasn’t the safest action either. I just did it. The animal in me fully took over.

It our civilized world, various things have become common and various things have become esoteric. We all know how to open a soda, but few know how to build a fire or skin an animal. Seeing insane homeless or transsexuals walk the street does not affect many of us, but dead bodies and or even simple sores shock us. High powered computers in our hands are boring, but a breast is interesting. Our ancestors, and a few people in Papua New Guinea would have had it the other way around.

Spirituality, finding God and “knowing Jesus” were once esoteric. The meanings of dreams and the affects of drugs were also fascinating mystical experiences. Now when people approach us about their inner journeys, we roll our eyes and try to avoid them. The frontier is explored and the new lands are no longer exotic.

But man’s journey has been long and, upon coming home, he has found things unfamiliar. We have forgotten the face of our fathers and have become shocked at what we were and, in fact, are. Looting? Killing? Chaos? What happened to dignity, cooperation and morality? Have we learned nothing?

Descartes once asked if you take one animal and physically change it to look like another animal, has it actually become that new animal? He argued that its essence has not changed. Other people argue that it if looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it must be a duck. We may look civilized and may act civilized, but we are, in essence, animals. I guess even Descartes is occasionally right.