Hiatus Broken

 

I’ve had a long hiatus in posting. Probably just a lack of free time and a lack of philosophizing or self-analyzing.

Recently I saw Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. The movie is OK. For some reason, though, it sent me on a nostalgia trip. I found myself checking facebook, reading distant friends’ blogs. I think maybe the protagonist reminded me of my high school / early college self. Scott says little of interest and his conversation with the girl he has a crush on is cringe-worthy. It’s made me think of how much more enjoyable high school would have been if I could go back in time with my current personality.

When I was in 9th grade, the school recommended I see a psychologist due to my misbehavior. The psychologist and I got along fine and after several weeks she told my parents she couldn’t help me because I didn’t think anything was wrong.

Am I now admitting something was wrong? Ok now I’m reflecting. Back in self-analysis mode:

Here’s my diagnosis. This may seem self-obsessed, but why else does one blog? In 5th grade I had one very close friend and a teacher who adored me. My need for attention was satiated. In 7th grade my very close friend did not have any classes with me. We stopped hanging out and I somehow never procured new friends. By the end of the year I must have started on a downward spiral of losing social-skills and confidence due to a lack of friends and not obtaining friends due to not having social skills or confidence. In 7th, 8th, and 9th grade my only way to get attention (which I have always needed) was to act out.

So Scott Pilgrims character brings back the memories but for some reason the memories are all accompanied by a time-traveling day dream of me going back and fixing things using my current personality.

I now feel like rereading my high school livejournal (if it still exists).

Microefficiency

For several months I thought I was being cleverly efficient by typing in 33 seconds instead of 30 on the microwave. Pressing 3 twice is, after all, about a second faster than pressing 3 and then 0. Then I realized that I was losing 3 seconds of time waiting for my food to cook.

Freedom and nonattachment

3/4′s of the way through Freedom (by Franzen). Protagonist and son view relationships in terms of competition; often in intriguing and thought-provoking ways. I enjoy Franzen’s exploration of his character’s psychologies and motivations; motivations are not told, they are hypothesized about.

Of course: the topic at mind is the competitiveness of my own relationships. A lot of examples come to mind that don’t survive examination. They all turn out to be me impressing people – not besting them. As if I am too self-centered to consider the other person’s position – which is, after all, necessary for competition.

I do entertain competitiveness with an imagined, average American. Of course: I am winning. In that I am more content with my life. I’m fine with my job, I enjoy my leisure time, I feel no need for more. I have a buddhist jack, and the closest ball is mine.

Moral Politics

I am reading “Moral Politics” by George Lakoff. I recommend it. Lakoff is a cognitive linguist. Although I have never heard of this field, Lakoff claims that he studies how people conceptualize their world. This book specifically deals with conceptualization of politics. In my own words: the book reveals the subconscious reasoning behind conservatism and liberalism.

So, after getting several (short) chapters in, I find myself starting to think of ways to defend democratic stances with conservative language.  Here is my comical way to defend universal health care:

In American Capitalism, people deserve to reap the benefits of their hard work. But here is what happens: people can work hard their whole life and then lose everything from a single illness. Working hard and having all your money taken from you through no fault of your own is not American, it’s Communist. That’s why we need universal health care.

passion

Today I considered my inability to remain passionate about activities. I’m too easily bored. The Aviator, Pi: I find myself unable to relate.

I’m drawn to a comparison between intelligence and the ability to focus. By ability to focus I don’t mean for hours, but weeks, months.

Instinctively, I think, one wants to say that the ability to focus is simply a lack of willpower that can be overcome: “get over it”, “just do it”. If you haven’t been addicted, you might have a similar lack of empathy for those who are.

When I was young I wanted to be a football player. I don’t remember ever enjoying watching or playing football. I collected football cards, to trade with my classmates. I went to a week-long football camp at some point. At some point my mother offered to sign me up for every-day, intense, after-school football. No thank you. That’s when I decided I didn’t want to be a football player. All that work!

I suppose I’m just lazy. As I always have been. I find this saddening.

I have always been willing to do anything competitive. I have only ever been able to motivate myself to exercise by playing competitive sports.

I have also been able to stick with things that involve a lot of variety. Variety is the antidote to boredom. In some cases, variety is also the antithesis of sticking with something. Perhaps this is why I enjoyed my job at Madison Community Cooperative so much plenty of variety.

Which utilitarianism?

I am becoming increasingly aware that my ethical systems are ambiguous. Luckily, for most choices I am confronted with, one choice is never wrong by one interpretation and right by another interpretation of my ethical system. At worst, many of things I do are supererogatory.

Peter Singer claims to be a preference utilitarian. For a long time I knew of only one clear example where preference utilitarianism differed from classic (or “hedonistic”) utilitarianism. If you are going to cheat on your partner and knew for sure they would never find out, then classic utilitarianism would allow it, but preference utilitarianism would not, because although your partner’s happiness might not be affected, your cheating on him/her runs violates his/her preferences.

But I have been reading “Stumbling On Happiness.” This book has many examples of people inaccurately predicting what would make them happy. This obviously adds a wealth of schisms between preference and classic utilitarianism. For example, if an event makes someone happy, people want to know more details about the event. But studies show that people stay happier for longer when the event remains a mystery. So if you know who someone’s secret admirer is, should you tell them?

betrayal?

I did or do feel a certain sense of betrayal.

Since reading “Getting the Love You Want” several years ago, I’ve been quite keen on cross-examining my emotions and finding the source. Like when I played in the creek behind my house. At some point I was no longer content simply to play in the creek, I trekked toward the source. Of course the “source” was just some big pipe that went under the road and I could never find the real source.

So yesterday I felt betrayed after my Grandmother said she was worried that if I took the job I have applied for in Madison, WI, I would get stuck there. There was no opportunity for advancement. My father, a few days earlier, was also worried – what impact might this have on my future career?

Rationally, these are, of course, worthy of consideration. But emotionally I felt betrayed. When I look back at my childhood/teenage years I think that I took out my rebellion on my parents by not doing so well in school. But of course, knowing me, I had to rationalize; so I argued that there was no point in doing well in school. And my parents told me that I needed to do well to get a job I would enjoy. But now I am almost there and am told that the criteria have changed.

Rationally, I find no fault with their advice. This is just a cold sore in my personality.

Purpose

After both reading “36 Arguments for the Existence of God” (a novel – I highly recommend it), Alexa claimed that one of the arguments given by a theist in the book is a straw-man argument (presented by the author). But I disagreed.

Long-story short, we decided that “purpose,” a key word in the theist’s argument, was ambiguous.

Purpose, definition 1: A reason for having been created. Example: Moses’s purpose was to lead the Jews out of Egypt.

Purpose, definition 2: A reason for continuing to live. Example: A purpose of Al Gore’s is to fight against climate change.

Although unfamiliar with french-existentialism myself, Alexa claims that definition 2 is key to Sartre’s philosophy.

Now, shouldn’t I, as one leading a life-examined, have developed my own purpose? After all, I continue to live, I believe my actions should have reasons, therefore where is my reason for continuing to live?

Or shall I outsmart the question (entirely in keeping with my personality)? Consider this analogy to illustrate my point (which I have not yet even made): according to Newton’s laws, an object in motion remains in motion and an object at rest remains at rest. My life keeps on going, my habits carry me on. If anything, living is, at least by now, a default setting for me. If anything, should not the question be “what reason have you for ending your life?” Seen from this context, a purpose for living is unnecessary, even for the examined life.

Quote from Book of Disquiet

A book with no plot but only a philosophizing accountant is bound to scream “quote me” to myself. But I am practicing self-control by quoting only one passage in the first 68 pages: “The consciousness of life’s unconsciousness is the oldest tax levied on the intelligence. There are unconscious forms of intelligence – flashes of wit, waves of understanding, mysteries and philosophies – that are like bodily reflexes…”.

What an apt analogy. Just as many want control over all of their money, so does my consciousness want control over all of my thoughts. Yet we know that a society without taxes is non-functional.

More Musings on personality vs. rational behavior

I started reading The Book of Disquiet today (I found it in a list of favorite books on one of my very-well-read friend’s facebook profile). Although I have only gotten a couple of pages into the introduction, it got me thinking about personality vs. rational behavior again. The introduction quotes the author as saying:

“I’m astounded whenever I finish something. Astounded and distressed. My perfectionist instinct should inhibit me from finishing; it should inhibit me from even beginning. But I get distracted and start doing something. What I achieve is not the product of an act of my will but of my will’s surrender. I begin because I don’t have the strength to think; I finish because I don’t have the courage to quit. This book is my cowardice.”

This sounds quite plausible to me. A perfectionist who gives up on perfecting for just long enough to start and then, later, for just long enough to finish. I think the quote is too ambiguous to fully apply my framework to. I see two possibilities:

1) the author is perfectionist in personality, but this aspect of his personality sometimes gives in (perhaps to other aspects of his personality?).

2) the author is perfectionist in personality, but the author is able to overrule this, at times, with his rational behavior.

I had the thought that rational behavior and personality are like the squid and the whale. This is an image stolen from the movie “The Squid and the Whale”, but the metaphor is my own. The idea is that the squid and the whale are locked in combat forever. I was thinking about exercise again today as I read the UW alumni newsletter. The newsletter was reporting about a new book by UW alum Jane Brody. Anyway, I have known since High School Health class that exercise solves an astounding number of health problems. Prevents is probably a better word. Pre-emptively solves. And so my rational thought tells me to exercise. But I know that unless I have something competitive, my personality prevents me from exercising. Thus my rational behavior and personality are in combat in the case of exercise, though they agree in the case of competitive exercise. I’ve been thinking that I should post on facebook and ask if anyone wants to play a sport with me. I decided to write this down as a way of increasing the odds that I will do it.