"For both the rich and the poor, life is dominated by an ever growing current of problems, most of which seem to have no real and lasting solution. Clearly we have not touched the deeper causes of our troubles...the ultimate source of all these problems is in thought itself, the very thing of which our civilization is most proud, and therefore the one thing that is "hidden" because of our failure seriously to engage with its actual working in our own individual lives and in the life of society." - David Bohm, physicist and philosopher
After reading a synopsis of the writings of David Bohm, a physicist and philosopher, I started to regard the idea of atomized human players as completely misguided and actually detrimental to our species' survival on the whole. I suppose this was something that I had already been considering, but the extra boost from this most recent excerpt really piqued my interest. Bohm was interested in Eastern Thought as well, being close friends with Jiddu Krishnamurti, an Indian philosopher. Although Krishnamurti was a contemporary of Bohm's, his philosophy spans from a long tradition of Hindu spirituality and mysticism. The Hindu scriptures like the Vedas and Upanishads were composed and written down well before the advent of major civilizations in the west; well before any sort of the real "modern" technological advancements we hold dear today. Yet these ancient philosophers and holy seers were on to something. Their insights reveal an understanding of the universe that is so exact as to be now proved by advanced forays into physics. How could the philosophers of yore have possibly reached conclusions uncannily similar to those of astro- and quantum physicists of the 20th and 21st centuries?
One of the ways in which they were able to achieve such visions or insights into the nature of the universe was through just "being." By observing and experiencing the flow of life, the moment-to-moment, hour-to-hour, day-to-day patterns, these early Hindus noted that everything is Brahman, and yet everything is also it's own thing. Our atman or "self" or "soul" is Brahman. The objects and people we interact with are also Brahman. Which means we're all the same thing. But we're different incarnations of that same thing. Huh? It's common for people to sum up the basic Hindu principle as, "We're all god with different faces." That is much different from many of the prevailing Christian doctrines: that the righteous will live beside God and his son, Jesus, in heaven for all eternity (*Catholicism*) or that the truly pious will be exalted to God-status once they pass over into the spiritual realm (*Mormonism*) or that God has already predetermined who will be saved and who will be cast off into an eternity of torture (*Calvinism*). It's hard to boil down Hinduism into any one distilled form, as with a religion as old and as regularly practiced as it is, there are obviously many different offshoots, and "cults" associated with certain deities.
We have an illusion of complete free will. Within a small window, we do indeed have choices we can make, but even our choices are predicated on a particular chain of events that led up to those being our choices. Calvinist predestination is a doctrine that also claims humans do not have free will, but the claim here is that God had already chosen or predetermined who will be saved upon death and who has been damned to hell. For just being a Calvinist, one's chances of being a "saved" seems to be higher because you're following the chosen religion, but then again, any thoughts an individual may have about sex, violence, et. al. would obviously show that they were not one of the saved. It is easy to understand how internal conflicts may have become outward (literal) witch hunts, as those who acted differently on the outside were marginalized and killed for the sins of everyone in the community. Imagine experiencing the degree of "free will" that we are familiar with in 17th century Salem, Massachusetts. The mere thought of illicit sex might send a thinker reeling - Am I not saved? Why would I think about these things that surely go against God's word otherwise? Obviously, it would be much easier to blame it on a spell cast by a witch than any sort of admission that perhaps you personally were having those thoughts and especially that God did not choose the saved at the outset of human creation, which would shake up the worldview of an entire community.
Our ability to choose lies within the web of connectedness that all humanity and all life and matter on Earth experience. It is not independent of this, nor is it completely determined by our surroundings. I've read Sam Harris' argument on the illusion of free will and I think it might be too severe. Yet, he meditates and talks about achieving a place of no "thoughts." I guess this doesn't really go against his argument. Meditation helps to center the mind, to alleviate the flow of thoughts that are constantly whizzing through - the very same ones that weave together the narrative of who we "think" we are. And if you're a pro at meditation, you start to see that many of those thoughts going on in that little brain of yours are random and they're also unrelated until you connect them together through analysis.
If we revisit the quote that began this post, Bohm is expounding this same idea. We laud ourselves for the amount of "thinking" we do. We're patting ourselves on the back for a job well done - the modern, Western world with its wonderfully rich legacy of rational, Enlightenment thought. But even the Enlightenment was nothing new. The value placed on Reason and logical order is also seen in the great classical philosophers as well. Aristotle was the first mansplainer that gained recognition!
It surely would be wonderful if everything was categorizable and we could fit every interaction and thought into neat boxes. But not everyone thinks in the same way, nor do they have to (I run up against this in the field of education all of the time - differentiate your instruction for the kids, but face being droned at through every staff meeting ever). Logic is essentially a language that can be employed for practical reasons. It is not the be-all, end-all of human capacity. It represents ONE FACET of our abilities. In fact, if we use it as a tool and not as a hegemonic directive that rules our entire way of life, we'd probably find that we'd be less stressed out about the world we encounter. Bohm has identified the elephant in the room - it's our ability to intake, process and analyze. Which are all good skills! We just get so tied up in them that we forget to actually experience the world as a whole.
From the Rig-Veda:
Then was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.
Mandala 10, Hymn 129 : Creation, as translated by Ralph T. H. Griffith (1896).
29 July 2014
24 July 2014
Educational Quality
“First and foremost school boards look out for students. Education is not a line item on the school board’s agenda—it is the only item. When making decisions about school programs, school boards incorporate their community’s view of what students should know and be able to do. School boards are accessible to the public and accountable for the performance of their schools. School boards are the education watchdog for their communities, ensuring that students get the best education for the tax dollars spent.” (Role of the School Board, Center for Public Education, National School Boards Association website)
Essentially the role of a Board of Education is…education. The quality of the education within a school district is its primary objective. Saving money is a boon to tax payers, but if it will be at the cost of the students’ experience in the classroom, then that takes precedent over anything else.
The Boards of Education for many Monmouth county school districts , and New Jersey school districts in general, have displayed, through tense contract negotiations in the past few years, a lack of understanding of their role in their communities. As a teacher, I represent a member of the community I serve. Yes, my address may fall out of the "district," but a community is not so arbitrarily defined as to be within city limits. My salary, like all other public employees, is paid for by the taxpayer, which is true. Yet, if you are not a public employee, your salary does not come magically from the sky. Maybe your salary is due in part to taxpayers choosing to spend money at your establishment, which, yes, is a choice and not a decree, but both represent participation in a society. We all choose to participate in a society because we would rather not go it alone. The concept of a social contract is not new, nor is it jeopardized by public schooling that is funded by property taxes. Ultimately, there may be a better way to fund schools, but that would be an argument for another time.
Furthermore, a quality education is an investment in the future of our country. By denying students quality teachers and a dedicated staff, you are not only doing the next generation a disservice, but yourself one as well. Working for Boards of Education that devalue the effort their teachers put forth, when coupled with the stressors of stalled contract negotiations, pay freezes, "0%" raises, rising benefits costs and an ever-increasing cost of living, may force the hands of many quality and prudent teachers to leave the profession outright for their own well-being.
The Boards of Education for many Monmouth county school districts , and New Jersey school districts in general, have displayed, through tense contract negotiations in the past few years, a lack of understanding of their role in their communities. As a teacher, I represent a member of the community I serve. Yes, my address may fall out of the "district," but a community is not so arbitrarily defined as to be within city limits. My salary, like all other public employees, is paid for by the taxpayer, which is true. Yet, if you are not a public employee, your salary does not come magically from the sky. Maybe your salary is due in part to taxpayers choosing to spend money at your establishment, which, yes, is a choice and not a decree, but both represent participation in a society. We all choose to participate in a society because we would rather not go it alone. The concept of a social contract is not new, nor is it jeopardized by public schooling that is funded by property taxes. Ultimately, there may be a better way to fund schools, but that would be an argument for another time.
Furthermore, a quality education is an investment in the future of our country. By denying students quality teachers and a dedicated staff, you are not only doing the next generation a disservice, but yourself one as well. Working for Boards of Education that devalue the effort their teachers put forth, when coupled with the stressors of stalled contract negotiations, pay freezes, "0%" raises, rising benefits costs and an ever-increasing cost of living, may force the hands of many quality and prudent teachers to leave the profession outright for their own well-being.
If there is a way that we can broach the discussion of education and in particular, contract negotiations, without it coming down to the same tired arguments, the staff at these schools would be much more productive and able to achieve further greatness than they have in the past. If you are not a teacher, but know one, you might have noticed that they fall silent when the topic of education arises in a group setting. Why is that? Do they have nothing to say? Or is it futile for them to express an opinion in the particularly hostile environment created by the current politicians in office?
What would we, as a people, be able to achieve if our schools had more competitive salaries that attracted the best and brightest graduates and seasoned teachers from not only NJ, but around the country? How can we hold to a standard of excellence without competitive compensation? With various new initiatives, like new observational templates, NJSMART, Common Core and PARCC, teachers are already feeling the immediate heat of change in their classrooms and school communities. New curricula may be more demanding and require more preparation time. New accountability requirements now link student growth to individual teachers. For the lot of us, these changes are something we will take on willingly. To ask us to do it while being demonized as not working our fair share, a reckless and untrue claim, is unconscionable.
If you are still not convinced by anything said above, Chris Christie and Barack Obama both send their own children to private school; the idea that spending money for quality education is not lost on them. They just do not care to ensure that it happens for your children at an equitable level to theirs. If we are going to be able to have a productive, vibrant democratic republic in the future, the continued focus on education needs to be at the forefront.
What would we, as a people, be able to achieve if our schools had more competitive salaries that attracted the best and brightest graduates and seasoned teachers from not only NJ, but around the country? How can we hold to a standard of excellence without competitive compensation? With various new initiatives, like new observational templates, NJSMART, Common Core and PARCC, teachers are already feeling the immediate heat of change in their classrooms and school communities. New curricula may be more demanding and require more preparation time. New accountability requirements now link student growth to individual teachers. For the lot of us, these changes are something we will take on willingly. To ask us to do it while being demonized as not working our fair share, a reckless and untrue claim, is unconscionable.
If you are still not convinced by anything said above, Chris Christie and Barack Obama both send their own children to private school; the idea that spending money for quality education is not lost on them. They just do not care to ensure that it happens for your children at an equitable level to theirs. If we are going to be able to have a productive, vibrant democratic republic in the future, the continued focus on education needs to be at the forefront.
19 July 2014
On Having Children
Thinking about why people want to have children has helped me to reconsider the entire structure and purpose of society. I am going to break the reasons down into 2 categories. 2 seems like very few, but I am going to try.
Some people have children to fulfill a "duty" to a "higher" power - whether that power may be their partner, their family, a deity, or society varies. The other reason would be to bring a conclusion to an existential crisis that the subject is experiencing. In the latter, this potential parent has realized that they're a finite being. That being said, and after setting up this dialectic, these two reasons are not mutually exclusive. They can be comorbid or we could consider them on a spectrum or axis.
It's likelier that whatever the socio-philosophical reason may be for procreation, our biological drives lie at the true heart of it. Our DNA programs us to want to have children, but due to our high level of sentience, we feel like we're making a choice.
Societal norms and social order are a mask to provide existential meaning, but these attempts are ultimately prepackaged. Society, in a Jungian sense, is our collective consciousness. We're saving our norms for the next generation; to alleviate their "growing pains" and the hard realities of being mortal. Sometimes societies do "too good" of a job at this - obsessing over control and safety, to ensure a continued success according to a very limited, but "proven" method- case in point, the medieval Christian Church. After generations of civil warring, invasions from outsiders and general degradation of living conditions, the Church's secret to success was the creation of a rigid structure by which parishioners either adhered to in order to provide their lives with meaning and purpose, or eschewed, only to be labeled as an outsider and potential danger to the flock. This way of life was eventually challenged by the Reformation's reaction against the Church's own decline into decadence and bureaucratic bloat.
And so we see this pattern repeat in various ways over the course of human history, but in the end, all share similar structures: of self-regulation, control and an overall promise of safety for the vast majority, as long as we buy into it. When we accept these rules, we also potentially sacrifice individual liberties, or our own will to power. The modern American society is not necessarily as omnipotent as the medieval church, which had managed to create spiritual, material and political unification, yet many Americans feel obligated to uphold certain values and standards of living. For the "average" American, this seems to include going to college, having a "career," getting married, starting a family and owning property. These "norms" are so strong that they might drive people to commit heinous acts, to doubt themselves and their self worth, or to drop out of society so completely as to be invisible.
So for many, children are just the next "thing to do"and although this may seem a callous way to categorize people, it also is backed up with way too many examples of parents who abuse their children in a variety of means - through emotional neglect, overindulgence, physical violence, complete lack of guidance, instilling the same anxieties within them, et. al. For someone checking the boxes of the life, their hope may be that the child will impart great significance on their lives. And it doesn't mean that they don't love their children any less. But this sort of acceptance of societal norms without thinking can lead to a parents' expectations of their child to be unrealistic and ultimately unattainable, letting down both the parent and child in the end.
For others, the child is a source of hope, something that needs you to to survive. It may awaken a sort of slumbering meaning within your own self, as you see how fragile life is. For someone in the throes of an existential crisis, who feels like they're rudderless, the child presents a potential to provide meaning. The romanticization of the "child as savior" is as fraught with problems as the "checking the boxes" of life. So what is the future parent to do? How do you not put all of your eggs in the child basket as providing all of the meaning one can ever truly need?
Since I've grappled with my own mortality from a fairly young age, I would say that I have thought a long time about this topic and still feel an urge to procreate. This new life would (hopefully) have an expiration date much later than my own, essentially projecting myself into future possible worlds. So is it selfishness that makes me want to have a child? Is it, as I mentioned, a romanticization of possibilities? Is it succumbing to the society in which I live? I don't know the answer to any of these, but I do think that it's important that I am thinking about it in the first place.
And in the long run, this desire, when completely stripped down to the bare bones, is really just the evolutionary process continuing on. Our impetus to create life, whether couched in a "social norm" or a "philosophical quandary," comes down to our DNA programming us to perpetuate the human race. Is that cynical? Probably, and for the myriad, creative ways in which we can consider this or that about our world, biology cannot be denied. We have just become really adept at creating greater and greater lenses to look through toward our own existence.
Some people have children to fulfill a "duty" to a "higher" power - whether that power may be their partner, their family, a deity, or society varies. The other reason would be to bring a conclusion to an existential crisis that the subject is experiencing. In the latter, this potential parent has realized that they're a finite being. That being said, and after setting up this dialectic, these two reasons are not mutually exclusive. They can be comorbid or we could consider them on a spectrum or axis.
It's likelier that whatever the socio-philosophical reason may be for procreation, our biological drives lie at the true heart of it. Our DNA programs us to want to have children, but due to our high level of sentience, we feel like we're making a choice.
Societal norms and social order are a mask to provide existential meaning, but these attempts are ultimately prepackaged. Society, in a Jungian sense, is our collective consciousness. We're saving our norms for the next generation; to alleviate their "growing pains" and the hard realities of being mortal. Sometimes societies do "too good" of a job at this - obsessing over control and safety, to ensure a continued success according to a very limited, but "proven" method- case in point, the medieval Christian Church. After generations of civil warring, invasions from outsiders and general degradation of living conditions, the Church's secret to success was the creation of a rigid structure by which parishioners either adhered to in order to provide their lives with meaning and purpose, or eschewed, only to be labeled as an outsider and potential danger to the flock. This way of life was eventually challenged by the Reformation's reaction against the Church's own decline into decadence and bureaucratic bloat.
And so we see this pattern repeat in various ways over the course of human history, but in the end, all share similar structures: of self-regulation, control and an overall promise of safety for the vast majority, as long as we buy into it. When we accept these rules, we also potentially sacrifice individual liberties, or our own will to power. The modern American society is not necessarily as omnipotent as the medieval church, which had managed to create spiritual, material and political unification, yet many Americans feel obligated to uphold certain values and standards of living. For the "average" American, this seems to include going to college, having a "career," getting married, starting a family and owning property. These "norms" are so strong that they might drive people to commit heinous acts, to doubt themselves and their self worth, or to drop out of society so completely as to be invisible.
So for many, children are just the next "thing to do"and although this may seem a callous way to categorize people, it also is backed up with way too many examples of parents who abuse their children in a variety of means - through emotional neglect, overindulgence, physical violence, complete lack of guidance, instilling the same anxieties within them, et. al. For someone checking the boxes of the life, their hope may be that the child will impart great significance on their lives. And it doesn't mean that they don't love their children any less. But this sort of acceptance of societal norms without thinking can lead to a parents' expectations of their child to be unrealistic and ultimately unattainable, letting down both the parent and child in the end.
For others, the child is a source of hope, something that needs you to to survive. It may awaken a sort of slumbering meaning within your own self, as you see how fragile life is. For someone in the throes of an existential crisis, who feels like they're rudderless, the child presents a potential to provide meaning. The romanticization of the "child as savior" is as fraught with problems as the "checking the boxes" of life. So what is the future parent to do? How do you not put all of your eggs in the child basket as providing all of the meaning one can ever truly need?
Since I've grappled with my own mortality from a fairly young age, I would say that I have thought a long time about this topic and still feel an urge to procreate. This new life would (hopefully) have an expiration date much later than my own, essentially projecting myself into future possible worlds. So is it selfishness that makes me want to have a child? Is it, as I mentioned, a romanticization of possibilities? Is it succumbing to the society in which I live? I don't know the answer to any of these, but I do think that it's important that I am thinking about it in the first place.
And in the long run, this desire, when completely stripped down to the bare bones, is really just the evolutionary process continuing on. Our impetus to create life, whether couched in a "social norm" or a "philosophical quandary," comes down to our DNA programming us to perpetuate the human race. Is that cynical? Probably, and for the myriad, creative ways in which we can consider this or that about our world, biology cannot be denied. We have just become really adept at creating greater and greater lenses to look through toward our own existence.
13 July 2014
The Case for being a Luddite, for Thinking, but not for being a Nazi....
I have been reading and reading about Martin Heidegger lately, and although I am pissed at him for joining the Nazi Party during the era of the Third Reich, his brilliance when it comes to unpacking the world in which he found himself and in which we live now, makes me forgive him. But only a little ('cause dude, if you had such beliefs, why would you not stand up to....oh nevermind).
A few aspects of Heidegger's philosophy I have found to be truly engaging. These involve his ideas on thinking and curiosity, as well as his view on technology. I will start with the tech pieces.
Heidegger was seemingly interested in the etymology of the words that we employ. I am too. I want to know where words originated to help me understand meaning more deeply (whatever that means). So with the word technology, he finds that the Greek roots really point toward this word referring to a "method" or "art" of doing something, not just "tools" that we create and use. So the technology that we employ on a daily basis is really shaping the way in which we live. In fact, it's a part of our lives in way that is so intangible and thoughtless, that we can navigate the wired world with ease and probably with a preference for such a world over a less technologically enhanced one.
Heidegger's concern is that we run the risk of not being "aware" of the effect this method has upon our lives. "Everywhere we remain unfree and chained to technology, whether we passionately affirm or deny it. But we are delivered over to it in the worst possible way when we regard it as something neutral; for this conception of it, to which today we particularly like to do homage, makes us utterly blind to the essence of technology,".(Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology, 1954). So what can we do to make ourselves aware of the pull that technology has over us? Well, first of all, we need to think about our use of certain tools, shortcuts and conveniences.
Sure, I write this from a laptop, in a fully wired home. And yes, I have a tablet, and a cell phone, and a television, two game consoles and an ipod. And yes, I use many of these items (and more!) on a daily basis. But do I use them without thinking? Sometimes, surely. But does everyone who uses these items similarly sit and think, as I do, "Is this wired life any better than a life without all of these technological enhancements, without this stuff?" I would guess no.
Convenience definitely has its upsides. Does anyone want to wash clothes with a basin and a washboard anymore? Who has the time? Or do we have the time? What are we doing instead? Well, instead of meeting with students various times over the summer, I can have them email me their assignments, which I can grade in the privacy of my own home, in my pajamas, at 2 am or 2 pm. It's my call. But to do that, I need to buy internet access and I need to set up a work account to stay in contact with them. I also needed to create a website with all of the assignments.As we're virtually expanding out, virtually interacting with others in far-flung corners of the world, we're also losing sight of potential negative effects of technology, a necessity of our own creation. The power goes out and people freak. What will I do? Well, what did people "do" when the sun went down and there were no lights to flick on? They went to bed. They read by candlelight. They talked. They had sex. They did human things with other humans.
When Hurricane Sandy hit, initially, I was worried about not having power. But by day 3, I had already settled into a routine of taking a walk to the community center a mile away for information, after which I would continue on a loop through the neighborhood to buy the paper, maybe some non-perishable items. It was, all of a sudden, "normal" again. And just like that. Only 2 days out. I knew my family and friends were OK, and I just settled into this new routine. Yea, drying my hair with a hair dryer would have been nicer than the old November air-dry, but whatevs. And am I a better person because I didn't freak? No, I am just making a point that we're so scared of losing this world of convenience, and of not having to think about what we're going to do next, that we kind of forgot that we're pretty good at entertaining ourselves and solving problems.
Technological advancements have also let us pretend that we can cheat death. Whoa, well, that really seemed to jump from being "not neutral" to a panacea that makes us feel immortal. But seriously, we can: install pacemakers inside people's bodies, inoculate against many once-deadly illnesses, laser off a layer of someone's eye lens to restore their vision, come up with chemical food additives that make foods cheaper and more filling, print 3-D organs and limbs for those who need them, and although all of these innovations have improved lives and probably even increased life spans, have they increased the quality of our lives? I am sure that for some, yes. But on a whole, is the human condition any easier to bear?
Furthermore, as we see with the endless arguments over climate change, pollution, fracking and a host of other issues, there are real pitfalls to keeping technology a neutral force, "Agriculture is now a motorized food industry, the same thing in its essence as the production of corpses in the gas chambers and the extermination camps, the same thing as blockades and the reduction of countries to famine, the same thing as the manufacture of hydrogen bombs," (Heidegger, Four lectures on Technology, 1949). It may be true that there is nothing that will come of eating Genetically-Modified Organisms, and that the way in which humans "domesticated" wheat and sheep is essentially the same as more scientific forms of gene-splicing and manipulation that is occurring now. But the time and effort that went into domesticating animals was over centuries, even millennia. And there were negative consequences. The domestication and preference for certain varieties of food have led to the plants being more susceptible to disease (hello, Irish Potato Blight and subsequent Famine). Consider even "designer dogs" - dalmatians run the risk of being deaf, German Shepherds are prone to hip displasia. Our experimenting has real consequences for not only us, but other species and the natural environment in general. We potentially make the natural order unbalanced; usually in our favor, but for how long? Is it sustainable to continue?
So now what? Well, Heidegger really caught my attention with this quote, "If he is to become a true cabinetmaker, he makes himself answer and respond above all to the different kinds of wood and to the shapes slumbering within wood—to wood as it enters into man's dwelling with all the hidden riches of its essence. In fact, this relatedness to wood is what maintains the whole craft. Without that relatedness, the craft will never be anything but empty busywork, any occupation with it will be determined exclusively by business concerns. Every handicraft, all human dealings, are constantly in that danger," (What is Called Thinking? 379).
As a teacher, this idea of spending time with your craft, considering your craft an "art" resonated with me. If we are to become true teachers, we need to realize that we're dealing with humans, crafting them to become other humans in this society. They need time, attention and thought. Providing students with hand-outs and things to keep them busy will probably make them look like they're learning, but will it lead to as much critical thinking and overall stimulation as a good conversation on the same topic?
Similarly, growing vegetables for human consumption needs time, attention and thought. Do I grow my tomatoes next to basil or next to carrots? Do I use compost or fertilizer? Is there a lot of thought going into using GMO seeds over the seeds the neighbor has collected and cleaned as his father and grandfather did for generations before? Or are we falling back on convenience and a desire to infuse technology into everything we do without foresight. What will be the consequences of actions without thought for the humans yet to be born?
A few aspects of Heidegger's philosophy I have found to be truly engaging. These involve his ideas on thinking and curiosity, as well as his view on technology. I will start with the tech pieces.
Heidegger was seemingly interested in the etymology of the words that we employ. I am too. I want to know where words originated to help me understand meaning more deeply (whatever that means). So with the word technology, he finds that the Greek roots really point toward this word referring to a "method" or "art" of doing something, not just "tools" that we create and use. So the technology that we employ on a daily basis is really shaping the way in which we live. In fact, it's a part of our lives in way that is so intangible and thoughtless, that we can navigate the wired world with ease and probably with a preference for such a world over a less technologically enhanced one.
Heidegger's concern is that we run the risk of not being "aware" of the effect this method has upon our lives. "Everywhere we remain unfree and chained to technology, whether we passionately affirm or deny it. But we are delivered over to it in the worst possible way when we regard it as something neutral; for this conception of it, to which today we particularly like to do homage, makes us utterly blind to the essence of technology,".(Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology, 1954). So what can we do to make ourselves aware of the pull that technology has over us? Well, first of all, we need to think about our use of certain tools, shortcuts and conveniences.
Sure, I write this from a laptop, in a fully wired home. And yes, I have a tablet, and a cell phone, and a television, two game consoles and an ipod. And yes, I use many of these items (and more!) on a daily basis. But do I use them without thinking? Sometimes, surely. But does everyone who uses these items similarly sit and think, as I do, "Is this wired life any better than a life without all of these technological enhancements, without this stuff?" I would guess no.
Convenience definitely has its upsides. Does anyone want to wash clothes with a basin and a washboard anymore? Who has the time? Or do we have the time? What are we doing instead? Well, instead of meeting with students various times over the summer, I can have them email me their assignments, which I can grade in the privacy of my own home, in my pajamas, at 2 am or 2 pm. It's my call. But to do that, I need to buy internet access and I need to set up a work account to stay in contact with them. I also needed to create a website with all of the assignments.As we're virtually expanding out, virtually interacting with others in far-flung corners of the world, we're also losing sight of potential negative effects of technology, a necessity of our own creation. The power goes out and people freak. What will I do? Well, what did people "do" when the sun went down and there were no lights to flick on? They went to bed. They read by candlelight. They talked. They had sex. They did human things with other humans.
When Hurricane Sandy hit, initially, I was worried about not having power. But by day 3, I had already settled into a routine of taking a walk to the community center a mile away for information, after which I would continue on a loop through the neighborhood to buy the paper, maybe some non-perishable items. It was, all of a sudden, "normal" again. And just like that. Only 2 days out. I knew my family and friends were OK, and I just settled into this new routine. Yea, drying my hair with a hair dryer would have been nicer than the old November air-dry, but whatevs. And am I a better person because I didn't freak? No, I am just making a point that we're so scared of losing this world of convenience, and of not having to think about what we're going to do next, that we kind of forgot that we're pretty good at entertaining ourselves and solving problems.
Technological advancements have also let us pretend that we can cheat death. Whoa, well, that really seemed to jump from being "not neutral" to a panacea that makes us feel immortal. But seriously, we can: install pacemakers inside people's bodies, inoculate against many once-deadly illnesses, laser off a layer of someone's eye lens to restore their vision, come up with chemical food additives that make foods cheaper and more filling, print 3-D organs and limbs for those who need them, and although all of these innovations have improved lives and probably even increased life spans, have they increased the quality of our lives? I am sure that for some, yes. But on a whole, is the human condition any easier to bear?
Furthermore, as we see with the endless arguments over climate change, pollution, fracking and a host of other issues, there are real pitfalls to keeping technology a neutral force, "Agriculture is now a motorized food industry, the same thing in its essence as the production of corpses in the gas chambers and the extermination camps, the same thing as blockades and the reduction of countries to famine, the same thing as the manufacture of hydrogen bombs," (Heidegger, Four lectures on Technology, 1949). It may be true that there is nothing that will come of eating Genetically-Modified Organisms, and that the way in which humans "domesticated" wheat and sheep is essentially the same as more scientific forms of gene-splicing and manipulation that is occurring now. But the time and effort that went into domesticating animals was over centuries, even millennia. And there were negative consequences. The domestication and preference for certain varieties of food have led to the plants being more susceptible to disease (hello, Irish Potato Blight and subsequent Famine). Consider even "designer dogs" - dalmatians run the risk of being deaf, German Shepherds are prone to hip displasia. Our experimenting has real consequences for not only us, but other species and the natural environment in general. We potentially make the natural order unbalanced; usually in our favor, but for how long? Is it sustainable to continue?
So now what? Well, Heidegger really caught my attention with this quote, "If he is to become a true cabinetmaker, he makes himself answer and respond above all to the different kinds of wood and to the shapes slumbering within wood—to wood as it enters into man's dwelling with all the hidden riches of its essence. In fact, this relatedness to wood is what maintains the whole craft. Without that relatedness, the craft will never be anything but empty busywork, any occupation with it will be determined exclusively by business concerns. Every handicraft, all human dealings, are constantly in that danger," (What is Called Thinking? 379).
As a teacher, this idea of spending time with your craft, considering your craft an "art" resonated with me. If we are to become true teachers, we need to realize that we're dealing with humans, crafting them to become other humans in this society. They need time, attention and thought. Providing students with hand-outs and things to keep them busy will probably make them look like they're learning, but will it lead to as much critical thinking and overall stimulation as a good conversation on the same topic?
Similarly, growing vegetables for human consumption needs time, attention and thought. Do I grow my tomatoes next to basil or next to carrots? Do I use compost or fertilizer? Is there a lot of thought going into using GMO seeds over the seeds the neighbor has collected and cleaned as his father and grandfather did for generations before? Or are we falling back on convenience and a desire to infuse technology into everything we do without foresight. What will be the consequences of actions without thought for the humans yet to be born?
07 July 2014
Is There Anybody Out There?
In a live version of "Stairway to Heaven," Robert Plant, somewhat obnoxiously, asks the audience, "Does anyone remember laughter?" (After the lyrical line, "....and the forests will echo with laughter....") I always thought it was an odd rhetorical question thrown in for effect, but I am actively wondering if people do actually remember engaging in physical laughter, exuded from an interaction with another human being.
This odd segue is a roundabout way of me saying to you, the reader, aren't you tired of just reading laughter - lol, lmfao, haha, jaja? Is anyone actually laughing when they type these things - let alone, "laughing their ass off," wherever they are? Maybe, but does it matter either? Our [virtual] lives take place in our minds, not our physical realities and though very real in one sense, these exchanges leave many confused about just how impactful they are.
Cyberbullying is common among teens. Malicious trolling and manipulation of others' online profiles have actually caused children to kill themselves. For adults, it is difficult to understand how typed words in a social media or even private context could lead to such tragic events - in their childhood, bullies beat you up or humiliated you publicly, causing the victim physical and emotional pain. Cyberbullies thrive on the emotional (or psychic) pain caused by their infiltration of someone else's carefully cultivated online presence, which is a reflection not only of that person's physical realities, but also their potential realities. Facebook has been cited as a source of emotional anguish for teens and adults alike. Users of the site may feel depressed when looking at the pictures and statuses posted by their cyber"friends." However, there is a level of dishonesty in anyone's online persona - the poster is crafting their personal image by adding the items they want you to see, possibly leaving out that they gained 5 lbs since Memorial Day or that they are underwater on their mortgage. For teens and the younger generation yet, the virtual persona is as much their reality as their physical one. The pressures of living up to standards in their physical world is only added to by the standards they set for themselves through their virtual profile as well.
Cyberlife has also led to a further individualization of our experience. The advertisements and pictures we see as sidebars and news stories that pop up in our Facebook or Yahoo homepage are tailored to our likes and reflect our past internet usage. Furthermore, the notion that power is vested in the internet user is common, yet absurd. CNN has an ireport feature, where the average Joe can send in stories and pictures that they find to be newsworthy. This is not necessarily a bad trend, the democratization of media, but the overarching ideology, that by commenting, posting or clicking, one can make a major difference, is silly. Many internet users take part in this whenever there is a political row or humanitarian crisis: we post our "opinion" or photos or a "solidarity" hash tag (#Kony2012), with ease and real purpose. However, to find people who actually dedicate time and effort to a cause is much rarer. The "power" inherent in choosing your own adventure anytime you engage with the internet is there, but it is of a much smaller scale than one imagines. The user-to-screen connection that blocks out the rest of the world does not represent the same level of engagement as actual interactions.
Occasionally, if you have been on a computer for longer than you needed to be and you have visited all of your normal stomping grounds, you get a feeling of real emptiness, of a loneliness you only get when you found yourself home alone as a kid, but there was no explanation as to where everyone had gone off to, with no idea of when they'd return. And that sense of loneliness is probably what got us to go on the internet in the first place. Comedian Louis CK has a poignant commentary on reaching out to text someone , anyone, while driving and feeling alone. He concludes that we'd rather get into a terrible car crash than be alone with our own thoughts for a few minutes.
I see this as a teacher all of the time; without the incentive to NOT stay wired, students will use their phones idly, so that they do not have to find something to occupy their minds - they can just view pictures and posts as they scroll through Facebook or Tumblr. This choice of passivity does not just stop with their "downtime" - it also creeps over into their interactions in class as well. The old, "what do I need to know for the test?" and "What do you want me to write," are even more pervasive. Open-ended, creative effort is further trampled on by continual focus on knowing certain facts - the standardization of education will be the death of us. The best way to get students to think for themselves is to provide them with crayons. For students who are not usually challenged in the school day to think, giving them an open-ended, but seemingly innocuous task like drawing helps to get their wheels turning.
But how about for young adults and older? How do we get people to challenge their lot? To go beyond particular conventions of convenience and comfort? When adults are OK with just perusing pictures on their phones for hours too, where does that leave us as a participatory democracy? Is there a need for such a system anymore? Should we even worry about anything beyond our own. private news-stream? Is all that is left to us the virtual persona? In The Matrix, Morpheus gives Neo the choice of going beyond the Matrix or to continue to live within it. What would the average person say to that choice? Would they want the knowledge of what is really going on? Is there a difference between the virtual and the physical reality?
The increasingly connected and pervasive surveillance state under which we live is being exposed more and more to us daily through the confessions of Chelsea [formerly Bradley] Manning and Edward Snowden, as well as groups like Anonymous. Have people truly chosen security, safety and comfort over liberties? Do we know what is going on around us? Has the state become great at pretending there is no risk with what they're doing, and in fact, their actions are doing everyone a favor by gathering information (about everything, all of the time)?
Since not only Every home, but every person, is wired, now what do we do?
This odd segue is a roundabout way of me saying to you, the reader, aren't you tired of just reading laughter - lol, lmfao, haha, jaja? Is anyone actually laughing when they type these things - let alone, "laughing their ass off," wherever they are? Maybe, but does it matter either? Our [virtual] lives take place in our minds, not our physical realities and though very real in one sense, these exchanges leave many confused about just how impactful they are.
Cyberbullying is common among teens. Malicious trolling and manipulation of others' online profiles have actually caused children to kill themselves. For adults, it is difficult to understand how typed words in a social media or even private context could lead to such tragic events - in their childhood, bullies beat you up or humiliated you publicly, causing the victim physical and emotional pain. Cyberbullies thrive on the emotional (or psychic) pain caused by their infiltration of someone else's carefully cultivated online presence, which is a reflection not only of that person's physical realities, but also their potential realities. Facebook has been cited as a source of emotional anguish for teens and adults alike. Users of the site may feel depressed when looking at the pictures and statuses posted by their cyber"friends." However, there is a level of dishonesty in anyone's online persona - the poster is crafting their personal image by adding the items they want you to see, possibly leaving out that they gained 5 lbs since Memorial Day or that they are underwater on their mortgage. For teens and the younger generation yet, the virtual persona is as much their reality as their physical one. The pressures of living up to standards in their physical world is only added to by the standards they set for themselves through their virtual profile as well.
Cyberlife has also led to a further individualization of our experience. The advertisements and pictures we see as sidebars and news stories that pop up in our Facebook or Yahoo homepage are tailored to our likes and reflect our past internet usage. Furthermore, the notion that power is vested in the internet user is common, yet absurd. CNN has an ireport feature, where the average Joe can send in stories and pictures that they find to be newsworthy. This is not necessarily a bad trend, the democratization of media, but the overarching ideology, that by commenting, posting or clicking, one can make a major difference, is silly. Many internet users take part in this whenever there is a political row or humanitarian crisis: we post our "opinion" or photos or a "solidarity" hash tag (#Kony2012), with ease and real purpose. However, to find people who actually dedicate time and effort to a cause is much rarer. The "power" inherent in choosing your own adventure anytime you engage with the internet is there, but it is of a much smaller scale than one imagines. The user-to-screen connection that blocks out the rest of the world does not represent the same level of engagement as actual interactions.
Occasionally, if you have been on a computer for longer than you needed to be and you have visited all of your normal stomping grounds, you get a feeling of real emptiness, of a loneliness you only get when you found yourself home alone as a kid, but there was no explanation as to where everyone had gone off to, with no idea of when they'd return. And that sense of loneliness is probably what got us to go on the internet in the first place. Comedian Louis CK has a poignant commentary on reaching out to text someone , anyone, while driving and feeling alone. He concludes that we'd rather get into a terrible car crash than be alone with our own thoughts for a few minutes.
I see this as a teacher all of the time; without the incentive to NOT stay wired, students will use their phones idly, so that they do not have to find something to occupy their minds - they can just view pictures and posts as they scroll through Facebook or Tumblr. This choice of passivity does not just stop with their "downtime" - it also creeps over into their interactions in class as well. The old, "what do I need to know for the test?" and "What do you want me to write," are even more pervasive. Open-ended, creative effort is further trampled on by continual focus on knowing certain facts - the standardization of education will be the death of us. The best way to get students to think for themselves is to provide them with crayons. For students who are not usually challenged in the school day to think, giving them an open-ended, but seemingly innocuous task like drawing helps to get their wheels turning.
But how about for young adults and older? How do we get people to challenge their lot? To go beyond particular conventions of convenience and comfort? When adults are OK with just perusing pictures on their phones for hours too, where does that leave us as a participatory democracy? Is there a need for such a system anymore? Should we even worry about anything beyond our own. private news-stream? Is all that is left to us the virtual persona? In The Matrix, Morpheus gives Neo the choice of going beyond the Matrix or to continue to live within it. What would the average person say to that choice? Would they want the knowledge of what is really going on? Is there a difference between the virtual and the physical reality?
The increasingly connected and pervasive surveillance state under which we live is being exposed more and more to us daily through the confessions of Chelsea [formerly Bradley] Manning and Edward Snowden, as well as groups like Anonymous. Have people truly chosen security, safety and comfort over liberties? Do we know what is going on around us? Has the state become great at pretending there is no risk with what they're doing, and in fact, their actions are doing everyone a favor by gathering information (about everything, all of the time)?
Since not only Every home, but every person, is wired, now what do we do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)