The Limitation of Identity

                                    The Limitations of Identity

            In a culture that claims to have shed notions of caste and fate, every individual bares the burden of exceptionalism. In a country of idols and virtual celebrities, the realm of greatness no longer belongs to seasoned masters and virtuosos. Greatness is the unique and bold. 

This mundane exceptionalism is perhaps a heavier burden than fate, because if being yourself, truly and fully, defines greatness, what does that say to us who are not yet great? Are we in some way not truly ourselves? Or is our “self” somehow inferior?

            The only bearable answer is to blame the arena. We do not shine because we were not given the chance. We do not stand out because this is not our stage. And here we find the purpose of identity. 

Identities broadcast desired arenas of interaction. Situations, topics, locations that we want to go because they are safe places we feel confident, sure, and bold. We establish identities to establish these arenas. And in that work, conversation and interaction become war.

            When a person wishes to establish an arena of intellect, they assault people with a war chest of facts, quotes, beliefs, and authors. They turn every sentence into a debate of definitions or of higher values or of truth; forcing the conversation on people.

            For the arena of wit, it is sarcasm, allusion, and blunt truth. For the arena of prestige it is accomplish, status, and association. For every arena there is a jargon, a history, a source of action, a locus of meaning that the individual needs to dominate the interaction. 

            The fight to establish the arena of an interaction chains people. Instead of listening and reacting. Instead of taking chances with new thoughts— or just thinking less—with awkward clumsy actions, people chain themselves to safe established routine. They tell the same stories and maxims. While the books they read have different covers and words they trudge the same path. While they may meet different people they remain in the same orbit. That orbit could be one of conformity or rebellion. The rebel who only knows rebels is no different from the conformist who only knows conformists. The artist who only knows artist is just as banal as any consumer cutout.

             We believe these identities set us apart. We believe by knowing how to state exactly who we are and what we believe we are “free” and “enlightened” but we are not. The free and the enlightened do not allow the things they are limit the possibility of what they might become. If everywhere you go, with everyone you meet you talk about the same things, in the same way. You play the same games, and live in the same arena, you are trapped. You are trapped by the idea that you must have an identity; that you cannot be plural; that you cannot be everything. You are trapped by the safety of a world that makes you feel powerful. 

      Lose the table of contents. Stop trying to secure the role of "smart one", "sensitive one", "strong one", "stoic one", etc. 

 Joy in life comes not from dominating one role, but from the freedom of being able to change roles. People are smart, sensitive, strong, stoic, chimeras. Relinquish the role you fight so hard for.  Take on new roles. 

           

           

A Petition to GodSlayers

                                                A Petition to God Slayers

            This is a petition to all the God Slayers out there. I will not ask you to stop slaying the Gods who live in the homes of your relatives, peers, or neighbors. I only ask that you think about why they exist.

            Like you, I am free from the tyranny of Gods. My fate is something I control. I am grateful for this freedom. I imagine you are too. I don’t think you are the warmongers the media make you out to be. You do not slay Gods for sport. You slay Gods because Gods are delusions. They do not exist. They are excuses for events and phenomenon that have real causes.  You believe the idea of God and magic robs the individual of agency over his or her own fate. Gods are tyrants of fate. You want people to be free. After all, if “Sam” didn’t explain everything with that one silly delusion, she might be able to see the actual causes. She might be able to change her fate.

            The rejection of God and other forms of magic is agency, control, and autonomy. It’s freedom. The question I raise, is what allows us to take this freedom.

            I think the common assumption is that our freedom from God is taken through knowledge. That through rationality and empirical evidence we can coolly assess that God do not exist. The belief in God(s) is then seen as stemming from ignorance. In our information driven society knowledge equates to (some) social mobility and power. From this perspective, belief in God (sustained ignorance) limits individual growth, progress, and is detrimental.

 I want to suggest an alternative theory.   

            The problem I see with tying a belief in God to a state of ignorance is that it ignores function of supernatural explanation in human life. Supernatural explanations serve to provide psychological relief in the face of uncertainty. For example, prehistoric humans see lighting; it is terrifying, random, and completely unknown. So they create a God/supernatural force to explain it.

Now this is where you kick in and say, “but we can actually explain it.” Yes—in that case—but what other sources of uncertainty in human life? What about Death. Gods provide psychological relief for the phenomenon of death and its uncertainty. You are able to cut ties with Gods and other forms of supernatural explanation, not because of a higher level of knowledge, but because of a higher level of affluence. You do not actively grapple the uncertainty of death, thus you have no immediate need of Gods or other supernatural explanations for protection.

            If you are reading this, the assumption I am making is that you: live in an affluent country, have a high degree of education, nutrition, and economic opportunity. If all these things, or even some of them, are true, then Death is not immediacy in your life.  You don’t worry about your death or the death of your loved ones on a daily basis. Life divorced from death is pretty much a novelty of the 20^th century. A novelty afforded to those with significant privilege.  I expect to live into my 80s, if not much farther. I do not worry about dying tomorrow, or in the next five years. I imagine you don’t either. Our lives lack the all encompassing uncertainty that demands supernatural explanation.

            Now try to imagine the type of people who need Gods. Their lives have limited agency. They are old, seeing death potentially looming over the next decade of their lives, or young and lacking the education or material resources to see socio-economic progression as possible. There are people who must eat fast food daily. There are people who must work jobs of hard labor for decades.  People whose life expectancies will reflect these limited opportunities. If a person grows up in an environment where friends, children, and community members dying is a common occurrence, where living to 50 is impressive, Death is a constant reality, a reality they must in someway grapple with. 

            My petition to God Slayers is not to embrace God, but to understand why other people do.

            It is not that they are waiting to be pulled from ignorance. God and supernatural explanation are necessary given the circumstance of their life. You might find someday, when you are old and dying, or if your community suffers the unexpected residency of death that you too demand an explanation. God gives some control to people whose lives afford them little other options for control. It is unfair to ask people to abandon this explanation when you have no alternative to give them.

            The rational/empirical explanation is not an alternative, because it does not provide comfort. What it provides is a potential for transformation. For some people that is comforting, but it can also be a tremendous burden trying to actualize that potential. One more thing to fail at. Also, we must accept that some situations are beyond immediate transformation.  In such situations, it's cruel to tell people their suffering is due to their own ignorance/inefficiency, because ending that suffering is a historical rather than personal endeavor.

                        

          What is the harm in believing in Gods? I agree that Gods and other supernatural forces are delusions, fictions of various cultures. But fiction isn't irrevocably harmful. We tend to conflate “Truth” and “Goodness” but the two are separate entities. Having the truth doesn't mean you will not do harm. It does not make you good. There are plenty of people who posses correct explanations and use them for immense harm; there are plenty who live in fiction and are tender, loving, agents.

            If your parents, children, friends, believe in God or other supernatural explanations. Why is it so bad? In most cases these explanations are not actively harming people. They provide the comforts of nostalgia and routine to the chaos of life. The cases where they are harmful are extremes that should not be used as representations of the whole. If you really think your friend’s belief is hurting them, I guess that is a different matter, but I would be careful about making such a judgment. It is impossible to know the screws and bolts that hold another person together. I know for a fact that without a great deal of fictions I consume on a regular basis I would find it hard to motivate my life. God may be a delusion, but not all delusions are bad. Before you brandish your sword, use that gift of rationality  to weigh the actual costs and benefits.

            Lastly, I would encourage you to reflect about why you are a God Slayer. I used to be God Slayer. The reason I attack Gods was not to help people, it was for an ego boost. It made me feel secure about myself and powerful to think I could slay Gods. I am not saying this is your motivation, but I would ask you to think about it. The hardest thing to do is to sheath a sword. We gain wondrous weapons, and feel compelled to use them. It can seem that if we put them down for a second they will rust. I say this not just about intellect and reason, but muscle, and charm as well. There are many skills that make a person powerful. These skills become weapons to attack the ideas and meaning of others. There are times when attack is necessary, but to attack everything is not the pursuit of truth, it is violence.

           

Rationally Irrational

I understand rationality to be related to a set of cognitive tools rather than a certain personality or genetic type, or in other words, rationality is a tool. Like any other tool, it can be misused. You can kill a person with a spoon, but that is a misuse of its intended function. You cut a pound of raw meat with a chainsaw, but that is a misuse of its intended function. Tools are designed with both intended purposes and functional limitations. Intended purposes serve to provide the user with an understanding of how to achieve optimal impact. For example, some intended uses of a sword would be killing, disabling, acting, or training (and many more). Tools can be used outside of their intended purposes. The use might not result in optimal output, it might even damage the tool, but it is possible.  A sword can be used to cut wood, clear shrubbery, as a decoration, a sword could even be used as a door stop. Doorstop has long departed from the intended function for a sword upon its design, but nevertheless it exists as possibility given the structure of a sword. Functional limitations are desired uses that a tool cannot meet.  A sword alone cannot allow you to fly or breathe underwater, at least not without making significant alterations to its structure, rendering it no longer a sword.

Every tool exists with both intended functions and functional limitations. From reading some essays on this website I get the impression that many members of this community view rationality as a universal tool. That no matter what the conflict a certain degree of rationality would provide the appropriate remedy. I would like to question this idea. I argue that there are both functional limitations to the tool of rationality and ways to misuse the tool of rationality. To address these, it is first necessary to identify what the primary function of rationality is.

The Function of rationality

From reading various articles on this website I would suggest that rationality is seen as a tool for accuracy in obtaining desired results, or as Eliezer puts it, for “winning.” I agree with this analysis. Rationality is a tool for accuracy; increased accuracy leads to successfully obtainment of some desired result; obtainment of some desired result can broadly be described as “winning.” If rationality is a tool for increasing accuracy, then the questions becomes “are there ever times when it is more beneficial to be inaccurate,” or in other words, are there times when it should be desired to lose.

Why would a person ever want to lose?

I can think of two situations where increased accuracy is detrimental: 1.) In maintaining moderation; 2.) In maintaining respectful social relations.

1.) *It is better to air on the side of caution*: The more accurate you become the faster you obtain your goals. The faster you obtain your goals the quicker you progress down a projected course. In some sense this is a good thing, but I do not think it is universally good. **The pleasure winning may deter the player from the fundamental question “Is this a game I should be playing?”** A person who grew up playing the violin from an early age could easily find themselves barreling along a trajectory that leads them to a conservatory without addressing the fundamental question “is becoming a violinist what is going to most benefit my life? It is easy to do something you are good at, but it is fallacious to think that just because you are good at something it is what you should be doing. If Wille E. Coyote has taught us anything it is that progressing along a course too fast can result in unexpected pitfalls. Our confidence in an idea, job, a projected course, has no real bearing on its ultimate benefit to us (see my comment here for more on how right being wrong feels). While we might not literally run three meters off a cliff and then fall into the horizon, is it not possible for things to be moving too fast?

2.) *”Wining” all the time causes other people narrative dissonance*:  People don’t like it when someone is right about everything. It is suffocating.  Why is that? I am sure that a community of dedicated rationalists will have experienced this phenomenon, where relationships with family, friends, and other personal networks are threatened/damaged by you having an answer for everything, every causal debate, every trivial discussion; where you being extremely good at “winning” has had a negative effect on those close to you. I have a theory for why this is, is rather extensive, but I will try to abridge it as much as possible. First, it is based in the sociological field of symbolic interactionism, where individuals are constantly working to achieve some role confirmation in social situations. My idea is that there are archetypes of desired roles, and that every person needs the psychological satisfaction of being cast into those roles some of the time. I call these roles “persons of interest.” The wise one, the smart one, the caring one, the cool one, the funny one, these are all roles of interest that I believe all people need the chance to act out. If in a relationship you monopolize one of these roles to the point that your relations are unable to take it on, than I believe you are hurting your relationship. If you win too much, deprive those close to you the chance of winning, effectively causing them anxiety.

For example, I know when I was younger my extreme rationality placed a huge burden on my relationship with my parents. After going to college I began to have a critique of almost everything they did. I saw a more efficient, more productive way of doing things than my parents who had received outdated educations. For a while I was so mad that they did not trust me enough to change their lives, especially when I knew I was right. Eventually, What I realized was that it is psychologically damaging for a parent’s 20 something year old kid to feel that it is their job to show you how to live. Some of the things (like eating healthier and exercising more) I did not let go, because I felt the damages of my role reversal were less than the damages of their habits; however, other ideas, arguments, beliefs, I did let go because they did not seem worth the pain I was causing my parents. I have experienced the need to not win as much in many other relationships. Be they friends, teachers, lovers, peers, colleagues, in general if one person monopolizes the social role of imparter of knowledge it can be psychologically damaging to those they interact with. I believe positive coexistence is more important than achieving some desired impact (winning). Therefore I think it is important to ease up on one’s accuracy for the sake of one’s relationships.

Response to essay on Less Wrong

The essay is here:   http://lesswrong.com/lw/3k/how_to_not_lose_an_argument/ 

Isn't calling rhetoric "the dark arts" using the exact tactic you are advocating against?

  I like your idea, but I think it is incomplete. First, I don't like the way you demonize rhetoric. Before labeling rhetoric the "dark arts" I think it needs to be proven that it is truly fact and not rhetoric that convinces people of what is rational. Secondly, I do not think convincing someone that the universe can be moral without God is a a proper line of flight.

In regards to my first critique, I think there is a false dichotomy being draw between reason and value. I do not know how this idea will be received on a radically rationalist blog, but as far as I know no one has yet to prove that reasons can escape values. If you are aware of such an essay/ body of work, please let me know about it, though I do not see how you could ever remove rhetoric from communication. For example, the problem I have in your reasoning about the reassurance of a moral universe is one with your rhetoric.

Basic to the science of rhetoric is the idea that audience determines the nature of the argument. Audience can be interpreted as context. The context of the debate determines what is correct and what is false. You see convincing a theist of the morality of a non-theistic universe as leaving them a line of flight. The assumption that you are making, is that what is at stake for the theist is the issue of morality. The issue of existing in a moral vs. amoral universe is a transcendental one. Likewise, God is a transcendental topic. The problem with your reasoning is that just because God is a transcendental topic does not mean that a theists belief in God is for transcendental reasons. For example, a belief in God not only represents "God", it represents a history, a culture, a family.  How can you say that a person’s belief in God is the primarily of transcendental concern as opposed to filial concern (meaning believing in God because of a stronger belief in ones father or mother)?

As of now I cannot claim to have a perfect method of knowing the correct value base of a person's belief, but I am certain that there are people who are theists not for transcendental reasons, but for cultural or personal ones. Let's pretend that it is one of those people that your are trying to correct of their fundamentalist flaws.

   If you convince a person that the universe is still moral without God is that going to give them a line of flight? No, it will not. They can either: A.) except that God exists or B.) Except that their parents and loved ones were stupid and wasted their lives believing in something stupid (which would imply that they were raised stupidly). How is this any less damaging to the ego than the alternative you proposed? It isn't.

Please do not misinterpret my meaning. I am strongly in favor of rationalism. I just don't find it rational to deny the irrationality of social existence. Rhetoric and solidarity are more fundamental to human existence that rationality. I am all for increasing rationality, but not in order to eliminate values.

I am not suggesting that we should tolerate everything. There are bad ideas out there, religious fundamentalism is one of them. I like your idea of leaving a line of flight. My suggestion would be that the line of flight must take into account a base level of irrationality. For example, rather than getting rid of God, I think we should redefine God. There are plenty of theologians who are working to do just this. Religion serves a purpose. That purpose is not to define the empirical world or provide a totalitarian mantra of action and thought. Nothing should do these things, not even science. What we need is not to eliminate religion, but to rectify what it means. The same is necessary for science and for logic. A scientific fundamentalist and a mathematical fundamentalist are just as dangerous as a religious fundamentalist.

 

     

Response to Peter's Comment

... My computer was not letting me leave a comment on the last post, so I just decided to response this way. Peter's comment was:


Tom,

This sounds similar to virtue ethics, where morality is seen as dispositions to virtuous actions... except your belief is much ramped up. I liked the inclusion of Chinese.

I am in agreement that morality involves the cultivation of positive dispositions and involves developing harmony among at least humans.

But there still are definitely some questions left for you to look into:

1.) Do you think morality is about "ought" statements? What would "ought" mean? In what sense can you say I ought to have dispositions to growth, and not dispositions to destruction?

2.) Do you think morality can be used to guide individual actions? Would it be moral to rob a store? Would it be moral to have an abortion? (I'm sure it varies from situation to situation.)

3.) Should we help grow others if it comes at a cost of stunting our own growth?

4.) Does your morality say anything about interactions with nonhumans, like (nonhuman) animals? What do you think of moral vegetarianism? If not, why would you exclude these animals? (I'm not yet convinced that good moral systems require the inclusion animals.)

RESPONSE

Peter,

  Thank you for bring the field of virtue ethics to my attention. I spent some time looking into it, and you are right it is what I am advocating. Ironically, though I am very interested in morality, Western moral philosophy is a sub-field I have little to no experience in. One of the books I am currently reading is called "Elements of Moral Philosophy" I hope it begins to supplement this deficit.

 @1.) I do think morality is about "ought" statements. The book I am currently reading states that the accepted basis for moral theory in the West is that morality "is at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason- That is, to do what there are the best reason to do while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected by what one does."

  You ask in what sense you should have a disposition to growth rather than decay. Well, perhaps you, as an individual, should not always have a disposition to growth. But morality is a collective enterprise. It deals with what is best for humans as a group/species, not individuals.

    Can you honestly say that there is a question as a species as to whether or not we should try to stop our annihilation? Decay is only considered negative because it makes a structure more susceptible to destruction. Destruction is the end of a system.

  I am sure your postulate about "ought" was to target more finite moral details like abortion. However, from my perspective, such details are arbitrary. Abortion is or is not moral depending on the context you are harmonizing within. Beyond this, I believe the base value (such as valuing the preservation of human existence) we can take as teleology. Despite the multitude of cultural variation, every culture protects and promotes the grow of children. There are exceptions to this rule within cultures (where children are discarded), but we cannot forget that these are the exceptions, not the rule. No people completely disregards their children, because without children their culture would not continue. Just as while their are exceptions that call for the destruction/sacrifice of life, the overarching rule, is that human life is valued and cherished.

  My argument is as follows:

   1.)valuing human existence is teleological. 

   2.) Because humanity is defined by a specific structure, there is a specific set of objects and actions that promote its growth. (For example, we haven't created an underwater civilization yet, because despite all popular fiction and mythology, the human structure is not designed to live in the water.)

   3.) The human structure is fundamentally a social one. It is through relations with other humans that we truly actualize our potential to grow (really don't see how you could argue against this

   4.) The duration of coexistence is dependent on a solidarity,a mutual feeling of connectedness by all the consenting parts; or in other words, a harmony.

 Thus, As humans we fundamentally value human life, valuing human life we want to promote its growth, the growth of humanity is partially (not solely) dependent on harmony (solidarity).

 *There are other components, I will discuss them soon.

 2.) Yes, I am saying that morality is essential taking a specefic orientation of action, so of course it could guide human action. The example you have given moves beyond the broad scale of this argument and requires much more contextual information to give an answer. The answer is subjective; however, in general stealing probably contradicts greater harmonization, and thus should be discouraged.

 3.)No, this will be part of the next essay on morality I will write. This essay is just to introduce the general idea, but in reality there are a couple huge parts I am leaving out. But to give you a quick answer, no, because of my social self theory.

 4.) yes it does, this is yet another essay that I plan to write. To summarize the idea quickly, human survival in addition to depending on human collectivity, depends on the preservation of the environment we have adapted to. It does not matter how well we harmonize if we destroy the context that allows our unique structure to thrive. (i.e a clean water, flora and fauna filled biome). We need plants and animals, and clean water. Extending this logic, the survival of "plants" and species of animals depends on their diversity, so that they too can adjust to environmental shifts. The more we deplete the diversity of our biosphere, the more fragile it becomes; the more fragile it becomes the more likely it will break; If it breaks, the more likely we (human species) will break. Thus, in valuing our own survival, we must value the survival of our environment.   

 Does that make sense?     

Understanding Morality through Pokemon

I would like to thank Hanyun Cai for her contribution to the development of this thought.


   In the last year the concept of Morality has become a central framework in the architecture of my thoughts and actions. As a result I have become increasingly aware of the ambiguity of the term, and the heavy connotations it carries in the English language. I have joked to myself that in the game of communication morality is a "broken" symbol, and have start several essays advocating that for this very reason it should be removed from communication altogether. However, I have yet to finish any of those essays. Because despite the dangers I see in the ambiguity and potency of the term, I still feel strongly connected to it, and believe that a conception of morality is pivotal to my cultivation, pivotal to the cultivation of humanity. SoI cannot let it go. Once again I must thank Hanyun. In a conversation with her about my perception of morality she brilliantly discerned the core of what I was saying. After talking to her, it seems so simple to divulge the underlying principle of my morals, something that I was previously finding to be a daunting task. Thank you again Hanyun! Also thanks to all my friends, those met in person, and those met in text, who have helped me get to this point.

                 MORALITY and the V-O Construction.

        To understand my conception of morality it is essential to understand that I classify morality not as noun, or a verb, or object, but as a Object-Verb. The Object-Verb (O-V) is, to the best of my knowledge, a categorical construction that does not exist in the English language (Please correct me on this if I am wrong).  An O-V describes an object in a particular state of transformation. For example:

       In Chinese the word 吃饭 [chīfàn] means "to have a meal" and is colloquially used to mean "to eat" or "eating." 吃饭 [chīfàn] is a O-V.   吃 [chī] is a verb that describes the act of consuming/taking in something. To novice Chinese speakers this most commonly relates to consuming food and is translated as "eat." But 吃 does not really mean eat. 吃 is also used to describe a person experiencing difference emotions, situations, and even physical contact. To be "jealous" in Chinese is 吃醋 [chīcù], which can be deconstructed into: the verb to take in (吃), and the noun vinegar (醋). Vinegar is sour. Jealous in Chinese is " for a person to take in/consume a sourness."

     To live off of welfare:  吃劳保 [chīláobǎo]  -Take in aid
     Exhausting/ strenuous: 吃力[chīlì] - Take in  (on) a force
     To lose out: 吃亏 [chīkuī]. Take in a loss

    In each of these examples, and many more, 吃 does not mean "eat." You do not "eat force" or "eat lose." You take on a force, you take in a loss. "To eat" implies not only the act of consumption, but willful consumption of a very specific set of tangible objects by a very specific object. If it is not willful, you are not eating, you are being fed. if it is not tangible objects that nourish the human body, than you are not eating you are just consuming/taking in. If it is not a human or some other animal with a mouth apparatus, than it is not eating. Plants nourish themselves with sunlight, but this is not seen as eating because plants are not human-like. They do not prepare their food before they ingest it, and they do not willfully chose what and when they eat, they do not ingest it through a mouth. Acid is described as eating through things, but this is an analogy. People do not really think acid eats and for the the same reasons plants don't eat. Eating describes a specific type of relationship between two specific objects, a mouth bearing object and an object that nourishes the mouth bearing object. Because different objects derive nourishment from different things. To change the eater is to change what can be eaten. From this I suggest:

                - Actions (verbs) are defined by the structures (objects) that are able to carry them out.
                - Actions (verbs) are defined by the relationship between structures (objects).

      Only things with mouths and autonomously choose what and when they. Only things that are nourishing can be eaten. These are distinctions that are muddled by the prevalence of analogy in society. Acid appears to consume what it burns through so we say it eats away at it, but acid does not have a mouth, it is not autonomous, and it does not derive nourishment from the things it burns. Contrary to popular believe acid does not eat anything.
       So far I have been focusing on the verb aspect of the O-V across different objects. However, the object also exists across multiple verbs. Not only do you 吃饭 [chīfàn] you can also 喷饭 [pēnfàn] (spit up food from laughing so hard),  做饭 [zuòfàn] ( cook, make food), or 要饭 [yàofàn] (be a beggar, beg for anything). The verbs that are used in O-V relationships define the dispositions of a structure (object). 


               Dispositions of Growth, Decay, and Destruction

     All objects exist in relations that are based on actions. The actions a structure can take represent the flexibility of the structure. The actions a structure take do work on the structure, and thus transform it.  I argue that the effects of actions on a structure (object) work to either impede or progress the growth, decay, or destruction of the strucutre. Therefore all actions can be thought of as dispositions of growth, decay, or destruction. It is possible for an object to activate any of these dispositions; however, I argue that it is for the benefit of any object to progress growth, limit decay, and avoid destruction.

           When I say growth I do not mean increase in size, but the continual adaption of the structure to the environment  it is in relation with (to evolve in a sense). Environments are dynamic. If structures do not move to adapt to them, they will eventually find themselves working against the system they exist within. To be at odds with one's environment is what is called a state of decay.  Because enviroments are dynamic, if structures are not dynamic as well they are continually creeping towards a state of decay. The act of inaction therefore can be seen as progressing decay. Another way of progressing decay is the act of improper action.
      Humans are equipped with a wide variety of actions at their disposal. Each action can be situationally used to promote growth or situationally used to promote decay and destruction. What promotes growth is proper, what promotes decay and destruction is improper. When a person consumes nourishing food 吃饭 [chīfàn] they are implementing a disposition in their structure to grow, and thus are acting properly. When they spit up nourishing food they are delaying their growth, and potentially progressing decay (Depending on how recently they have eaten), thus acting improperly. When a person consumes something toxic the proper action is to spit it up. To eat something toxic is to put your internal organs at risk, promote decay, and is thus improper. To summarize:

        -All structure (objects) exist in relations with other structures (objects)
       - All structures (objects) contain dispositions for action (compatible verbs).
        - All structures (objects) that interact do so through the mediation of action (verb). 
        - All structures (objects) contain dispositions for growth, decay, and destruction.
        - When structures (objects) interact there is a proper way to act that promotes growth, limits decay, and avoids destruction. 

    Earlier I defined O-V as objects in a particular state of transformation. Another way to say this is that O-V represent the dispositions of objects. The grammatical structure is called an O-V, but based on the nature of dispositions I have explanaed, it should really be called an  O-V-O (object-verb-object) construction.

   Now, we are ready to begin discussing morality.  

                 Morality as a Disposition of Growth 
  By stating I view morality as an O-V, I am asserting that morality is a disposition, meaning that it is a state of transformation that emerges from a specific O-V-O relationship. Because of this, it is fallacious to attempt to explain or discuss morality in abstract terms of goodness, justice, or equality. Morality cannot be discussed without first identifying: what structures are in relation when one speaks of morality, and what is the action (verb) that defines their relationship? 
           As to the first question, personally,  I believe that morality is a disposition that emerges from a relationship between humans. Before I continue let me say that this position is a Confucian one,  heavily influenced by my religious beliefs.  A Buddhist would see morality as a disposition that emerges from a relationship between existence. A Native American shaman would see morality as a disposition between living things. A nationalist would see morality as a disposition between countrymen. The broadness of categorization is dependent on the values of a persons. You will notice however that there is a common pattern across all these examples. Though the category size changes all the examples I have listed define morality as existing between two similar structures. Existence to Existence, Living to Living, Human to Human, Countrymen to Countrymen. Because of this, I argue that regardless of subjective values, morality is a disposition that emerges between two objects of a similar structure. If we accept that assertion, then all that remains is to all identify what action mediates a moral relationship?

       Though I said this would be an explanation of my conception of morality I realize I am writing this in the style of a persuasive rather than descriptive essay. I apologize for that. I have been saying "I argue" building up arguments, when I should be saying "I believe" and just telling you what I believe. That is what I will do from this point on.

   I believe the verb that defines morality is "harmony." Morality is attempting to develop harmonious relations between an other that you regard as similar. For me that is humans. Therefore morality is me, working to be more harmonious with other humans. I conceive a harmony as the union of seperate entities into a collective will, body, force. If I am with another person there are many ways I can act towards them. I can try to dominate them, to serve them, to persuade them, to move them, to avoid them, to flatter them, to ignore them, to hurt them, and I can try to harmonize with them. I do not veiw this as trying to become the person. When notes harmonize it is not that an A note becomes a B or a C, but that they all synthesize into something greater than their collective parts. There are emergent properties to harmony.

     I believe that haromonizing with other people develops a person's knowledge, happiness, and work. I view developing knowledge, implementing that knowledge into work, and being happy with one's life as EXTREMELY benefical to both indivdiual and collective survival. Therefore, from my perspective, working towards morality activates a disposition of growth within the human structure. Morality is how we evolve. I could into further detail how harmonizing with others develops knowledge, hapiness, and work; and I probably will at a later date, but not right now.
  
   I need to finish this thing, so I will move to the last section!

                          POKEMON!!!!
              I bet you were wondering where charizard was. Sorry it took so long. Initially I planned to put him in a lot earlier, but it took alot more to preface it than I thought. Pokemon is just the inital analogy that I thought of to describe morality as a disposition rather than a state. Hopefully all that stuff above this has sorted out what I mean by disposition. Basically, what I am saying is that a disposition is the potential to implement a strucutre in a specific way (In the case of morality, the structure is the human body, the choosen activity is harmonzing with other humans). Because dispositions have the potential to progress growth, they essential transform the structure.

    In Pokemon, the acitivty of battling (with other pokemon) will eventually cause pokemon to evolve. Charizard started off as charmander, than through battle became charmelon, and then more battle evolved him into Charizard! For Pokemon, battling leads to a disposition of growth. If Charmander had chozen a different action to run his body, then he potentially would never have evolved into Charizard. This is important because it shows that dispositions transform structures. Morality is not just a state of action, it will actually trasnform a human, if given enough time (enough xp in the Pokemon world). 
   Where the analogy fails is that I do not see specific stages or plateus of morality. In the Pokemon world Charizard can only progress so much. However, I would argue that in the real world there is no limits to how much we can progress. Even if I somehow manage to truly harmonize with my community; there is still the rest of my society; even if I still somehow manage to harmonize with the rest of my society, there is still the rest of humanity; even if I somehow manage to harmonize with the rest of humanity, there is still the rest of existence. It is not that I disagree with the Buddhist perspective, I just believe in setting incremental goals. How could I every hope to harmonize with existence if I cannot even harmonize with the few people I see on a daily basis? Things have their proper order. Trees have their roots and their branches. To attempt to grow branches before you have roots is foolish, is it not?

 This is why I believe that for the me that exists right now, morality is an actio between humans. The me I am now will not exist in 10 years. Just as after 10 years of battle charmader is no longer charmander, he is charmelon. "Leveling up" slowly shifts the constituion of your structure, and eventually will shif the potential actions at your disposal. This is what it means to evolve.

             One Final Word on Humaneness
           This essay is one of many. Humans interact with many objects and thus have the potential for many actions. I believe morality in a person puts them in a state of growth, but this growth is only in one sphere. There are many other ways to grow. What I would call "humaneness, or the humane person" is someone who is implementing multiple dispositions of growth. This essay covers one dispostion of growth, "morality." There are others. I will write more about the others later.

 Peace Space Cowboy! Happy Trails   

Rethinking Sacrifice

    I think it is safe to say that within the context of American culture the concept of an individual  making sacrifices in his or her daily life has a negative connotation, especially so with regards to self-sacrifice. That is not to say that the American connotation is a purely negative one; to the contrary, within the sphere of nationalism sacrificing for one's country is one of the most noble and honorable things a person can do. And certainly to some extent, a person is expected to make some sacrifices for the sake of their family and friends. However, I would argue that the sacrifice of the solider and the sacrifice of the socialized individual are, for different reasons, not true sacrifices.
   
      With the case of the soldier. It is true that they are willfully endangering their life and even in extreme cases directly offering their life for their nation/tribe. But I argue that they are only willing to do so on their terms. Take the archetypal war movie. The protagonist is fully prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, but if the stage of the battle, the methods, or the time clashes with their personal ideology they rebel. What makes them heroes is that we see their rebellion as just. It is not that they are cowardly, but that the demands on them were, or they were immoral, unjust, or wrong. Our faith in them as heroes is latter affirmed when we see them proceed to give their life to their cause when it is on their terms. Of course I am over generalizing, but the archetype of the lone hero who follows their own judgment in the face of corruption, tyranny, and incompetency does exist in American cinema and literature.      

          The reason I do not see this as a true sacrifice is because at no point does the protagonist relinquish their ideology. While hey may willingly forfeit his future, at no point does he truly sacrifice his self, the core foundation of his beliefs and motivations. If anything, the act of dying immortalizes who he is, what he stands for, in the most powerful of all symbolic gestures.This is not sacrifice. As I have hinted to in the opening of this paragraph, to sacrifice means to relinquish some part of what one covets. To let go of a piece of what is most treasured. At no point does the lone hero do this. Yes they are willing to give their life, but only because they hold the meaning that they transform it into to be infinitely greater. And that meaning is something that they themselves MUST condone. That meaning is not antithetical to them. To the contrary it is the essence of what they are. It is their self. Because of this, I would more accurately describe the hero's sacrifice as "The Hero's Transformation" where they convert their finite life into an immortal symbol. I am by no means arguing that this is not a powerful, noble, and honorable gesture; but it is not a sacrifice. The achievement of immorality fulfills not forfeits the human ideal.  As for the example of sacrificing for the family, I would call this more of a compromise.

      Something I often find myself talking about with my friends is the nature of relationships. In these discussions there is generally a distinction made that sacrificing for a relationship is bad, while compromising for one is good. What is this distinction? As I have previously addressed, to sacrifice means to relinquish something of ultimate concern to the individual. Because there is nothing of more concern to the individual than him or her self  (self here is referring to the basis of a person's beliefs and motivations), true sacrifice is always self-sacrifice. Anything short of giving up that of which is most valued must be seen as a compromise. To compromise is to relinquish something while still protecting that which is most important. Returning to the relationship example, let's say your boyfriend/girlfriend wants you to comb your hair more. Combing your hair is annoying, but it is not integral to your self. You lose nothing you truly covet in succumbing to her request besides perhaps time. However, I would suggest that despite what is found in many maxims and cliche sayings, time is the cheapest part of our self and the part that is most readily compromised to avoid true sacrifice. Now Let's say that you are unwilling to comb your hair. That not combing your hair to you symbolizes autonomy, freedom and rebellion from conformity (or any number of other values) in this instance you are not as accommodating. One of three things can happen. First, you could battle it out with your girlfriend/boyfriend until one of you successfully breaks the reality of the other and colonizes their mind with a new set of beliefs that clearly understands why combing your hair is unacceptable or why you must comb your hair. The second thing that could happen is that both of you refuse to yield, and ultimately it is not either of your inner worlds but your relationship that breaks. Or lastly, you could both refuse to yield, but instead of breaking off your relations you offer tribute to your boyfriend/girlfriend in the form of some other comprise, an offering of time or capital that counteracts your inability to sacrifice. This last case is called a sacrifice in the semantics of our language, but in reality it is a compromise. It is a compromise because instead of yielding your self, a greater quantity of something less valued, but still significant, is alternatively presented as an offering to the other. This offering states "I refuse to yield, but I still value our bond, only to a lesser degree."

     Now the question that stands is: is there anything wrong with this? I would guess that the initial impression of the Western reader would be a strong NO! You should never forfeit who you are! If your boyfriend/girlfriend cannot accept that, then they are not right for you! This cry is a cry for the supremacy of individualism. The author of the italicized statement is undoubtedly a voice whose mind is filled with images of a tattered, timid soul feebly offering up chunks of its own flesh to appease the voracious appetite of an abusive and domineering "other." I do not question the validity of such an image. I am sad to say that such an abusive relationship is the reality of many people, both privileged and not. I am not contesting this image, but suggesting that it is on of abuse, not of the norm. Just as a person should not use the criteria of an abusive relationship to base their relationships off; they should also not use the criteria of an abusive sacrifice to base their own conception of sacrifice off of. I will state now that in almost all cases (with some exceptions) a one-sided sacrifice is an abusive one. You should never relinquish yourself to someone or something that does not value you. And if you are truly valued , as you value them/it, than the other will be moved to sacrifice as well. Again, there are some examples where this is not the case, but I would say that in general any positive sacrifice should be a mutual one.

    I think positive sacrifices are nesseacry to build truly democratic, stable, productive individuals. For in a positive sacrifice two or more people have surrendered some territory within their hearts so that they have room for the presence of others. To Sacrifice is a gesture of love and an extension of self. The notion that sacrifice is bad comes from a strong belief in the self as a stable and quantified entity. Or in other words, the belief of the Western construction of the soul. Each person has their soul, which is unique and separate from everyone else. To relinquish even a part of that is to destroy not only what makes you you, but what defines humanity.

   This however is a position of faith, and one that I do not hold for that matter. I do not see myself as a discrete entity. I believe that the nature of reality is not stagnation but flux. The self is not a constant essence, it is a collage of all the various pieces of the reality we move within. As we move geographically, historically, culturally, the pieces change, and thus the collage changes. I do not think that The me of now and the me of 10 years ago are the same self. If you were to ask anyone who has  known both of these people you would find that they are almost contradictory of each other. If you still do not believe me, I would urge you to keep a journal. Write each day what you feel, or on a particularly emotional day, and make sure to really flesh it out. Look at that journal just 3-4 months later and I guarantee you will be astonished by the things you wrote. If you look at that journal a decade or two later I would bet that you would not even recognize yourself.

   From the perspective of the self as a dynamic force, self-sacrifice is no longer destructive, but merely a choice in direction. It is a willful push towards a certain configuration of identity rather than passively waiting for your current self to unconsciously erode into a new form.

 I have much more to say on this, but I need to wash some dishes and than go to bed. So that is it for now.