On Racial Divisiveness

"So not my responsibility to teach white people they're own racist-ass history."

This statement from Adam Ruins Gun Control is a fairly common sentiment repeated in many forms. I feel it is worth a deep dive into what this, and similar statements, are truly conveying and their usefulness in civilized conversation. What it conveys might be more than the intent, but when it comes to communication, the more the intent is conveyed as intended, the more effective the communication. So whether or not my interpretation below is "correct," it would only indicate there is perhaps room for improvement in how such things are stated to be more pithy.

First and foremost, without judgement on right or wrong, such statements convey a disgruntlement that black people have with white people. This is important in and of itself. Without yet getting to know the why, it is creating two groups of people with conflict. It says there is a black group and they are mad at white group. It is specifically conveying they are mad that whites don't know how black people are and/or were oppressed by their white forefathers. It assumes an idea that white people should know this and shame on them for not knowing it. Further, it conveys the idea that white people are expecting black people to explain the situation to them when they shouldn't have to, and it further conveys that this is a terrible expectation of white people to put such demands on black people. Finally, it also conveys a responsibility on behalf of white people. A responsibility not only to know the situation, but also to solve it. This one statement has a lot of communication packed into it whether intentionally communicated or not.

Recap:

• Blacks are mad at whites
• Whites should know their own history
• Whites are unjustly expecting something of blacks
• Whites should be ashamed
• Whites are responsible for the past
• Whites should fix the present

So let's discuss each of these points individually starting with conveying that blacks are mad, disgruntled, or frustrated with whites. The far left of the political spectrum is entirely fine with such a statement. They see black people as being oppressed and repressed, picked on, and killed by police without anyone batting an eye and thus they have the right to be mad at white people. The far right sees this as a racially charged statement that lumps all black people in one group, all white people in another group, and makes broad sweeping statements of the white group. Before comprehending the situation, they immediately see this as an unjust statement because "not all whites" are doing the harming and thus it is too broad and unfair against the whites. It is indeed an anti-white sentiment. The left sees this complaint as invalid because white people aren't the ones being oppressed and thus they should have no cause for complaint of "reverse" racism against whites. They are benefited and they are the majority and thus such "racism" against whites is not "true" racism. When the right complains that this is unfair because "not all whites," they are missing the original complaint that there is a problem, and when they complain about what is wrong with the message as stated, the left complains that they're dodging or denying the problem while simultaneously adding more accusation of wrong-doing and white privilege. The right is hurt that they are being unfairly judged while the left says boo hoo for you since you're not being murdered and picked on. Overall, what good is this statement that blacks are mad at whites? Is it useful? Is it worthwhile? Does it convey anything that leads to something useful? Personally, I'm going to say no. The statement does throw an entire race under the bus even if it does not come anywhere near to matching the troubles that black people face. Throwing white people under the bus will not ever yield their sincere apologies and concerns. And what is the goal? If the goal is simply to point blame, then fine, that is being accomplished. But if the goal is to solve the problem, then pointing blame and shutting minds is never going to accomplish it. It is actively working against the goal whether it is "fair" to say it or not.

Whites should know better. Why should white people know their history? How much of their history should they know? Is each white person truly to blame for not knowing the entire past of "white people?" Should "white people" know all of European and Russian history as well? It is by no means required or necessary that people of a particular color know the entire past of their particular color. People have limited time and they are not simply going to learn every ounce of history. One could contend that they ought to learn the important parts, but who is to say which parts are important? We all already know that slavery existed and that it was bad and that a civil war erupted because of it. We know laws were changed to prevent it. We know Martin Luther King Jr had a huge hand in fixing it. But what else "should" white people know and how should they have come about such knowledge? If it is not taught in schools, is it absolutely their responsibility (and they should somehow know this responsibility) that they must pick up a book on how black people were oppressed? Or if schools should be teaching it better, how do they go about knowing they ought to teach it without having already known it themselves from the schools they went to? This expectation that white people ought to know their "racist-ass" history is not only a foolish expectation, it is also placing blame on whites for a past that they had nothing to do with.

Whites are unjustly expecting something of blacks. Whites are expecting black people to explain the situation in a way they can understand. The left sees this as a terrible expectation since it is putting the burden on the oppressed. Why should the oppressed have to do all the work when the whites are oppressing them? Well, the whites aren't oppressing them. They may still be oppressed and perhaps due to laws and regulations of very racist people, but the average white person is just another human on this planet. They are not doing any oppressing even if they have a particular privilege for their color. They reap benefits unseen by their color but they are not actively participating in any oppression in and of themselves. So why should they know what the problem is when the problem does not actively pertain to them? Of course the situation needs to be explained to them. They are not on the lookout for everyone who is not them to determine how a race they are associated with may have once screwed over another race. That's not how people live life. We focus on our own lives for the most part along with whatever interests we have and what problems are right before us. There are lots of problems in the world and we cannot be expected to know and solve all of them no matter what our color. Should black people have to explain the situation? Of course not. They shouldn't have to any more than it should be a problem in the first place. But this isn't about pointing fingers about who should do the lifting, it's about solving a problem. If a problem needs addressed, it needs explained and it needs to be explained to those who can make a difference. If that means the constituents need to understand to lobby congress, then the constituents need to be informed in a way they will understand and agree. Insulting them and casting blame will not engender warm feelings of support and it will work against the group who shouldn't have to be kind and welcoming in their explanations but may very well desire to be if they want to have a successful movement.

Whites should be ashamed. No, they shouldn't. For all the above reasons. White people are going about their lives just as oblivious to other people's problems as everybody else.

Whites are responsible for the past. Absolutely not. How could they be? In what world should anyone be responsible for people who came before them just because their color of skin matches? Just because white people benefit over black people for the misdeeds of white people in the past does not mean they should at all be blamed for the situation. The only way the majority of [white] people are going to care is if responsibility is not being cast upon them. The only way to get support from other them is to engender an emotional feeling of compassion. No one is going to be compassionate when prefaced with "this is your fault and your responsibility."

Whites should fix the present. This could indeed be true. If white people are the ones in power, then it makes sense that white people will need to fix it. If white people are the main force in voting for change, then clearly it will take a lot of white people to find a solution. People, in general, will have their own priorities, however. Some are focused on health care. Some are focused on drinking water. Others are focused on getting a job. People have their own issues and priorities to deal with. While white people will overall be necessary to solve the problem, they're only going to do so when the issue becomes one of their priorities. And this situation will not become a priority for them when any and all discussion of the matter leads to false accusations and foolish expectations. These kinds of statements are not beneficial to the cause in any way. Responding to this sentiment as if I am trying to further "control" how it is done is absolutely foolish as well. I am merely pointing out a fact: if you want people to listen to your plight, your heart, your ideas, or desires, opinions, or stories, you absolutely must not put them on the defensive first. This is for success, not control. If success is not desired, then do whatever, but there are definitely better and worse ways to have success that have nothing to do with what "should" be the way the world operates.

Musings About Meaning and Fulfillment

I'm dinking around with ideas about life satisfaction. I believe it comes down to 4 categories as seen in the Venn diagram above. We can be satisfied in life if our "Personal" circle is experiencing acceptance, meaning, and growth in any of the other 3 areas. By itself, it does nothing but cause more angst, and without it we feel directionless, meaningless, and depressed. To have the most satisfying life, the entire personal circle will be fulfilled, but a decent life will have at least one fulfilling overlap.

The big key, then, is the yellow circle. Everything outside the yellow circle is non-personal external forces. For work, it is how much money you make, who you work for, what your project is, the meetings you attend, etc, etc. Even if all those things were terrible overall, if the personal space within it is finding meaning and acceptance (the social aspect), you will be happy. Similarly, if the yellow space is null and void, it won't matter how much money you make, what your title is, or what you're working on. Notably, they often go hand in hand. If everything is going crappy, you'll generally not find meaning and acceptance, but honestly it is quite often a personal choice and/or there are things you can personally do to improve it. The yellow space is almost entirely what you make out of life.

The yellow is deeply personal in the center where it does not overlap with the other three circles. It is how you feel about yourself, who you are, how well you know yourself, and whether or not you like and accept yourself. Notably, this is surrounded by all those same questions by the external groups of Home, Community, and Work. If everyone hates you and does not accept you in all three categories, then you are surrounded with no escape and your self will likely die. If one area is void or causes pain and suffering, however, you have two others that you could retreat to for meaning and enjoyment in life. If Home is awful, people often retreat to Work or Community. This does not guarantee happiness, of course, if they rush right outside the yellow circle entirely. Everything requires introspection, growth, meaning, and acceptance in order to breed happiness. And if Home is bad, it usually indicates a poor-working central personal area which means you're likely suffering in all areas. The root cause (or effect?) of clinical depression is quite likely a failure to glow in all three areas simultaneously.

As social creatures, we ultimately need other people. We literally go insane if isolated for extended periods of time and we start talking to volleyballs with hand prints on them. Thus, the personal space is all the social interactions with the various groups (including self in the middle). We must like and enjoy ourselves as much as we believe others like and enjoy us. I say believe, because it is more important that we believe others like and enjoy us than it being an actual fact. People can love us until the cows come home, but if we do not perceive it or believe it (usually a sign of depression), we will wither and it will affect our inner personal self. Similarly, if we believe everyone loves us when they really don't, we will happily and cheerily continue on with life without skipping a beat. Ignorance is bliss! Such people may find that their bubbles are not particularly successful, but they'll be happy despite it.

To find meaning and acceptance in the social areas, it is generally worthwhile to understand people. Understanding how people think and operate can change how we perceive ourselves in their eyes immensely. Comprehending that people are not devoting their every thought to us, and that they are likely worried about themselves, is a great way to prevent misinterpretation of their actions (or lack thereof). It also enables us to realize just how we can get in their good graces. The best way to make someone like and accept us is to make it quite open and obvious that we like and accept them. It is difficult to dislike someone who likes you unless you have some particularly bad habits. Most of us, however, are willing to overlook the habits of other people. Recognizing that we all have bad habits and the fact that we generally don't hold people in super low regard just because they have them, can help us accept our own habits and recognize that others are likely not holding them against us either. In such a way, we can flourish in acceptance of self and believe in the acceptance of others.

Another great way we can perceive acceptance from and derive meaning toward others is to be useful to them. We can do work or show creativity in ways that garner their respect or admiration. Determine what will float their boats or benefit them. Give them a hand in appropriate ways that will enable them to soar. Acknowledge their work, their deeds, their words, their creativity, and ask in which ways we might be beneficial to them. Do things with them we know they love. Focus on others and we will find meaning in their lives if we are not rejected by them. If we are rejected, we can simply realize that not everyone will like all flavors of people. We don't like all things any more than they do. So we hang out with the people who do value us and our efforts when we pursue their happiness. This is the age-old concept of how giving is better than receiving. It is the very concept that by forgetting our own lives and focusing on others, we will find our own life. If we focus only on our own lives, we never get the social aspects to flourish and we feel trapped and useless. We must be meaningful to people or we have no meaning at all.

The Righteous Mind - Book Review Day 2

Part I (continued)

ONE (continued)

Inventing Victims:
Despite moral questionaire stories being designed to lack harm to anyone, 38% of the time people tried to fabricate victims perhaps to justify their pre-existing desire to say something was immoral (like eating their pet dog--someone might get sick from it!). Sounds like cognitive dissonance. They know it does not logically seem like a moral thing but they want it to be a moral thing and don't know why. Jon argues that people knew intuitively that something like cutting up an American flag for rags is morally wrong but that they simply lack the understanding to express why. Personally, I think this is entirely cultural upbringing. Whether or not someone sees the cutting of the flag, we all know that, in our culture, we would be looked down upon with extreme disgrace for such an act and thus we assume it's "not right" to do it and thus "immoral." But this is akin to the first stage of moral reasoning mentioned previously: it's wrong because you get in trouble. I can't argue that, but it's not a moral wrong, it's an expedience wrong. It's just not a good idea because you never know if you might be found out and ostracized. Moral Reasoning appears to be a servant to Moral Emotions. David Hume said "reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." Reasoning comes after the emotional decision. This contradicts the commonly held and studied concept of the Rationalist approach to moral psychology. I'm not sure it contradicts anything, to be honest. Everyone already knows that people find different things moral and immoral and that it is hugely influenced by cultural upbringing. The rationalist approach would not argue against that. The rationalist approach seems to argue that it is innate to understand that harm is a moral issue but even that can apparently be affected by cultural norms or else it is not innate to begin with. If not innate, then all is culture. If all is culture, then... everything is truly ambiguous. I'm willing to say it is indeed all ambiguous but that doesn't mean I will call everything "good." I will still hold a moral standing of no harm and others will still hold a moral standing of respect and authority and whatnot. It's good to understand that others hold those things as moral issues, however, even if I disagree. I just can't see them as innate as of yet. It is possible that disgust and respect themselves are innate and where we attribute them is simply cultural, but I don't think the flag thing has anything to do with respect and more to do with fear of stigmatization. 

In Sum:
Recap that morals could be derived via nature or nurture but that psychology has focused on the third: rationalism--that morality is self-derived by experiences with harm. Experiences with harm lead to knowing harm is wrong and leads to concepts of fairness and justice. Jon rejects this idea and instead believes that morality varies by culture, Western cultures are much more morally narrow, people have gut-feeling morality with reasoning being post-hoc, morality cannot be self-constructed from harm but must have a lot to do with culture. If morality doesn't come from reasoning, then it must come from a combination of innateness and social learning. Self-taught is still learned and learned is still via experiences. If it's learned by experiencing harm or learned via cultural norms, it is still nurture over nature. This has all made me conclude that there is simply no innateness to our understanding of right and wrong or that it is very easily corrupted at a very early age. I would sooner guess there is no innateness whatsoever for morality except in our ability to learn from experience and put ourselves in other people's shoes. So rationalism sounds like nurture as does Jon's position. So where's the argument?


TWO: The Intuitive Dog and Its Rational Tail

Minds are often conflicted knowing what is right and choosing what is wrong. Rationalist fantasy is that passions ought to be brought under the rule of rational reasoning in opposition to Hume's quote above that reasoning comes second to emotion. I think I see why I'm struggling with this book now. I am absolutely a "rationalist" as described. Our passions should certainly be under the control of our reasoning and not vice versa. To take it to a typical extreme, Hitler post-hoc rationalized his emotional anger at the Jews. If he'd have quelled his emotional plight and used reason instead to control it, he'd have not become a genocidal murderer. We can't allow emotion to control without reason at the head. But, to be fair, we will always feel the emotion first, and from there we need to step back and allow reason to take the lead. So I agree that Hume is correct that emotion does come first, but not that we should give it the reigns once it has taken its leap. It's also quite well known in the psychological world that we can create our own emotions by taking certain actions. If I want to feel happier, I need only force myself to smile. Some emotions will come automatically such as fear which we can react to, but our reaction from reasoning can actually change our emotion from fear to calmness. Our fear leads us to reason and our reasoning leads us to change emotion. Both can be a leader and reason is the far better one except in cases of danger requiring immediate unthinking response time. 

Plato held contempt for the passions as seen in his character Timaeus stating that a man who masters his emotions will live a life of reason and justice. He sees this progression from Plato to Immanuel Kant up to Kohlberg. Jon will now call this "worshipful attitude" as the "rationalist delusion." Great. So now I have to listen to him calling me deluded in order to find his point and learn if there's any merit to what he's saying. Already disagreeing with the author, I am much less inclined to continue and learn something new if I am being insulted in the process. Alas, let us continue while I more forcefully attempt to keep an open mind. He calls it a delusion because the subscribers hold it in a sacred regard and thus lose the ability to think clearly about it. True believers create pious fantasies that don't match reality. Hume attempted to knock this idea off its pedestal. Thomas Jefferson, via a letter about a forbidden love, indicates that reason should be used for the sciences and the heart for sentiments and morals. Jon indicates this as a third way where reason doesn't always rule nor do passions but that both have their place. I'm almost down with that idea, but likely not to the extent the author is going to pursue. I don't think "the heart" is its own entity capable of determining morals. Yet at the same time, I think it's good that "the heart" can feel pity and allow us to give to those in need despite it not being logically reasoned out in our own best interests. If everything were pure logic and reasoning then we would never individually be altruistic. Of course, recognizing that, the reasoned mind would then give place to the emotions so that this does not become us. It is still more logical to ensure that everyone else is giving rather than ourselves, but how can that be done without us also giving? It is better then to set the example and allow emotion to do what is good but using our reasoning to regulate if it is truly good and to prevent emotions leading us into harm. It should still lead and direct without hindering the emotions which are good and lead to permitted pleasure without painful recourse.

Wilson's Prophecy
Darwin believed that Sympathy was the foundation of social instinct and that we are pre-wired for emotional moral concepts (i.e. nature/nativism). This got depopularized due to an idea of Social Darwinism--the idea that certain races or cultures were more "fit" given their success and that we should not help the poor and needy since it would be better to allow natural selection to keep the fittest surviving with the weakest dying. Hitler would then be seen as "fitter" with such a mentality so the nativist mentality would equate people to Hitler which is illogical but emotionally satisfying. He says in his own words that something "makes sense" emotionally that is entirely illogical of a conclusion to make. Perhaps, then, he is fine with illogical things?   Another illogical conclusion made against nativism is that if certain skills and abilities were native to male or female then gender equality will have a huge unchangeable obstacle and this might justify patriarchal hierarchy and therefore it must be wrong. This is one thing I will agree with the author. It could very well be that there are different native skills based upon gender. While I am unaware of the particular ways this could manifest and whether or not it might truly indicate that men "should" or women "should" do particular things, it should not be dismissed from a perceived moral high ground. Let the facts be what they are. But again, this is the way of the rationalist, not the emotionalist. So it sounds like he's arguing the rationalist side of things here. In "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker, he argues that moral progressivism regarding race and gender demonized scientists for evaluating things that might hinder the movement. Edward O Wilson was one such scientist who studied ants and suggested that human nature was also affected by natural selection. Wilson sides with Hume in that rationalists are really justifying their emotional aversions to things like torture in order to indicate that a universal moral right exists. Sure, I can agree with this. The reason I want to keep my 'no harm' concept of morality is in large part because of the emotional sympathy I feel for others. It is also a highly logical course, however, in that we don't want people going around torturing people since this would enable it to occur to me as well. Sympathy and self-preservation alike. But even if I were entirely guaranteed to be unaffected, I would still emotionally decide that it is morally impermissible to harm others for fun. Since I do not believe there is an innate concept of morality at all, this seems sufficiently fine to me. In which case, maybe I'm not a "rationalist" as prescribed, but I am definitely still pro rationality as the filter for emotions.

The Righteous Mind - Book Review Day 1

Below, in black, are the notes about the book in the book's own structure. Blue italics indicate my own comments.

Introduction:
Morals built our society into what it is. Jon wants us to discuss politics and religion with civility and will help us achieve that with this book.

Born to Be Righteous:
People are intrinsically moralistic, critical, and judgmental. This is good and bad. It causes strife but allows for balance.

What Lies Ahead:
    Part I: About Intuition. Moral reasoning was not evolved to find truth, but to justify our actions and defend our in-groups after events rather than before them. The mind is divided into parts with only a small portion being consciousness. Metaphors can help people to understand who are unresponsive to reasoning.

    Part II: There is more to morality than harm and fairness: liberty, loyalty, authority, sanctity. The right appeals to a broader package while the left appeals mostly to harm and fairness.

    Part III: Morality binds and blinds. We're 90% competitive, selfish hypocrites and 10% cooperative. This perspective helps with comprehending other people's political and religious ideas. Once accepting a group, people become blind to alternative moral frameworks. This would highly suggest to me that in-groups are NOT a good thing and that we should sooner see "conscious life" as the group to which we belong. In such a way, we can have a truthful understanding of morality rather than a biased one. It seems he is going to argue that groups are good though. We'll see. Although, maybe it is impossible to not put oneself in a group. If I call myself groupless and find others in groups, I've already grouped myself outside of them and feel morally superior. Hmm... Liberal is more like a libertarian in European countries while to US it is akin to "progressive." Sen-Ts'an essentially said to not be "for" or "against" if you want to know truth. This actually sounds more akin to what I was just saying: don't belong to a group. So... why does he think groups belong in a moral framework especially given that they are there as a hindrance to truth? But then he says he doesn't think we should not be moralistic and thus we should pick sides lest we fall into chaos. I think he's balancing a fine line here and the language isn't particularly clear. Perhaps he is saying we need to stop being "for" or "against" in order to see properly but then, once seeing properly, we need to advocate for what is good. Sounds like typical backwards wisdom where in order to learn we have to stop knowing things.


Part I: Intuitions Come First, Strategic Reasoning Second.

ONE: Where does Morality Come From?
The left will lean to believe that morality comes from a basic concept of no harm no foul. The right will lean to believe that morality can dictate certain things are wrong even without harm coming from it. Example of intercourse with a chicken carcass. Gross, but morally indifferent to the left and morally wrong to the right (generally speaking).

The Origin of Morality (Take 1): Nature vs Nurture or Nativist vs Empiricist is a false dichotomy. The third answer is Rationalism: people figure it out, not innate and not taught. Since we can only "figure things out" by "learning" based upon what we know which is either nature or nurture, this seems like a useless nuanced third option. It's clearly a little of both and nothing more. Some ideas are innate and others learned based upon our upbringing as it jives with what is innate. Maybe that's his point? Jon gives an example that children younger than 6 or 7 tend to not comprehend that a volume of water is conserved when pouring from one glass to another if the new glass is a different shape. They might think it is now more or less water than in the original glass based upon the height of the water in the glass. They cannot comprehend until they are older even if we try to explain it. Even if we do not explain it, their minds will eventually learn it of their own accord. The author appears to be confusing "nurture" with "learned from adults" rather than simply "learned." The child still "learned" it based upon the "nurture" of his upbringing and his innate ability to reason as his brain matures. If he grew up with no glasses and no water, he may never learn this and thus it's a matter of nurture. In the same way, there was a tribe of BaMbuti Pygmies who lived in a dense forest in the Congo. Colin Turnbull was studying them and was surprised when Kenge, one of the Pygmy natives, after reaching a rare clearing without trees and with great visual distance, asked what kind of insects the buffalo were. He had not learned depth perception given the inability to see great distances. So his nurture, his upbringing, his experiences, prevented what could have come naturally. Nurture does not simply mean "learned from adults" and he is exactly explaining Nurture rather than any third option.

Jon will use the term "rationalist" to indicate anyone who believes reasoning is the best means to acquire moral knowledge. I find it hard to believe that moral knowledge as derived through "reasoning"  (which I understand as being logic) can yield anything but a "no harm no foul" perspective. Perhaps his idea of reasoning is different. How can [useful] reasoning be done without logic though? Without logic, reasoning is pointless and will yield improper conclusions. I fear this is exactly what he means though. We make up reasons for things all the time but this will not yield moral knowledge without basing it on logic since one person's non-logical reasoning can yield a different result than another's. This clearly would indicate that one or more answer lacks actual knowledge and thus the process itself was useless. Only logical reasoning could be useful and only when axioms are correct.

Lawrence Kohlberg studied children and found that their moral judgments changed with age in seemingly 3 stages. The first stage, they understood right and wrong based on whether or not someone was punished by an adult for it. After that, they understand rules and authorities as defining morality. Finally, after puberty, they begin to reason it out themselves what is moral and may sacrifice one moral concept for a greater one.

The Liberal Consensus:
Kohlberg decided that the most moral kids were those who put themselves in other roles. He decided this was not as easily done in hierarchical structures of teachers, parents, authorities who are often a hindrance to truly putting oneself in another's shoes. Kids need to act things out and try rather than be lectured. This led to a great liberal concept that did not appreciate authority as much.

An Easier Test:
By using yes/no questions, Elliot Turiel found that children as young as 5 could distinguish between ambiguous rules of what to wear versus moral rules of harm such as pushing people off swings. A teacher can allow breaking the arbitrary rules, but not the moral rules. Jon concludes that despite some differences to Kohlberg's studies, they basically came to the same conclusion that "harm and fairness" were the basis of morality rather than loyalty, respect, duty, piety, patriotism, or tradition. They both thus conclude that authorities and hierarchies are ultimately harmful to development.

Meanwhile, In The Rest of the World:
Jon believes something is lacking in what Kohlberg and Turiel focus on: emotion. He discusses the Ilongot tribe whose men behead random other people as a means to bond with people and release pent up aggression within. He also discusses the Hua of New Guinea who have rules about not eating food that is red, wet, slimy, hairy, or came from a hole since such things resemble vaginas. They consider these rules as being moral in nature and not ambiguous. Jon compares this with religion in the west which focuses on sexual choices as moral despite lack of harm and indicates that liberals use food in a similar way to look down upon others for not using free-range, organic, fair-trade, etc. This is an unfair comparison. Some in the left consider free-range and fair-trade as moral due to the harm it causes to animals and people while others would prefer the harm not to be done but do not consider the use of such meat as immoral itself. Vegetarians and vegans often use morality of harm as a reason for not eating meat or using animal products while plenty on the left still eat meat and see it as a fact of how the world works. The rest, such as organics, GMOs, or considering "toxins" is not at all moral and the left would not claim it is moral unless it causes harm even if they still believe themselves superior in intellect for making better choices. This is not at all the same as vagina fruit or applying morals to sexual choices. Unless, of course, they are simply incorrectly drawing conclusions that harm comes from eating a watermelon. In which case, this is back to morality of harm. Once rid of the superstition that it's harmful, they should, in theory, lose the moral attachment to it and maybe, instead, keep only a religious attachment which is arguably unhealthy at worst and useless at best. Jon concludes that due to these other constructs of morality in all these other cultures, that there must be more to morality than simply rationalism. I think this conclusion is wrong. He's mistaking a respect for authority, mistaken rules against harm, and religious decrees to control people, into a base of morality that doesn't exist. No child automatically comes up with the idea that they should not eat watermelon. This is 100% influence via a culture's evolution in rules, society, and understanding.

The Great Debate
Richard Shweder indicates that older or non-enlightened cultures tend to organize around the whole of the group's needs (sociocentric) rather than the individual and that enlightenment lends to uplifting the individual as more important (individualistic) and having the group serve them rather than vice versa. Since we are more individualistic here, he thought he ought to test the Orissa where they are more sociocentric to see if results differ from Kohlberg and Turiel. He found that even 5-year-olds decided that it was morally wrong to do things that Americans would think is fine such as a woman eating rice with her husband and older brother. They would also say a husband beating their wife for disobedience was okay when Americans would not. They saw these as unchangeable moral situations and not societal rule-based things that could change in different cultures. From this, Shweder concludes that the "no harm" concept of morality is not built-in. Turiel rebutted by indicating that harm was indeed seen in these cases but they were hidden in underlying beliefs that we are unfamiliar with. For example, it was seen as morally wrong for a widow to eat fish but that's because Hindus believed fish would make her want sex and offend her dead husband and thus not reincarnate to a higher level. In other words, harm. Thus, Turiel claimed Shweder used trick questions and his conclusion was wrong.

Disgust and Disrespect
Jon agreed with Turiel that it wasn't properly controlled but also believed that Shweder might still be right if controlled properly. He performed his own experimentation and found in Brazil and even Philadelphia that the lesser educated or lower-class people followed Shweder's results in that they thought it was an unchangeable moral issue for a student not to wear a class uniform while middle-class educated people understood it as a mere social violation. The control that Jon used was asking if anyone was harmed in the particular story. The control is not particularly effective in my eyes. Asking if anyone was harmed is not the same as asking if potential harm could come from the situation. The widow eating fish, for example can be called "morally wrong" but even a Hindu would have to answer that no one was harmed in the story of a woman eating a fish. The problem is the potential to harm, not the harm itself. This does not mean that Shweder and Jon are wrong, but that it is still not properly controlled. The assertion that people can find things immoral beyond simple concepts of harm seems obvious, however. We already know this. As any person who finds homosexuality wrong and ask who is harmed by it and they will say it's wrong despite a lack of harm. Is the goal merely to indicate that harm is not the baseline of the human brain for determining morality? I'm not really sure how much that even matters. Even if it's not built-in that doesn't mean it's not a great method of determining what is moral and what is not. So what's the point in all this? Given the results, I don't see the ability to simply add anything as a moral base since there either isn't one or it's entirely fluctuating as early as 5 years old based upon culture. So either it's not innate or we can't determine it. That, or different things are innate to different groups based upon genes, but it seemed to be poverty-related and not genetic. Thus, I conclude there is evidence that we have no built-in mechanisms of morality and thus we determine it on our own and thus "no harm" is a good one to stick with. Jon concludes with saying Shweder argued that disgust and respect were learned moral characteristics but that Jon later learns and argues that disgust and respect are innate. He ends with a story about a son asking his father what would happen if people were to poop in random places and trying to remove the offended party with each subsequent question. Since the variable in comprehending an ambiguous rule of respect vs a moral rule of harm was poverty, I don't see how he can think it is innate. I guess we'll see as he continues.

Not My Problem

More excerpts from the book whose direction has changed.

Not My Problem

I used to take up the entire world as my problem. Human rights were mine to defend. The very culture of the world was mine to cultivate. The minds of fools were mine to correct. I took it upon myself to explain things and participate in things whenever I had the chance if I thought my own two cents were correct and valuable. I especially took pride in the calmness and rationality with which I presented it all. Despite this, it continually stressed me and often brought me into depression.

            People were extremely immature and incapable of reason. It burdened me all the more finding that my well-thought-out responses had little to no effect. In fact, they likely had the opposite effect. Psychology has demonstrated time and again that when you argue with people, they tend to get even more attached to their false beliefs. Stupid people. So what could I do? Well, nothing. It was never my problem to begin with.

Now don’t get me wrong, it is definitely a great thing that people take up the charge to fight for what is right and I highly commend it--especially if they organize. But I wasn’t organizing; I was doing it out of habit, I was making things worse, and I simply felt obligated to fix it because I knew better and thus had a moral responsibility. Being prone to depression and anxiety triggered by the rejection of others, however, the last thing I needed on my plate was a platform for ridicule. Wrong place, wrong time, wrong method, wrong state of personal growth.

This often extended to my professional life as well. If people wanted to do things in an illogical way or had incorrect assumptions and beliefs, I would quite often take the charge to correct it. It especially infuriated me when leadership made decisions that were clearly ridiculous and useless and would make things worse. Someone needed to stand up and make sure the whole company didn’t spiral into a flaming pile of manure.

Well, it turns out, it is far better to focus only on the problems which are actually mine to solve. It’s not my place to correct the leadership and if they want to do things in inefficient ways, so be it; they will eventually figure it out. Or not. But until it is my role to make such decisions, it is best to let such things go uncontested if they are not of a safety or legal concern that might harm innocent people. Trying to make these things my problem only ever served to fuel my feelings of inadequacy and invite ridicule or hate--definitely not things I needed while I remained vulnerable.

As I am now feeling much more capable and stronger than before, I am a bit more willing to put myself out there. Even writing this book is focusing on the problems of others which has the potential to sway me into feelings that would previously lead to depression. It is really easy to think that my words are not eloquent enough and that I am a fool to think my words can help anyone.

My response to self? Well, who really cares if this helps anyone? Sure, the purpose in writing is to help people, but it’s not my responsibility and I’m doing it out of sheer interest in the topic and a mere hope that it could be of benefit. If not, it’s not a big deal. Did I waste my time? Sure, maybe, but I can probably learn from it in the process and it’s nice to get my thoughts on paper. So it’s not a complete waste, but even if it were, what would it matter? People waste their time all the time. It’s not the end of the world if my effort did nothing.

I do not need to be great, known, or useful. It would be awesome if I was, but it’s mostly outside my control. I do not get to choose if the world enthralls itself with me, my ideas, my skills, or creations. So I will simply do what I love and let the dice fall where they may. And if, at any time while I write this, I feel the sting of shame or incompetence, I will simply hang it up for a while and judge it again at a later time. I am allowed to feel that way, and I am not forced to complete this. And when the feeling subsides, I can determine if it was a mere glitch in my hardware or if indeed this is turning into a turd-pile unworthy of anyone’s attention. The only thing that is mine to fix is my own mind--not the world.

It is most often right to let others be wrong.

You're Not Special and Nobody Cares

More Chapters from the book whose direction has changed enough that I will not use what I've written here but still find value in having written it :-).

Nobody Cares

I once found it quite easy to believe that nobody cared about me. At the very least, they did not care about me as much as I believed they ought to or in the ways I believed they should. If my wife truly cared about me, she would wake up in the morning with me. If my kids truly loved me, they would be more ecstatic to play games with me. If my coworkers thought highly of me, they would have given my efforts more discussion in that meeting. If my friends were really my friends, I’d be getting far more than a mere  post on my Facebook feed wishing me happy birthday. And if my mom and sister truly loved me, they’d have read this draft and responded with their magnificent praises within hours of sharing it with them.

            It was really easy to see all the ways that other people “should” be doing things to prove their love for me. In the end, however, just how much of their lives did I expect they’re supposed to devote to me rather than to themselves? And how much perfection did I expect they should have in doing it? And how much mind-reading of what the proper response is in all situations did I expect they ought to possess to appease me?

By focusing on what other people should be doing, I was focusing on something that was entirely outside my control. I’ve since learned that things outside my control are often not worth thinking about. In the end, people will never care about me as much as I care about me. In the same way, each of these people could complain about all the ways that I don’t show them love in the way they want from me.

Rather than holding others accountable for failing me and then seeing myself as a failure for doing the exact same things, I found it far more productive to realize that we all have our own lives and we all have enough crap to deal with such that I should not be giving any thought to how much people cared about me. This is by no means a call to ignore people, but rather to let them off the hook. That person who did not respond to my text yet is likely not “ignoring me” or “mad at me” or any such nonsense--they simply have a life they are living and I am not their absolute top tier #1 priority. And if I am honest, the feeling is entirely mutual.

People may not care that much about me but they have no reason to--life is not about me for them. Their life is about them just like my life is about me. Releasing them helped release me from indignation at others and feelings of being small, unworthy, or a failure--all things that I later learned led me into depression the moment I got a whiff of such adjectives in the air. So now, even though someone may not respond to me in the way I might expect, I have learned to stop interpreting it in a negative way and simply assume the best.

There is peace in not caring if everyone else is doing as you think they ought.

I’m Not Special

Imagine a 5-gallon bucket filled with sand to about 2.5 inches from the top. Each grain of sand represents a person on this planet. Contemplate just how many grains are in that bucket. You are and I are just two of those grains. How many grains do you suppose are in a mere handful of that gigantic bucket of people?

Now, imagine 12 entirely full buckets of sand. That is how many people have ever lived. Of all those grains of sand, how important was any one of them in the grand scheme of things? For any one grain of sand who may have seemed to be important, it is quite often understood that there was yet another waiting in the shadows doing the same exact things at the same time or shortly thereafter. If Einstein did not get worldwide fame and recognition for his progress in theoretical physics, someone else would have. The world would not have ceased to progress.

            In the end, I realized that whether I win or lose, succeed or fail, it hardly mattered at all. At first, this kind of disappointed me, but that’s because it was one of my depression triggers. I longed to be somebody. I wanted to be special. I wanted the world to hold me in high regard and once and for all know that I am truly worth something. Finally concluding that worldwide fame was out of reach really got me down. My happiness was dependent on becoming famous and renowned throughout the world? Well holy crap, no wonder I was depressed! This desire was entirely unhealthy and stemmed from other incorrect feelings about myself and life. I did not really need world recognition. Instead, I needed a proper outlook where my value did not rely on the unreliable actions of others.

            I discovered that I felt neglected, rejected, dejected, and alone to which I incorrectly believed worldwide fame would resolve. These feelings most likely originated from my childhood and continued throughout my adulthood as I noted how nobody cared about me as much as I did. My feelings of neglect led to feelings that other people were jerks which further led to requiring the fame of the world to release me from my hatred of self.

Of course, if you ask any famous person, they often don’t feel too very different from us. For many of them, there are still plenty of reasons that their fame does not truly prove their worth. They believe that what they’ve accomplished is not all that difficult or grandiose, but if they get that one oscar, or achieve that one title, maybe that will do it. Until they get it, of course, and then need the next hit of achievement. There is always a reason to believe that successes were not that great of an accomplishment and any idiot could have done it. In many ways, the famous are just like us: human.

            Recognizing that all the special people in the world were mostly just a product of luck significantly helped my outlook in life. Right place, right time, right parents, right education, right genes, right interests, etc. All things outside my control and thus not at all my fault. No one is requiring that I be great, and if they did require it, it would not be worth appeasing such jerks. I do not need to be great any more than any other person in the 12 buckets-worth of humanity. I am one grain of sand among many. If greatness bestows itself upon me, then I am one of the lucky ones. If not, then there is no council of perfect elitists to reprimand me for my extreme incompetence which led me to be like 99.9999% of the rest of the population.

To be fine with being a nobody, I released so many burdens and expectations from myself that I could actually focus on what I truly liked and wanted out of life. I could please me instead of everyone else. In fact, I hardly even knew what I liked since I had tried so hard to be somebody, anybody, so long as that somebody was valuable.

In all reality, people become great by focusing on what interests them. They do not become great by determining what actions will bring them fame and pursuing those. If I pursued greatness in a thing I did not love, I would never become great and likely I would become quite the opposite.

If my interests are not things which bring me greatness, then what concern is that of mine? I did not choose what interests me any more than I chose how many follicles of hair I would retain or what foods I would find enjoyable. I simply enjoy what I enjoy based on whatever combination of genes and life circumstances brought me there. And that is entirely okay. Seeking what I do not enjoy is a quick way to be unhappy. And seeking to be loved or valued is not an interest, but a brain malfunction.

I need not the greatness itself, but rather to fulfill my own true interests whatever they may be. In such a way, I become the greatest me that ever existed rather than the greatest human to ever do that one thing I did just to be that person who did that thing so that I can feel valued and appreciated as that guy who did it.

If my greatest interest is nothing more than viewing the ripples of water as things fall therein, then by golly I can focus on that and be that one guy who really liked water ripples. And no doubt, I will learn new and amazing things that one can do with water. Even if no one else cared, it clearly mattered to the most important and special person in my life: me.

If you think you are special, it may only apply to your needs.

Specially Unspecial

Much of my anxiety and depression came from a misunderstanding of what it meant to be human. Sure, I knew humans were only human and they make lots of mistakes, but certainly they were nothing as bad as me. I somehow thought I was especially poor at being a human, but this goes right back to the previous chapter: I’m not special. Not even at being unspecial am I special. I am not especially awesome and I am not especially terrible. On average, for most everything about me, I am average.

Anything wrong I have ever done has been done by most everyone in the world. The biggest difference was that I cared all too much about it. I made my mistakes a quality of who I am and then judged myself a bad person. The fact is, most things are not black and white. Nothing is ever always wrong. And when it is wrong, there could be so many underlying factors that led to that decision that most humans would likely have done the same thing in similar circumstances.

Now, none of this is to say that we should not improve. Obviously, we would be better off with our improvement. But the thing is, we are allowed to fail at things and we are allowed to work on small portions at a time. We do not need to fix all of our problems at the snap of a finger. We can determine which ones are acceptable for now while we work on others and be fine with slow progress. After all, we all started out with zero moral capability. All morality is learned and no one is expected to have achieved perfection just yet. So we can go easier on ourselves.

Morality is mostly for our own benefit anyway. Good morals lead to a better life. Bad morals lead to a worse one. So if our morals are found wanting, it is not cause for eternal judgement upon our character or deeming us evil beings. We can merely confess that such behaviors are not what is best for our lives, but we can still progress at a rate that works for us.

The fact that we care if we are terrible is evidence enough that we are not terrible. We are simply underskilled at the qualities we desire. There is no shame in that. Recognizing it is a great start, but dwelling on it is a terrible end. Beating yourself up is a quick way to to being beaten up.

For the longest time, I basically believed that I had to be perfect. I could tell you this was not the case from a matter of factual knowledge, but it is not how I internally viewed the world. If my boss ever said one bad thing about me, I immediately took it to mean I needed a new job. I could not bear to think that my boss now thought me scum because he believed I did something wrong. I incorrectly concluded that a single mistake defined me entirely which is just ridiculous. It helped immensely to know that I can fail without being labeled a terrible person by me or others.

As bad as this may sound, one thing that really helped me was to acknowledge the faults of others and smile internally with understanding rather than judgement. Seeing someone else struggle or fail and knowing that I did not hate them helped me to realize that everyone can see me fail and not hate me for it either. We can see each other’s failures and not hate each other. What an amazing concept! Now when I see people fail, I am filled with joy that I am not the only one who fails on this planet.

Do not mistake failure to do for failure to be.

They’re Not Special Either

In case it was not clear enough in the previous two chapters, I want to stress that the average person is average. Even of those people who are above average at one thing, they are still average at most things. It is really easy to think someone else has it all together. They don’t. You know they don’t because no one does. It looks like it, but that’s only because you don’t know all the intimate details of their lives. Trust me, they’re not perfect and their lives also have stress and turmoil. Everyone does. How we deal with it, how we express it, and whether or not we make it worse for ourselves is the only real difference.

Unless you regularly express your life’s woes to people, they probably wonder how you keep it all together when they cannot. They do not know your intimate details or the working of your mind. They don’t know if you are racing around trying to make sense of the world or fighting off depression. They are too focused on themselves and their own racing minds to even care. Their lack of knowledge of your brain functionality will often lead them to the same conclusions about you that you conclude of them. The lives of others often appear easier when you do not know the details.

Lack of knowledge is no knowledge of lack.

Why We Shouldn't Try For Third-Party (Yet)

There is a very good reason that we essentially have a 2-party system: because our voting system sucks. When we must choose one or another without stating a list of our preferences, we end up spreading out our votes. Let's make an extreme and ludicrous example to understand. Let's say we have parties A, B, and C. Party A wants to enslave children and parties B and C do not. Those two parties differ in that they prefer orange or blue carpet in the town hall. If 60% of the people don't want to enslave children but half of them want orange and half want blue carpet, then the children-enslaving party A will get 40% of the votes while parties B and C get 30% a piece. Now the stupid non-majority party wins because those who cared about children were quibbling over something less useful.

In short, we cannot simply vote for "the one person" who "best" fits our desires. We must instead vote for the one person who is most likely to be voted for by most other people who share the most important opinions. I would certainly have given up the orange carpet just to save the children, but because I voted for the "best" candidate, we now have child slaves. And so, the two-party system is born. We have to band together to prevent the worst outcome from winning on the big issues. So even though the third-parties might very well encompass the best of our individual desires, it runs a huge risk if they are more or less similar while those you really disagree with don't have much to choose from. More options is bad in our current system of voting.

Now, yes, sometimes third parties win the small positions in local government. It still comes with the risk though and it still weakens the position for the 2-party system in the bigger and more important things like our president. Instead of entertaining third-parties, we first need to fix our voting system. We need "Instant Runoff" or "Single Transferable" voting in order for third-parties to be useful. We could always vote for the people who best fit our desires in this case. For now, however, we must band together to get the most important things done first. We should not be weakening our positions on our big topics by splitting on the small topics.

https://www.fairvote.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

How I Will Vote in 2018 and Why

At least two of the three proposals are extremely important to vote on this year. I will explain why the third is also deemed important, but generally to those who are not me. This is how I intend to vote and why. Please consider and be sure to vote!

Proposal 18-1

This is to legalize marijuana for recreational use, possession, and commercializing. On the surface, "legalizing drugs" can sound like a bad thing. And for many of us, it was forced into our head how terrible and deadly it is. We may or may not need to agree on that point. Just because marijuana is "bad" does not mean it should be illegal. Alcohol is also "bad" but history shows how devastating it was when it was illegal. Alcohol can cause social harm, but it was far more harmful to make it illegal. The same is true with marijuana. Many lives are ruined due to the substance being illegal. I agree that it is a choice and lives do not need to be ruined because of it, but just like with alcohol, it is a social ill to make people's personal decisions for them. Marijuana is actually less destructive than both alcohol and tobacco. It might even take away some of the social ills of those drugs. The only reason marijuana was even illegalized to begin with was in order to pick on certain groups of people. Now, even if one does not agree or believe in any of that, there is an additional benefit. You may not care about the use or the ills of those who use it and whose lives are ruined by it, but this will generate more income for things you do care about while also not making anything worse for you. The tax will be dedicated to certain things such as schools and roads. We all know we can use better roads and education! And even if you don't want roads and education for some reason, this opens the opportunity to use other funds in other ways or to reappropriate it later. It is more money to do more social good with. I will certainly be voting YES on this proposal.

Proposal 18-2

This proposal is to adopt a special committee to determine district boundaries. For many people, this might sound a bit of a "who cares" kind of thing. Allow me to explain why it matters. The overall vote of a state is determined by the winning votes of the districts. So, if you can draw the lines so that you put every single person of one mindset in one district and then make 20 other districts made up of people from your particular opinions, you can control the state's vote such that it's 1 to 20 in your favor. Of course, if those who currently draw the lines are not those in your own favor, then your enemy has control over your vote. Your vote is extremely weakened by the method of drawing the lines. Given that it can take away the majority position on a topic, there is a very good chance that you belong to that majority and will have your vote stripped. The only time this is beneficial is when you are part of a minority of people AND you have the power to draw the lines. But even that can change like the wind. You might change your mind on some topics, not agree on all the topics of that group, or those in power might start wanting new things that you don't want. This should help restore fairness in the voting by making the districts more fairly drawn with more equal representation. I will definitely be voting YES for this proposal.

Proposal 18-3

This proposal makes registration for voting more automatic and provides easier access to absentee voting. This does not affect me nearly as much as the other two, but it does affect other people. While it is not something that affects me directly, a vote for no is simply a vote to make things harder on other people. So... why vote no unless you are trying to suppress voters? If you're trying to suppress voters, then that's called cheating. If you're trying to cheat, then should you really be one who is trying to create laws for our country? Let's leave our nation as a democracy and allow people their votes. That's the real American way. We can use our freedoms to speak openly every day of our lives (unless someone changes that by nullifying the democracy). So if you want to be heard, do it all year-round. Voter suppression is not the right way. So, even though this does not affect me directly (though perhaps indirectly), it is morally right to allow easier access to voting. In the end, it will likely benefit the majority of people since the majority of people this affects are those who are likely more financially equivalent to yourself. Few rich people worry about this and we need to ensure the non-rich (most of us) have a say as well so we can all get what we need. This is a YES for me.

To understand how to vote for the people (not just the proposition), please look at my other post: Why We Shouldn't Try for Third Party (Yet).

18-1 A proposed initiated law to authorize and legalize possession, use and cultivation of marijuana products by individuals who are at least 21 years of age and older, and commercial sales of marijuana through state-licensed retailers This proposal would: ·      Allow individuals 21 and older to purchase, possess and use marijuana and marijuana-infused edibles, and grow up to 12 marijuana plants for personal consumption. ·      Impose a 10-ounce limit for marijuana kept at residences and require amounts over 2.5 ounces be secured in locked containers. ·      Create a state licensing system for marijuana businesses and allow municipalities to ban or restrict them. ·      Permit retail sales of marijuana and edibles subject to a 10% tax, dedicated to implementation costs, clinical trials, schools, roads, and municipalities where marijuana businesses are located. ·      Change several current violations from crimes to civil infractions. Should this proposal be adopted? 18-2 A proposed constitutional amendment to establish a commission of citizens with exclusive authority to adopt district boundaries for the Michigan Senate, Michigan House of Representatives and U.S. Congress, every 10 years This proposed constitutional amendment would: ·      Create a commission of 13 registered voters randomly selected by the Secretary of State:     - 4 each who self-identify as affiliated with the 2 major political parties; and     - 5 who self-identify as unaffiliated with major political parties ·      Prohibit partisan officeholders and candidates, their employees, certain relatives, and lobbyists from serving as commissioners ·      Establish new redistricting criteria including geographically compact and contiguous districts of equal population, reflecting Michigan's diverse population and communities of interest. Districts shall not provide disproportionate advantage to political parties or candidates. ·      Require an appropriation of funds for commission operations and commissioner compensation. Should this proposal be adopted? 18-3 A proposal to authorize automatic and Election Day voter registration, no-reason absentee voting, and straight ticket voting; and add current legal requirements for military and overseas voting and post-election audits to the Michigan Constitution This proposed constitutional amendment would allow a United States citizen who is qualified to vote in Michigan to: ·      Become automatically registered to vote when applying for, updating or renewing a driver's license or state-issued personal identification card, unless the person declines. ·      Simultaneously register to vote with proof of residency and obtain a ballot during the 2-week period prior to an election, up to and including Election Day. ·      Obtain an absent voter ballot without providing a reason. ·      Cast a straight-ticket vote for all candidates of a particular political party when voting in a partisan general election. Should this proposal be adopted?

The Mental Core

[draft chapter for a book whose direction has changed]

The Mental Core

Brains are crazy--some more than others. The craziness of my own brain led to many struggles in life. I have since learned how to correct some of the more hindering aspects of my brain and I would now like to share those experiences and lessons learned. I have plenty more to learn, of course, but if I waited until I was complete, I would never start to write!

What I am about to share in this first book is the foundation of mental stability. It is the starting point and the most important aspect to keeping our wits about us. If this cannot be mastered, the rest hardly matters. We must live with ourselves wherever we go, and this book is meant to help us do just that. To do this, we must first understand the brain… just a little.

Imagine a simple 9-piece jigsaw puzzle for toddlers with the giant face of a cute little kitten in a 3 by 3 grid of pieces. The top corner pieces each have an ear, the center piece has a nose, attached at either side of the nose are pieces with whiskers, and so on. Instead of physically pushing these pieces together to make the kitten, however, I want you to imagine leaving all nine pieces in random places on the table as if you just dumped them out from a box. Leave them exactly as they lie, but for each pair of pieces that are meant to fit together, imagine that we instead attach the ends of a piece of string to them so that they are connected to each other via string but do not physically touch. All the pieces simply lie on the table in disarray with multiple connections of string.

How does the result look? A bit of a mess, of course, but if you pick out one piece, you can know what it connects to by following the strings attached to it. If you follow the string from a whisker piece, you will find it connects to a nose piece even if it is not clear at a glance. All the necessary information about the puzzle is there, but there’s no simple picture. You cannot see the overall beauty of the kitten even though you know exactly what connects to where unless you rearrange the pieces and fit them together.

A brain works in much the same fashion as a puzzle but it has far more pieces and far more complex connections. We get various points of data in our lives in no particular order and things get connected as they come in to make a massive jumble of ideas and thoughts. All that data and all those connections can sometimes lack a cohesive picture or overarching idea without some good ol’ house cleaning and rearranging. It’s a mess of facts without actually comprehending them. It’s knowing that whiskers connect to noses but not knowing that a particular arrangement of whiskers, nose, eyes, and ears makes a kitten.

To make matters worse, many of the connections in our brains truly should not even be connected. The only reason such connections were made is due to other poor connections that didn’t belong which were also due to other poor connections and so on. This either prevents seeing a bigger picture or perhaps creates a picture of a kitten that walks on its ears and uses whiskers to taste for yellow. When you check your logic by tracing the strings, you see the ears connected to the legs and the feet connected to the head and you prove your overall concept right. But the ears never belonged in the legs to begin with. They are not true facts and should not have string connecting them.

Getting to a more practical example, when we were young, we may have stolen cookies from the cookie jar. For this, some parents might have scolded, spanked, yelled, or even ignored the incident. Whatever the outcome, we have a few data points in our brains: sugar, stealing, cookies, happiness, etc which get connected with each other along with reactionary data points like parents, mean, unhappy, bad, unloved, hated, ignored, or even success and reward. It’s a bit of a conundrum when our brain connects happy with unhappy, but it is also bad if we connect stealing with success. If such things happen too many times in various ways, this could very well be cause for a desire to be unhappy, being unhappy with pleasure, or stealing for the thrill of it. This is, of course, an extreme over-simplification. Nobody gets screwed up over a single incident of stealing cookies.

When a brain gets too many incorrect connections, it gets lost in the jumble and it cannot make sense of what is happening around it. Getting lost often elicits emotional responses of fear, anxiety, anger, or depression to name a few. While there are certainly medications, drugs, foods, and even infections that can remove such feelings, the true solution to the problem lies in identifying poor connections, reorganizing the data in the mind, and reconnecting things properly. We must get the whiskers out of our mouths and stop stepping on our ears.

But how does one go about untangling the mind when the mind is tangled? It is no easy feat, to be sure, but for most people who are capable enough to read this book, there is a good chance the brain retains enough sanity to detangle itself if one so desires. If there is one thing to learn from this book, the most paramount take-away lesson to be had, it is that we must seek to understand the world around us for the way things truly are and not simply the way we perceive them to be. Without such a desire, we get stuck repeating and eating the same trash day in and day out.

Such a pursuit is what I call a pursuit of wisdom, although the word is perhaps far too misunderstood or cliche in today’s culture. I now believe--and have experienced--that wisdom is indeed the key to untangling the mind and finding composure where before all manner of daemons ran amuck. Wisdom is what will help us overcome our own crazy minds and further help us to achieve greater goals and enable greater understanding.

Wisdom is often confused with intelligence, knowledge, or success, but I dare say it is only related and may not even need the others. Wisdom is seeing the kitten while knowledge is having the strings connected to the right places. One’s intelligence is perhaps the ability to find and attach pieces with little help, but even one of little intelligence or knowledge can still be taught what others have derived and thus see the kitten. The difficulty there, of course, is knowing who to trust.

With little emphasis or understanding surrounding wisdom today, it is no surprise to me that so many people, like I had, struggle with their mental faculties. The starting point of wisdom is recognizing the bigger picture that wisdom plays in our lives and deciding it is worth pursuing even if relying on the intellect and knowledge of others to do so.

I had personally struggled with depression and a form of anxiety for about 16 years. As of now, while I begin to write this book, I have gone one full year without either. I believe my previous record for sanity topped-out at three months while the depths of my despair could last anywhere from a day to months at a time with little respite. I struggled to enjoy anything in life and I quite often turned my frustration at my plight into rage against others. I was by no means a pleasant person to be around except, perhaps, at work where I would use every ounce of my being to pretend life was fine and that I did not go home to wallow in my failures.

I had a few different diagnoses of my potential problems such as depression, obsessive compulsion, post-traumatic stress, sleep apnea, and attention deficit. I also suffer from tic disorders to make matters worse. I tried many drugs for each of these to which most seemed to do something at first but quickly made things worse within a couple weeks. Some drugs turned me into a flaming ball of rage, while others made me jump at the tiniest of sounds like a mouse in a den of cats. Nothing worked for me and I quite often believed there was no hope for a normal life.

In short, everything began to change as I learned to dig out the truths of life and the nature of humanity and myself. In other words: as I gained more wisdom. Removing depression did not occur in the snap of a finger but gradually over a few years time with persistent progress and occasional relapse. There is no single source and no single solution to resolve one’s racing mind of conflict or depressive worldview. There will be many things needing changed over time, and even now I still have plenty of other things to make progress in. Patience is still a huge one for me, but at least I am no longer depressed about it.

I now strongly believe that most mental illnesses which are not due to injury, birth, or age, are merely a series of improper connections and understandings about life that simply need rearranged. The more we can find and correct inconsistencies between thought and reality, the more we can attain sanity, peace of mind, and success in what we do. The first goal is to quiet our own minds. With a jumbled mind, we can hardly accomplish anything greater and we will likely sabotage what we do succeed in. The core of Mental Arts is learning how to deal with ourselves.

To discover my own improper connections, I found it quite helpful to stop and analyze what just happened whenever depression reared its ugly head. The very moment I felt a twinge of “I give up and want to die now,” I would ask myself what just happened that led to this feeling. I quickly found many patterns. I simply paid very close attention to my feelings and discovered what things would trigger me: rejection, inferiority, purposelessness, and failure to name a few. Once knowing those triggers and learning the truth regarding them, I could obtain a strong defense against their poisonous barbs.

So now, I share my learned wisdom for two main reasons. First, I hope that it benefits others like me who may have lost hope. I want others to know that there is not only a means of staving off the monsters in their mind, but to eradicate them for good. Some people will relate with my own misunderstandings about life and the lessons I’ve learned, while others will need to determine their own. Every person is unique, but hopefully my experience can help bring at least a little more composure to the many out there who struggle for sanity.

Second, I want to provide thoughtful and wise instruction which can be beneficial to all people no matter their current state of sanity. While one may not be depressed or anxious, it is quite possible they have yet to reach perfection. If you are not yet perfect, then this book will likely help move in a positive direction toward that goal post.

As I relay the things I now take for truth, understand that merely knowing them does not solve anything and living them is much harder said than done. There may not be an appropriate order of lessons learned and it will likely take time and a combination of many truths to help succeed in whatever your mental goal may be.

The greatest source of help in one’s search for wisdom and clarity is to know that failures are expected and are a simple part of the process. It means nothing about who or what you are. It does not define you. Just keep on learning and keep on trying as that is what truly defines you. If you are improving, you are doing it right. If you are not improving, you are finding the ways that do not work which you can now avoid and seek new ways. If it is working so well that you have reached the end and have cleared your mind of all incorrect thinking, I dare say your mind is now empty entirely.

You may wish to read this book quickly for an overall idea of insights but then revisit each idea individually to ponder, reflect, and practice over time. No doubt you will learn, understand, or remember new things each time you visit. Good luck!

Seek after wisdom and what you will find is your life.