Welcome...

Well, my models about the divide between the nurturer/thinkers and the posturers have evolved somewhat. I think there would be a more fair-minded way to categorize these folks. Each group has a different way of reasoning - one group goes out to look for consensuses… especially the consensuses of collegiate types… and the other people think independently, examining the situations and patterns in the world with their own wit and their own eyes, using logic and an ethic of intense observation.

People have to be very careful about the way in which they draw their conclusions about the world. And so people cling tenaciously to whatever method that they have found works for them. The independent thinkers are mature enough to listen to the consensus reasoners without feeling unsure of their footing - but it is not so, the other way around. Those who look for others to listen to and to believe feel very unsure of their own foundations when they listen to independent reasoners talk. These poor souls will be very ill at ease, and even lash out, when they hear these kinds of fresh ideas which are underpinned by premises which are unfamiliar.

So, because one group is intolerant of hearing conversation from the other about the things which are most important to those folks… these other people get very quiet. Even though we think intensely about many subjects, we have learned to be utterly silent about what we have been treasuring up in our hearts. Meanwhile the posturers are very talkative - they have practiced many stories, and many narratives which they bring out and recite for occasion x and occasion y.

These two groups of people are like oil and water. The differences between them are intractable. When people try to strike up a close friendship with a person from the other group, both folks end up feeling maligned - because these folks have different approaches to life. Also when one set is in the minority in any given social situation, they will suffer a lot. The minority ends up acting in a foolish way which isn’t true to themselves, or their own ethics about their approach to life.

So where do posturing and caring come in? These are the only logical outcomes in a person’s life who has chosen the one or the other form of reasoning.

A person who puts together her or his worldview based on a hodge podge of different conclusions reached by groups around her, can never have any comprehensive understanding of how the world works. She hasn’t put the pieces of the puzzle together herself. She just takes it on faith that all of these bits of knowledge fit together into a cohesive whole. A person like that will have no ability to edify her society - to build up the community by strategically doing certain things in certain ways. The best a person like that can hope to do is learn a specialized skill or two and find employment with that skill. So these people posture, because they don’t know how to be transparent; they simply don’t know themselves well enough, and don’t understand their relationship to their society except in terms of these social forms and customs and mores.

A person who has thought deeply and independently about the world, and has figured out how all the patterns work will have also learned about sociology. She or he will understand the processeses by which social trends form and move and influence things… that person understands how people’s lives can be upbuilt, and nurtured. The person understands that her own good goes hand in hand with others’ edification. So these people will always become very caring folks because they, like everybody else, seek their own good; and they see a way forward for providing for their own future through helping others.

Now, certainly the gentleman or gentlelady who works as a scientist or a computer engineer, and can write about all the specific ideas of his or her trade - and has a handle on all the jargon… this is not the kind of type of person I am speaking about here, when I say “independent thinker.”

It’s ironic that those who are the most caring and the most wise find themselves with their hands tied because of the intolerance and even viciousness of those who they would love to help.

What’s the answer? Finding others like yourself - other thinkers and nurturers. Make a way for yourself to live in a town which has an excellent zeitgeist - an excellent attitude… where there are a high concentration of such people. Learn a little temerity, and seek to befriend others who have that same spirit - other quiet ones like yourself. Understand that such people have a lot more in their minds than what they are showing on the surface in their daily lives.

background for this essay: the frame of reference which I am writing this from is this: living in a delightful little tourist town in the usa, observing the people around me here. Earlier this month I was writing from the perspective of my impressions of the facts on the ground in Seattle, a large west coast city. I’m sure the social dynamics I see around me are not the same ones which a person would see in Canada - and things might also be very different in Britain and in New Zealand and other english speaking countries. The division between these two groups manifests itself in those places too, but one might perceive it differently.

Hmmm… to continue on what no doubt will be a series of posts about parents and children… and adults and children in general….

Let’s see… how can I approach this statement I’m about to make in a ginger manner?

Feminism has been bad for men; and the practices of single mothers have been bad for boys who grow up to be men.

That’s a start.

It’s so interesting to see this interplay between women and men in the usa. Women are often petulant when it comes to discussing men. They will make snide comments about them. There’s a passive aggressive attitude that often comes out.

I understand that it is difficult to get and keep employment in fields which have been dominated primarily by another gender. People of a different gender have a different approach to their tasks, and sometimes there can be some serious moments where there is a falling out, only because the newcomer doesn’t fall into the same patterns of behavior, or have the same social customs which the people of the primary gender in the field have. I have experienced that situation myself.

But women’s snobbish attitude towards men goes beyond just their experiences in the workplace. It’s a lot more deep-seated than that.

What I have deduced is that the source of this social friction seems to be the decision of young women to, by and large, seek out the affections of older men when they are dating and marrying. Women thus adopt social patterns where they learn to act as the follower rather than the leader - as the beneficiary, rather than as the benefactor. Men on the other hand are taught to be independent and self reliant, and this gives them more ability later in life to exert influence in their society.

On the whole, women would do far better to seek out age mates when they marry. This generation gap in a long term domestic partnership is often really unhealthy. A twenty year old is at a different stage of maturity than a thirty year old, who is certainly not in the same place in life as the forty year old. The younger person in such a marriage can easily start seeing herself (or himself) as being mentally unstable - only because her youthful way of thinking and reasoning contrasts sharply with the more mature wit of the older person. The older individual, on the other hand, can easily start seeing himself (or herself) as a workhorse - he has more responsibility heaped on his shoulders than he can comfortably handle. None of these perceptions would ever solidify if those in the marriage were age mates. Certainly many people can make marriages work, even though there is a hefty gap in years. But many cannot.

Now, it is certainly true that there is a profound natural attraction between people of different ages. We are schooled in this sort of interaction as children. People with more years of experience in life adore doting over the young. And the young blossom under the care and mentorship of those from earlier generations. Because we tend to become bemused about all these different aspects of human affection, and many folks blur them all together awkwardly with the term “sexual attraction,” we tend to lack sound judgement when we choose a person to date… and some people even carry that mistake forward with them into the future when they marry someone - when there are irreconcilable personality differences.

So how does this relate to my first statement “feminism has been bad for men”? Well, the truth is, that young women who seek to marry for money, or seek to marry the dashing man in his thirties or forties are often hurting themselves. And in doing this, they themselves are responsible for the effects of that decision that they have made. They are training themselves to be followers rather than leaders. They are resigning themselves to a life of eternal childhood.

And the ironic thing that I’ve seen is that such women who end up getting a divorce after a bad experience with a man in this manner, if they keep any boys from the marriage - they will oftentimes perpetuate the problems which they see in male culture to another generation in how they raise those kids after their husband is no longer around. This is especially true when the boys enter their teenage years. The women who have been injured in bad marriages have a stereotype about men. And they try to fit their male children into the parameters of this stereotype. Stereotyping someone is the opposite of facilitating them. A person who facilitates a child does not see that child as a static individual, who has a predetermined future. A person who facilitates or mentors or enables, delights in seeing that which has not come into being yet. That kind person sees a bud and dreams about it changing into a flower someday - sees a grub, and is in wonder about the process by which it will metamorphosize into a butterfly. In contrast, a person who stereotypes, simply throws up her or his hands and gives up. A stereotyper does not see personal weaknesses in her seige as being cute, but rather as harbingers of bad things to come.

Again, I cannot emphasize enough that boys need good male role models and mentors, just like girls need good robust experiences with nurturing women.

note: When I am describing this disfunction I see in marriages, I am mostly describing the effects that I see in what most would call a “wealthy community.” In most large cities, I think people are more prudent about how they marry.

I was listening today to a cbc interview with David Spangler (mp3)… who is apparently seen in Canada as being something of a person who has been very influential in respect to the New Age movement. I remember hanging out with some New Age groups of adults when I was in high school. It was kind of an unnerving experience to be around these people..

It seems to me that the new age movement is a group which is set up to field the confusion of intellectuals/nurturers who feel rebuffed by the world… and who cannot understand why they don’t get along with most people well. Obviously they seem to be attending to all the cares and worries of those who are deep thinking people who feel alienated from society… but they are giving these poor souls all the wrong advice. They are saying:

• “Don’t have any discipline in your life, or in your mind”
• “Go and daydream all you want to, and fritter your time away with flights of fancy”
• “Don’t trust your own logic - don’t be too firm in how you form your conclusions about the world, and certainly don’t be overbearing when you talk to people”
• “Care about people”

The last bit is of course really important, but without any solid foundation of reasoning, a thinker/nurturer isn’t going to get anywhere when he tries to excercise caring for others.

But it’s interesting that the group benefits from the input of all these very smart people.

It seems to me that the lines of the playing field for the big discussions we have in our country are far too often drawn out by unconscientious mean bratty people who happen to also be loudmouths.

In particular today, I was thinking about this thing which we in the ethnically european world call “sex” and “sexual attraction.” There was a time before abortions and birth control became as modern and convenient as they are today, that there were large groups of loudmouthed inconsiderate people who were making a straw man by combining all the ideas around human affection into this one thing “sex;” some of these antagonists belonged to groups which forbade people to dance with eachother, some of them believed in imposing dress codes much like we see across the middle east today - gender specific rules. There was a problem with families having more kids than they could care for, and then there were children working in dangerous conditions in factories, and there were depressing orphanages of varying types. These moral dualists haughtily believed that they had the solution to it all: We should out and out segregate the genders; and if people were intimidated enough, we could end these social ills.

By the 1960s, the procedure of abortion had become safe for the women, and there was a big trend in North America towards making the practice a routinely available thing. At the same moment, of course, there was a lobby pushed by the more thoughtful folks in society. They found it was very easy to enlist the help of the young adults in encouraging the idea of free touch between adults. After all, these young people had experienced a lot of touch and caressing as kids, and would want to continue in that practice.

But they made a big mistake. They decided to come to the discussion on the same level as the prudes. They decided to accept the straw man portrayal of “sexuality” which had been posited around this discussion. They accepted the idea that all these different concepts could be united in one term: sexual attraction:

wistfulness

longing

affection

desire to commit yourself to someone

desire to nurture

appreciation of beauty

bashfulness

desire to touch and be touched

idealizing about someone

wonderment about the approach a person takes to different situations

And even nearly fifty years later, those of us who are deeper thinkers are still avidly supportive of the trend towards more “sexuality” in our society. The big debate now is around gay marriage.

Come on, people! I think those of us who can see a bit more clearly ought to dispense with this idea of “sexuality” and “sexual attraction.” I think this is a misnomer. All the things I mentioned above exist in their own right, and should be experienced and appreciated, without worrying about all the emotional baggage people associate with “sexuality.”

We have won, indeed. It’s amusing to watch the last bastion of folks who see themselves as “conservative” talk about “culture wars” - because they lost this war long ago. But for us, on the other side, it would seem that ours is a hollow victory. The idea of sexuality tends to push people apart, rather than draw them together. Isn’t that ironic?

It’s certainly natural that the young among us deep thinking folks long to return to the state of affairs which we had as children - where we cuddled, and wrestled and otherwise enjoyed touching a large number of different people. But we’re not going to make any headway by trying to convince people around us to be more “sexual.” In fact, our lobby is wearing on the nerves of many people, even though they are entranced by the idea.

There’s a basic premise in our ethnically european society that money rewards the skilled and talented. The notion is that such people when they are young will find scholarships if they need them to get through college, that they will be sought after and valued by commercial businesses - that those businesses will see the talent in these new hires, that they will give these people the parameters they need in order to do great work, and that they will apprentice them, and generally help them along the way until like fruit trees, these folks mature until they produce basketfulls of good stuff on a continuous basis.

This is a fairy tale, really. This narrative is as foolish as if people would say that anytime you stumble across a body of water, that you have something to drink. In reality more often than not, that water will be too salty, or it will be pondwater, or it will be otherwise undrinkable without purification. The fact is, that 99 out of a 100 companies are managed by folks with very poor judgement when it comes to knowing how to look for talent, and nurse it along, and give folks like that the parameters they need to do excellent work. Invariably, if a person working in an office offers suggestions as to how things could be done better, he will be rebuffed briskly by the manager who doesn’t take kindly to people showing him his own mistakes.

Thus people who have a lot of potential skills, and a yearning to use these skills, have to do the best they can on their own to first teach themselves… and then next to get their work out into the community where others can benefit from it. That person has to finagle himself or herself a way to take care of daily expenses, so that he has time to work on developing these skills, and then also time to use them. He learns that it is often most practical to separate the agendas of (1)pulling in a monetary income, and (2) using his most profoundly important skills to benefit his society.

So, we see that the internet is where all the best music, and film, and literature and software is to be found; most often this is material produced and given away for free to those who are web-savvy enough to know how to mine for this gold out of the mountains of trash which is also out on the net. The personal computer and the internet have given those with the skills and the aptitude all the tools they need to produce their work. Their tools are nearly always also free of charge. And this, I think, explains the hopes and aspirations of the open source software movement, the creative commons movement, and other similar initiatives. There is much to be done in our world to better it… but much of it needs to be done by those who are very poor.

I spent some time in Seattle in my childhood, and right now, I’m spending a week or two here. The first thing I noticed when I arrived was that the rift between the african americans and the european americans has undergone some significant transformation. With Obama being the favorite for the presidency of the usa, it seems to be giving black americans some hope for the future… and they are reclaiming their dignity. Still though, as I look around me, it seems to me that the city in many parts is dying.

The core thing that needs to change is that people have to take an interest in improving the aesthetics of their yards and neighborhoods. As a child, I always was fascinated with what happened to people when they attended a fancy party or visited a cosmopolitan tourist town. Their entire attitude changed. They became curious when they may have been listless before. Those who were accustomed to bickering would cease with that, and might even have an epiphany when it comes to seeing that they need to change their attitude. Non verbal communication is a very important part of our daily lives with people - and an aesthetic environment facilitates that, while a drab or dreary environnment hampers it. So why don’t people keep up their grounds? Well I can think of several reasons for it. One might be that they are renters, and they are deathly scared that improving the curb appeal of their house will send the appraised value up, and thus the rents will rise as well. Another reason might be that people are scared of crime - and a humble looking exterior is helpful in convincing potential burglars that there is nothing of value inside. There may be other reasons I’m not thinking of. Each cause would have to be discerned and dealt with. The only way I think the renters’ concerns could be addressed is if the city would do more to encourage and help people to buy and own homes. If property values fall considerably over the next couple of years, this will be possible. One could address the second concern by forming a community group, and getting to know your neighbors a little - making common cause with them about the future of the neighborhood. If everybody can agree that they care about where they live, then you can make a lot of headway in making the community a better and friendlier place. Also one could begin to, as a group, deal with the causes of crime in the area.

Given I am a skilled writer, one way forward that I saw for helping the city of Seattle would be to form a new citywide independent newspaper. I don’t have any money or resources myself with which to put that kind of agenda together, but if one did, there certainly would be the opportunity to improve the zeitgeist of the city dramatically. There are only two independent local papers - “the stranger” and “the weekly”… and neither of them are doing a very good job of nurturing the community. The Seattle Times is one of the more gentle and kind-hearted papers out there… but it doesn’t do much to offer Seattleites hope or guidance or direction or vision. I imagine that a new paper could get a pretty decent flow of advertising revenue as well, being only one of a handful of locally distributed publications.

It seems to me that ethnically european cultures have developed a form of disability. There was a time when our societies were more like India is today… People were lively, outgoing and gregarious. Total strangers would chat eachother up on the street corner about topics which were quite engaging and interesting. People would be in their small groups in public places - in the corners and in the doorways actively engaged in projects together. Then, a couple of new technologies came on the scene. Television and radio drew people’s attention inexorably. And it was in this manner that a very few individuals started pulling a stunt like the Wizard of Oz at the Emerald city did in that old film story. The owners of mass media - television and radio - began to spin tales about society; they began to draw up a narrative about the way our society is. If you think about the kind of programming which the network news television stations produce, and which the cable companies select for their services, you have to wonder about the neuroses of the folks who make those decisions. There are patterns which are clearly visible. They are people who fervently believe in the notion of good and bad people. They believe in all the old sociological models about class struggle between the wealthy and the poor… and all the notions of how revolutions foment in the midst of that struggle. So this is the narrative which they place on the events which they speak about in the mass media… and to a certain degree, it is the narrative that we as citizens of the country believe. We tend to believe that the mass media’s narratives are a crystallization of the consensuses of our society, when in actuality these things reflect the demented ideas of an odd group of neurotic aristocrats.

So in our big cities as we walk about in public, we are sullen and quiet as we pass our neighbors on the street, often without a single word offered to greet them in passing. We have accepted the narrative that strangers are dangerous, that there are bad people out there… and we walk past eachother, keeping to a code of silence - because it seems that between looking at the news on television, and the sullen attitudes of our neighbors as they slink by us that generally everybody else wants to be left alone.

And thus, it seems that our society has developed a form of developmental disabiility. We have become nonverbal.

It’s fascinating to reflect on this disturbing change in our society and compare it to the all the anxiety and furor in any given decade around people who plan and organize foolish misadventures and make us all watch the ugly consequences. The neoconservatives and the christian right rallied fervently around the ideas of war and imperialism and domination, and then when they put those ideas into practice, we all see the mess that they created. Early in the 1900s, we had the prohibitionists succeed in their foolish aims. In the latter 1900s, we had our governments building vast arsenals of nuclear weaponry. It seems that these problems of fools putting their foolish agendas into motion always end in shame for those who promoted them. Everybody sees the bad consequences of the actions and we all swear never to let that kind of thing happen again. In my estimation, the more profound danger seems to be a very small percentage of the changes to our society which happen without anyone planning it at all. Television and radio were simply new technologies which were available… and someone decided to pick them up and use them; and in doing so, they derailed all rational public discourse, simply by giving us an illusion that we are discussing things as a society, when in reality it’s a vicarious kind of thing; they are placing their narrative over the events which they report as news. Industrial pollution and loss of biodiversity is another one of these dangers to our future which happened without anyone scheming at all.

My hope is that with the internet giving everybody the ability to publish text, video and audio - we can return to a better kind of society where people are more socially engaged in public. It will take a few decades, but it will be a vast change. There was a time when some marginalized groups of people were very anxious about the advent of photography. That technology hasn’t affected our society in a bad way - and I think the reason is that the tools were freely available to everybody for them to use.

When you walk out about town, are you able to pick out the people who are looking at the people around them with an eye to better the situation for them? These are people who know how trends take shape and change things. Their laughter might indicate some joy in seeing some constructive kind of conversation evolve around a topic that they think is very important. One very good descriptor for such folks is “caring” people. If you look around them at most other folks in the environment, you’ll see that others are posturing. These other folks are only trying to do and say the things that they think will get them the best opportunities for themselves. It’s quite a contrast.

Another big contrast between these two types of people is that the “caring” people are also very deep thinkers. There is some pretty significant substance underneath that disarming expression on their face. The posturers, on the other hand are always wanting someone else to tell them what to believe about issues. They aren’t mature enough to know the importance of looking at the world with their own eyes.

It would be very good for those of us who are of that “caring” group to notice eachother in public, and extend the hand of friendship to eachother. I think that having a common project to work on helps quite a bit for those who are peers to eachother… However, intergenerational friendships between such people can also be very cool. It’s important to get mentorship for your own life as a young adult, and mentor others who are younger than yourself. When we meet such people, let’s not be daunted by suspicion of sexual motivations, when there is such a keen affection expressed. That kind of suspicion can put up a wall between the one in need of mentorship and a potential friend who has seen more of the world, and who can offer a leg up in the world. A young person who is skittish of affection from more mature adults will have a long solitary slog towards her or his future.

And we do need eachother. It’s ironic; even though we seek to act constructively, the posturers generally misconstrue us. The posturers tend to assume that others are also posturing, and so they are disconcerted when someone is talking about outside-the-box models about the world, or is being transparent and straightforward in their words and actions.

An old story which has made a great conversation piece (like a quaint item on a coffee table might in the living room of your host) has been Plato’s “parable of the cave.” It has been an attempt to understand why many people are so vehement in their rejection of the ideas which philosophers propose.

I think that the whole phenomenon can be better described in a much simpler way. People need to choose a healthy method of reasoning. One can even become “mentally ill” if they choose to reason in a haphazard manner. Generally people decide that they will subscribe to the consensus of the community. Some folks who think of themselves as more refined believe that they should listen to and believe whatever seems to be the consensus of scientists in regards to the area of life they are thinking about. This works fairly well for them 90% of the time. Although it does make me chuckle how such people seem oblivious to the fact that consensuses shift and change over time, and by choosing to find someone else to listen to and believe, they are putting themselves and their lives and judgements at the mercy of a somewhat unreliable process.

Philosophers may believe that they are only trying to convey an idea. But, in fact, they are inviting people to adopt an entirely different way of reasoning. Philosophers are asking people to think independently, look at the world with their own eyes, and draw their conclusions carefully after doing so. This is the barrier for entry if one wants to read a philosopher’s work. You, the reader, have to bring to the table your own musings, and your own conclusions, after having thought independently about the issue which is being discussed.

But, people who have anchored themselves to one method or another of reasoning are tenacious in their relationship to that method. They will get angry, indignant, unreasonable all because they fear that if they give up their anchor in the storm, they will be tossed to and fro like a piece of driftwood upon the ocean swells. It’s quite a reasonable concern on their part. But they are like children who stick their fingers in their ears and yell “I can’t hear you.”

I think that philosophers should make it their primary life’s goal to help folks to learn how to think and reason in a better fashion. Enough with the endless debates over what historical philosopher a b c or d was saying! Let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work with helping others in our society in a very tangible way.

My apologies to anyone who met an impasse while trying to leave me a comment… Unbeknownst to me, my captcha was broken. It should work now, though. It’ll query you about a simple mathematical equation. I’ll try to set up a feedback form on the website, so folks can let me know if they are experiencing mechanical problems in the future.

Cheers.