A friend of mine forwarded this essay by Zig Ziglar to me. It's a good perspective.
Several years ago, I heard the statement that "every third person is either remarkably handsome and unusually bright, or amazingly beautiful and absolutely brilliant." I encourage you to make a mental note. The next two people you see, look them over real good. When you do, chances are excellent that you will come to the conclusion that it is neither one of them! That means it has to be you, if the formula is to hold true. When you think about it in these terms, I believe you will come to the conclusion that, yes, it does have to be you.
From this moment on, I encourage you to think of yourself as that "third person," and as that third person, I want to share with you some important considerations about yourself. Several billion people have walked this earth, but there never has been, nor will there ever be, a person exactly like you. Your uniqueness gives you real value.
Think about it like this: If man can take moldy bread and make penicillin out of it, think what an awesome God can make out of you. Listen to what St. Augustine said in 399 A.D. (and I paraphrase with this): Man travels hundreds of miles to gaze at the broad expanse of the ocean. He looks in awe at the heavens above. He stares in wonderment at the fields, the mountains, the rivers and the streams. And then he passes himself by without a thought -- God's most amazing creation. It is important that you think well, not egotistically, about yourself because the way you see yourself has a direct bearing on how you see and treat others. If you see yourself as happy, secure, self-sufficient and as a good friend, you'll attract happy, secure, self-sufficient, good friends.
To get along well with people requires an elimination of prejudice, which, in virtually every case, is circumstantial, based either on ignorance or never having had any real relationship with those of a different race or culture. This does not mean that I'm suggesting or even mildly hinting that you have to agree with everybody on everything. To do so would be to invite disaster in your life. But it does mean that you can disagree without being disagreeable. You can disagree and yet respect that person's right to believe as he or she believes. You can have a different opinion without denying the other person the right to have the opinion he or she has. When you adopt that attitude and take that approach, you will probably be amazed to discover on occasion that your friend's point of view was right and yours was wrong. That's a sobering thought.
When you take the right attitude toward another person, you not only avoid building a wall between the two of you, you also establish common ground and lay a solid foundation on which to build a relationship. It certainly is something to think about and something I have found to be very enlightening and beneficial.
I encourage you to replay the tapes of your life. Explore the number of times people who were "different" from you turned out to be really great people, who had opinions with which you disagreed but that turned out to be correct. Take the approach I'm suggesting and you will become a happier, healthier, friendlier, better person.
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
What does $1 trillion look like?
A little while ago, my brother-in-law DE posted me to this interesting analysis that helps put into perspective what $1 trillion (i.e., the rough size of our stimulus package) looks like. Scary stuff.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Poor but Cheerful
Here is another article that my mother sent me before my trip to India. The subtitle of the article is "a day spent on a mountain of trash in the Philippines inspires a young man to ponder the meanings of privilege and deprivation". This person's experience certainly supports the fact that a big part of how we evaluate our own situation, circumstances, and happiness is in comparison to other people. If none of the people around us have much, we are content without those things also. Where problems start coming in is when others around me seem to have more and I - by comparison - have less. In business school, I remember having a conversation with one of my classmates where I noted how lucky we were. Most of us would make more money per year than >99% of the world population. In response, my classmate told me that he didn't compare himself to 99% of the world population. He only compared himself to the people at HBS (and would only be happy if we did better than the rest of us). A sad commentary on the human condition.
Color Connection
Before my trip to India, my mother shared this article with me. It discusses the fact that India is still a color-conscious society. I didn't experience this myself while I was there but I wasn't looking for it either. It, unfortunately, doesn't take me by surprise and India certainly isn't unique in this regard.
How Faith Can Heal
Time magazine just did a special issue focused on "How Faith Can Heal" regarding how faith and medicine intersect (see PDF of articles). It was a reasonably interesting set of material but I wasn't terribly blown away. Posting the articles here in case I want to revisit it in the future.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Hugs
I think the graphic to the left is hilarious (click the image for a larger version). It's from a Time magazine article (in the February 23, 2009 issue) called "Are Hugs the New Handshakes?" discussing the increasing popularity of hugs in our society. I've certainly noticed this trend and embraced it myself. I totally do the "Hip-Hop Hug" with my brother and my brothers-in-law. And I do the "Ass-Out Hug" with my sisters-in-law, especially HG. I especially like the names of the different hugs.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Mindfulness
About a month ago, a friend of mine sent me this true story.
A man sat at a metro station in Washington DC and started to play the violin. It was a cold January morning. He played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time, since it was rush hour, it was calculated that thousand of people went through the station, most of them on their way to work.
Three minutes went by, and a middle aged man noticed there was a musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds - and then hurried up to meet his schedule.
A minute later, the violinist received his first dollar tip: a woman threw the money in the till and without stopping - continued to walk.
A few minutes later, someone leaned against the wall to listen to him, but the man looked at his watch and started to walk again. Clearly he was late for work.
The one who paid the most attention, was a 3 year old boy. His mother tagged him along, hurried - but the kid stopped to look at the violinist. Finally the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk - turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children. All the parents, without exception, forced them to move on.
In the 45 minutes the musician played, only 6 people stopped and stayed for a while. About 20 gave him money, but continued to walk their normal pace. He collected $32. When he finished playing and silence took over, no one noticed it. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.
No one knew this but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the best musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, with a violin worth 3.5 million dollars.
Two days before his playing in the subway, Joshua Bell sold out at a theater in Boston and the seats average $100.
This is a real story. Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and priorities of people. The outlines were: in a commonplace environment at an inappropriate hour: Do we perceive beauty? Do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize the talent in an unexpected context?
One of the possible conclusions from this experience could be: If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world - playing the best music ever written, how many other things are we missing?
This is a good reminder to "stop and smell the roses" as we do not know where blessings may come from unexpectedly.
A man sat at a metro station in Washington DC and started to play the violin. It was a cold January morning. He played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time, since it was rush hour, it was calculated that thousand of people went through the station, most of them on their way to work.
Three minutes went by, and a middle aged man noticed there was a musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds - and then hurried up to meet his schedule.
A minute later, the violinist received his first dollar tip: a woman threw the money in the till and without stopping - continued to walk.
A few minutes later, someone leaned against the wall to listen to him, but the man looked at his watch and started to walk again. Clearly he was late for work.
The one who paid the most attention, was a 3 year old boy. His mother tagged him along, hurried - but the kid stopped to look at the violinist. Finally the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk - turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children. All the parents, without exception, forced them to move on.
In the 45 minutes the musician played, only 6 people stopped and stayed for a while. About 20 gave him money, but continued to walk their normal pace. He collected $32. When he finished playing and silence took over, no one noticed it. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.
No one knew this but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the best musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, with a violin worth 3.5 million dollars.
Two days before his playing in the subway, Joshua Bell sold out at a theater in Boston and the seats average $100.
This is a real story. Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and priorities of people. The outlines were: in a commonplace environment at an inappropriate hour: Do we perceive beauty? Do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize the talent in an unexpected context?
One of the possible conclusions from this experience could be: If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world - playing the best music ever written, how many other things are we missing?
This is a good reminder to "stop and smell the roses" as we do not know where blessings may come from unexpectedly.
Bengali bag
Yesterday, AJ and I went up to Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. I backed some supplies and put them in a bag I brought home from India (see photo to the right). The writing on the bag is in Bengali - one of the many languages spoken in India. While I was pushing AJ on the swing at the large children's playground, I looked down at the bag and realized that most people wouldn't recognize the writing as Bengali. Without knowing better, they might have thought the writing was Arabic and assume that I was Muslim - I am an International Everyman after all (see prior post). All of a sudden, I became very self-conscious of what people might be thinking and kept expecting parents to pull their children away from me as if I were a terrorist. That feeling persisted for the rest of the time we were at Golden Gate Park - a couple of hours. I'm not proud of my response and, as far as I could tell, no one noticed the bag or thought anything of it if they did. But it did give me some small appreciation for what it must feel like to be a victim of racial profiling and the assumptions people sometimes make based on little or no information.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Ghost Town
On my way back from India, they were showing the movie Ghost Town on the plane. It's a reasonably entertaining movie about an obnoxious guy who has a near-death experience and can then see ghosts afterwards - more in this movie review. There was a quote in the movie by Albert Einstein that I really liked - "Only a life lived for others is worth living." I would certainly agree - and wanted to save the quote for future reference.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
New 2000 Year Old Insight
I'm reading through a conference presentation for work and it included this great quote:“One thing is sure: the Earth is more cultivated and developed now than ever before; there is more farming but fewer forests, swamps are drying up and cities springing up on an unprecedented scale. We have become a burden to our planet. Resources are becoming scarce and soon Nature will no longer be able to satisfy our needs.”
-Quintus Septimius Tertullianus (Roman politician) 200 BC
The presentation says 200 BC but a quick search makes it seems like 200 AD is more accurate. Regardless, it appears that people have been concerned about the future of the plant for a long time. Technology (and land expansion) has always come to the rescue in the past. Hopefully technology can save the day again this time - or at least be an important part of the answer.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Everything's amazing, nobody's happy
A friend of mine turned me on to this video. It's a clip of Louis CK on Conan (10/1/08). He's talking about modern conveniences and how everyone takes them for granted. I've made that observation many times before. In particular, I think it's amazing (and a little crazy) that my kids will never know a world without cell phones, email, the Internet/Web, DVDs, DVRs, Microsoft Office, Google, video games, computers, etc. Just as an example, I still remember going to the public library to do research for school projects, looking up books in a paper-based card catalog, photo-copying the pages I needed, and typing up my report in DOS-based Word Perfect and printing it out on a dot-matrix printer. Now I could probably accomplish the same thing in 20 minutes using Google or Wikipedia without even having to leave my house - and have a much more polished result to boot. Amazing how quickly things change - and I'm not even that old!
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Yes we can
I'm not usually into politics. I vote in every election and research the issues. I strongly believe that's my responsibility and duty as part of living in a democratic society. But I usually don't get too fired up one way or the other based on the outcomes. This election was a little different - especially near the end. I'm hopeful that President-Elect Barack Obama can get this country back on track and do it in a way that restores the United States as a beacon of hope for so many people in the world who don't enjoy the same freedoms and opportunities we do.
I thought President-Elect Obama gave a masterful victory speech last night in Chicago. If you haven't seen it, it is contained here:
I believe that America can do many great things in the coming years and decades and stand ready to do my part to make that happen.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics
A co-worker of mine forwarded this "essay" to me by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., Professor of Economics at the University of Georgia.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
- The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
- The fifth would pay $1.
- The sixth would pay $3.
- The seventh would pay $7.
- The eighth would pay $12.
- The ninth would pay $18.
- The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:
- The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
- The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
- The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
- The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
- The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
- The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy,and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
I'm not sure that I totally agree with the conclusions but it's an interesting perspective and certainly one way of discussing this topic that made some intuitive sense to me.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Truth
In response to a prior post, my brother pointed me to the Wikipedia page on truth and asked me what I believe is truth. This is one of the benefits of having a blog like this and putting myself out there. It encourages people to share ideas or questions that they probably wouldn't otherwise bring up.
On a recent flight (of which there have unfortunately been many), I read the Wikipedia page. I found it interesting to discover that "the term [truth] has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree ... There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute." The correspondence theory is a "class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined in principle solely by how it relates to objective reality, by whether it accurately describes that reality ... Correspondence theory traditionally operates on the assumption that truth is a matter of accurately copying 'objective reality' and then representing it in thoughts, words and other symbols ... [but] language plays a role in that all languages have words that are not easily translatable into another." Coherence theory, in general, says that "truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system ... A pervasive tenet of coherence theories is the idea that truth is primarily a property of whole systems of propositions, and can be ascribed to individual propositions only according to their coherence with the whole." Constructivist theory holds that "that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community." Consensus theory holds that "truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group." And the pragmatic theory says that "truth is verified and confirmed by the results of putting one's concepts into practice ... [and that] definitions of truth based on mere correspondence are no more than nominal definitions, which [Peirce] accords a lower status than real definitions."
In terms of philosophers, Kierkegaard said that "objective truths for the study of subjects like math, science, and history are relevant and necessary, but argue[d] that objective truths do not shed any light on a person's inner relationship to existence. At best, these truths can only provide a severely narrowed perspective that has little to do with one's actual experience of life." And Fromm said that "the history of thought is the history of an ever-increasing approximation to the truth. Scientific knowledge is not absolute but optimal; it contains the optimum of truth attainable in a given historical period ... different cultures have emphasized various aspects of the truth and that increasing interaction between cultures allows for these aspects to reconcile and integrate, increasing further the approximation to the truth."
In terms of my personal view of truth, I'd say it's a combination of the correspondence theory and the coherence theory (as I understand them from reading this Wikipedia page). In terms of correspondence theory, I do believe that there is an objective reality based on physical phenomenon or occurences such as particular atoms being at particular 3-D locations at a particular time or certain frequencies being transmitted through the air at a particular time. But this reality isn't entirely objective in the sense that we have to use language or personal judgments to overlay intent or inward reality on these outward physical phenomenon. For example, I might say "I am tired" and walk away. There is an objective reality that the atoms that compose my body moved through some 3-D space instant-by-instant during that utterance and some set of audio frequencies which transmitted instant-by-instant through the air at the same time. But that is all we can say with absolute certainty about this occurrence. As an external observer (other than God), we can't know for sure the intent behind that physical occurrence (e.g., whether I am indeed tired and need to go to bed or if I am simply making an excuse to exit the situation so I can go do something more interesting). And, sometimes even as a self-observer, we don't know the subconscious intent behind our actions and run into some of the same challenges as an external observer.
In terms of the coherence theory, I've said a couple of different times that I believe that everything happens for a reason (see prior post) and that everything in that sense fits into a whole system. So, the true global significance of a single event cannot be fully understood in isolation but must be taken in the context of the larger system.
Now, if we factor in the concept of emergence (see prior post), I can integrate the correspondence theory and the coherence theory into a consolidated theory that is personally meaningful. Specifically, there is an objective reality of physical phenomenon (e.g., atoms in motion, frequencies in the air, etc) that leads to other physical phenomenon occuring from which some perceived outward reality emerges. Now, in terms of finding the truth in this outward reality, these events (along with their inward motivations and decision-making process) must be mapped into specific nodes and paths through the cosmic decision tree I referred to in my everything happens for a reason post. In this sense, understanding the truth and significance of our current reality is only possible by way of understanding the future reality it enables.
I strongly doubt this makes sense to anyone but me. But it's my blog so, at the end of the day, all that matters is that what I'm saying makes sense to me. =)
On a recent flight (of which there have unfortunately been many), I read the Wikipedia page. I found it interesting to discover that "the term [truth] has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree ... There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute." The correspondence theory is a "class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined in principle solely by how it relates to objective reality, by whether it accurately describes that reality ... Correspondence theory traditionally operates on the assumption that truth is a matter of accurately copying 'objective reality' and then representing it in thoughts, words and other symbols ... [but] language plays a role in that all languages have words that are not easily translatable into another." Coherence theory, in general, says that "truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system ... A pervasive tenet of coherence theories is the idea that truth is primarily a property of whole systems of propositions, and can be ascribed to individual propositions only according to their coherence with the whole." Constructivist theory holds that "that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community." Consensus theory holds that "truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group." And the pragmatic theory says that "truth is verified and confirmed by the results of putting one's concepts into practice ... [and that] definitions of truth based on mere correspondence are no more than nominal definitions, which [Peirce] accords a lower status than real definitions."
In terms of philosophers, Kierkegaard said that "objective truths for the study of subjects like math, science, and history are relevant and necessary, but argue[d] that objective truths do not shed any light on a person's inner relationship to existence. At best, these truths can only provide a severely narrowed perspective that has little to do with one's actual experience of life." And Fromm said that "the history of thought is the history of an ever-increasing approximation to the truth. Scientific knowledge is not absolute but optimal; it contains the optimum of truth attainable in a given historical period ... different cultures have emphasized various aspects of the truth and that increasing interaction between cultures allows for these aspects to reconcile and integrate, increasing further the approximation to the truth."
In terms of my personal view of truth, I'd say it's a combination of the correspondence theory and the coherence theory (as I understand them from reading this Wikipedia page). In terms of correspondence theory, I do believe that there is an objective reality based on physical phenomenon or occurences such as particular atoms being at particular 3-D locations at a particular time or certain frequencies being transmitted through the air at a particular time. But this reality isn't entirely objective in the sense that we have to use language or personal judgments to overlay intent or inward reality on these outward physical phenomenon. For example, I might say "I am tired" and walk away. There is an objective reality that the atoms that compose my body moved through some 3-D space instant-by-instant during that utterance and some set of audio frequencies which transmitted instant-by-instant through the air at the same time. But that is all we can say with absolute certainty about this occurrence. As an external observer (other than God), we can't know for sure the intent behind that physical occurrence (e.g., whether I am indeed tired and need to go to bed or if I am simply making an excuse to exit the situation so I can go do something more interesting). And, sometimes even as a self-observer, we don't know the subconscious intent behind our actions and run into some of the same challenges as an external observer.
In terms of the coherence theory, I've said a couple of different times that I believe that everything happens for a reason (see prior post) and that everything in that sense fits into a whole system. So, the true global significance of a single event cannot be fully understood in isolation but must be taken in the context of the larger system.
Now, if we factor in the concept of emergence (see prior post), I can integrate the correspondence theory and the coherence theory into a consolidated theory that is personally meaningful. Specifically, there is an objective reality of physical phenomenon (e.g., atoms in motion, frequencies in the air, etc) that leads to other physical phenomenon occuring from which some perceived outward reality emerges. Now, in terms of finding the truth in this outward reality, these events (along with their inward motivations and decision-making process) must be mapped into specific nodes and paths through the cosmic decision tree I referred to in my everything happens for a reason post. In this sense, understanding the truth and significance of our current reality is only possible by way of understanding the future reality it enables.
I strongly doubt this makes sense to anyone but me. But it's my blog so, at the end of the day, all that matters is that what I'm saying makes sense to me. =)
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Keeping up with the Joneses
I found out about this image from the Business Explained blog. It does a great job of illustrating the challenge of keeping up with the Joneses. Especially here in Silicon Valley, it's hard not to get caught up in this phenomenon. I think my wife and I are doing a pretty good job of it but I do worry a little about the kids - especially if all their friends have over-the-top toys, houses, cars, etc.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
The Proof of God
I came across a 1955 article from Time magazine the other day entitled "The Proof of God". It said:
No less than 96% of U.S. citizens polled believe in God, according to a survey by George Gallup. Pollsters also asked the 96% what they thought was the most convincing argument for God's existence. The replies, in order of their frequency: 1) The order and majesty of the world around us, 2) There must be a Creator to explain the origin of man and the world, 3) There is proof of God in the Bible (or other church authority), 4) Past experiences in life give me faith that there is a God, 5) Believing in God gives me much comfort...
Outside the world and inside his head, logic ruled. St. Thomas Aquinas formulated his five famed proofs of God's existence with a respect for logic that is not commonly part of modern man's mental furniture. Aquinas rates the proof derived from order last—the other four: 1) motion—the passing from power to act—implies an unmoved Mover; 2) similarly, there must be an uncaused First Cause that possesses in itself the reason for its existence; 3) the existence of beings whose nonexistence is possible implies the existence of a necessary Being; 4) the scale of perfections evident in the universe implies the existence of an absolute standard, a perfect Being.
A friend of mine mentioned the "proof" by St. Thomas Aquinas the day. In the course of looking for it, I came across the Time article.
In my opinion, there is no proof for the existence of God other than personal experience. Logic can be a contributing factor but it can't get you there one way or the other on this topic. In terms of the personal beliefs I've arrived at, see here and here.
No less than 96% of U.S. citizens polled believe in God, according to a survey by George Gallup. Pollsters also asked the 96% what they thought was the most convincing argument for God's existence. The replies, in order of their frequency: 1) The order and majesty of the world around us, 2) There must be a Creator to explain the origin of man and the world, 3) There is proof of God in the Bible (or other church authority), 4) Past experiences in life give me faith that there is a God, 5) Believing in God gives me much comfort...
Outside the world and inside his head, logic ruled. St. Thomas Aquinas formulated his five famed proofs of God's existence with a respect for logic that is not commonly part of modern man's mental furniture. Aquinas rates the proof derived from order last—the other four: 1) motion—the passing from power to act—implies an unmoved Mover; 2) similarly, there must be an uncaused First Cause that possesses in itself the reason for its existence; 3) the existence of beings whose nonexistence is possible implies the existence of a necessary Being; 4) the scale of perfections evident in the universe implies the existence of an absolute standard, a perfect Being.
A friend of mine mentioned the "proof" by St. Thomas Aquinas the day. In the course of looking for it, I came across the Time article.
In my opinion, there is no proof for the existence of God other than personal experience. Logic can be a contributing factor but it can't get you there one way or the other on this topic. In terms of the personal beliefs I've arrived at, see here and here.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Facing Darkness
It's interesting to see how certain topics suddenly get popular in the press. In the last week, I've seen two articles on men and depression. The first was in Men's Health, entitled "Exercising Your Demons", and the second was in Newsweek, entitled "Facing Darkness". Both articles pointed out that depression in men has classicly been misdiagnosed and that men are very reluctant to admit to the problem. Rather, men exhibit tendencies towards alcoholism, violence, extreme exercise, hard work, and suicide. Men also tend to fly off the handle about little things like bad service or some other seemingly minor incident.
A couple of excerpts from the Men's Health article:
"It's understandable that women are three times more likely than men to be treated for depression; our culture has put a feminine face on the disease, so women give themselves permission to feel it and to seek help for it. Polluck puts it this way: 'We have in our society a feminized view of depression, coming out of a model of hysteria that dates back to Freud.' Terrance Real, author of I Don't Want to Talk About It, and a marriage and family therapist in Massachusetts, wrote, 'There is a terrible collusion in our society, a cultural cover-up about depression in men.' And part of the cultural influence involves the way men are taught from early childhood to be strong, silent, independent, and resistant to suffering. As Real puts it, 'Men have about a millisecond's tolerance for feeling [this type of] pain, and then they spring into action. A flight from shame into grandiosity lies at the heart of male covert depression.'"
"The social conditioning that leads to men's response to depression begins in infancy. Male babies receive less of every type of nurturing, including speech, touch, and comfort when they cry. And that is only the beginning of what will be, to one degree or another, a brutal upbringing for boys. In the 1960s, the crusading social psychologist Jeanne Block and her colleagues explored how differently parents treat boys and girls. For instance, moms and dads encourage boys to be competitive and to achieve. They don't like them to show their emotions. They encourage them to be less dependent; mothers push them away. They punish them more than they punish girls. And they are unaware that they treat boys and girls differently."
"But there is not much in our cultural definition of what it means to be a man that is inherent to maleness. Children start off surprisingly alike, whether they're boys or girls. If there's a difference, it's the opposite of what the culture seems to expect: Boys are more sensitive. They give expression to their emotions more readily than girls. They affiliate with others in the same way as girls. Then someone tells them it's not okay to be that way. If you act like that, you're a pussy. As Real and others have explained, it is through this process of denial that men are primed for depression. And it is the cultural necessity of carrying out and carrying on this process that makes it so difficult for them to recognize and admit to depression when it comes. They not only don't acknowledge it to themselves, they often don't display the symptoms that psychotherapists use to diagnose depression. The cultural training that lays the groundwork for depression in men and for their denial of it later in life involves social isolation. That means telling people the truth about yourself and trusting that they'll do the same, a concept that seems terrifying to many men."
The Newsweek article has a sidebar called "The Sad Legacy of Depressed Parents". The most interesting excerpt was:
In one recent study at Columbia University, researchers found that rates of anxiety disorders and depression were three times as high among the adult children of depressed parents as they were among people whose parents were not depressed. Adult children of depressed parents also reported about five times the rate of cardiovascular disease—a sign that emotional disorders affect more than mood. Even kids who manage to succeed socially often struggle at home to care for their parents or younger siblings. "Depression has an entire family dynamic," says Myrna Weissman, the lead researcher in the Columbia study.
Both articles had little quizes men could take to determine whether they suffer from depression. I failed (or passed, depending on your perspective) both quizes. But it wasn't a surprise. After an initial period of excitement with my new job, the stress (mostly self-imposed) has really gotten to me over the last three months. I've always had a disposition towards working hard. I've also increasingly been getting really upset (and staying upset) about really minor, stupid stuff. And I've been having trouble getting to sleep and staying asleep - so then I'm tired a lot. It's definitely a viscous cycle I'm in. I've never really felt like I fit in the world. I'm feeling that way now. Perhaps I don't fit; perhaps it's depression; probably the latter. I've also noticed other negative patterns of behavior reemerging so it's time to take action.
Not sure how to break out of this. I've seen a therapist for the last 5 years but I need to work out some issues with my current health insurance before I can see her again. In the meantime, I guess I'll lean on my wife (not that I don't lean on her enough as it is). I should start exercising more regularly as well. Baby steps but positive steps.
A couple of excerpts from the Men's Health article:
"It's understandable that women are three times more likely than men to be treated for depression; our culture has put a feminine face on the disease, so women give themselves permission to feel it and to seek help for it. Polluck puts it this way: 'We have in our society a feminized view of depression, coming out of a model of hysteria that dates back to Freud.' Terrance Real, author of I Don't Want to Talk About It, and a marriage and family therapist in Massachusetts, wrote, 'There is a terrible collusion in our society, a cultural cover-up about depression in men.' And part of the cultural influence involves the way men are taught from early childhood to be strong, silent, independent, and resistant to suffering. As Real puts it, 'Men have about a millisecond's tolerance for feeling [this type of] pain, and then they spring into action. A flight from shame into grandiosity lies at the heart of male covert depression.'"
"The social conditioning that leads to men's response to depression begins in infancy. Male babies receive less of every type of nurturing, including speech, touch, and comfort when they cry. And that is only the beginning of what will be, to one degree or another, a brutal upbringing for boys. In the 1960s, the crusading social psychologist Jeanne Block and her colleagues explored how differently parents treat boys and girls. For instance, moms and dads encourage boys to be competitive and to achieve. They don't like them to show their emotions. They encourage them to be less dependent; mothers push them away. They punish them more than they punish girls. And they are unaware that they treat boys and girls differently."
"But there is not much in our cultural definition of what it means to be a man that is inherent to maleness. Children start off surprisingly alike, whether they're boys or girls. If there's a difference, it's the opposite of what the culture seems to expect: Boys are more sensitive. They give expression to their emotions more readily than girls. They affiliate with others in the same way as girls. Then someone tells them it's not okay to be that way. If you act like that, you're a pussy. As Real and others have explained, it is through this process of denial that men are primed for depression. And it is the cultural necessity of carrying out and carrying on this process that makes it so difficult for them to recognize and admit to depression when it comes. They not only don't acknowledge it to themselves, they often don't display the symptoms that psychotherapists use to diagnose depression. The cultural training that lays the groundwork for depression in men and for their denial of it later in life involves social isolation. That means telling people the truth about yourself and trusting that they'll do the same, a concept that seems terrifying to many men."
The Newsweek article has a sidebar called "The Sad Legacy of Depressed Parents". The most interesting excerpt was:
In one recent study at Columbia University, researchers found that rates of anxiety disorders and depression were three times as high among the adult children of depressed parents as they were among people whose parents were not depressed. Adult children of depressed parents also reported about five times the rate of cardiovascular disease—a sign that emotional disorders affect more than mood. Even kids who manage to succeed socially often struggle at home to care for their parents or younger siblings. "Depression has an entire family dynamic," says Myrna Weissman, the lead researcher in the Columbia study.
Both articles had little quizes men could take to determine whether they suffer from depression. I failed (or passed, depending on your perspective) both quizes. But it wasn't a surprise. After an initial period of excitement with my new job, the stress (mostly self-imposed) has really gotten to me over the last three months. I've always had a disposition towards working hard. I've also increasingly been getting really upset (and staying upset) about really minor, stupid stuff. And I've been having trouble getting to sleep and staying asleep - so then I'm tired a lot. It's definitely a viscous cycle I'm in. I've never really felt like I fit in the world. I'm feeling that way now. Perhaps I don't fit; perhaps it's depression; probably the latter. I've also noticed other negative patterns of behavior reemerging so it's time to take action.
Not sure how to break out of this. I've seen a therapist for the last 5 years but I need to work out some issues with my current health insurance before I can see her again. In the meantime, I guess I'll lean on my wife (not that I don't lean on her enough as it is). I should start exercising more regularly as well. Baby steps but positive steps.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Useless men
About two and half months ago, I read an interesting article regarding peak oil and its implications for society. The gist of the article was that men in this generation don't have the fundamental skills required to survive (and provide for their families) in a society without cheap energy.
Over the last few weeks I have been doing oral history interviews with older people ... of their memories of the 30s, 40s and 50s. They remember working with horses on the farms, raising children with gas lamps, candles, home grown vegetables and home made clothes. This is less than 2 generations ago. What emerges is an innate sense, in the generation that made it through World War Two, of what constitutes enough, of an instinctive sense of self-reliance and an almost universal ability to turn one’s hand to anything.
A couple of years ago I went to London to a peak oil conference, and the evening before it I went to the pre-event social. I was struck by the fact that everyone there (with one exception) was male, aged 25-40, and, as far as I could tell, worked in IT. They were all very pleasant, intelligent, well read on the whole peak oil issue, and as able as anyone to argue that the peak is imminent and we need to act. There were however, almost no women, no gardeners, no builders, no foresters in the room, nor at the subsequent conference as far as I can tell.
Writers such as Shepherd Bliss and Carolyn Baker have questioned why it is that women are less prominent in the peak oil community. I have a nagging suspicion that it is because what we are seeing is, in part, a generation of men awakening to the fact that they are completely ill-prepared for life beyond oil. Almost all of the peak oil writers, and the vast majority of peak oil website writers and bloggers, are men. When I have organised peak oil-related events, finding female speakers on the subject is very tricky.
From the oral history interviews I have been doing, I have seen how older men are less concerned about “going back” to the kind of lifestyles of the 40s and 50s because they still remember how to do things. They often say “well it’s not a problem, I still know how to do all that stuff”. Something happened around the 1960s and the passing-on of that knowledge just stopped. Perhaps mens’ natural instinct is to protect and to provide, and at a time when we feel on some level the need to be doing so again, we are realising that our education has left us completely incapable of doing either. The oil-based economic system has basically said “don’t worry about that, we’ll take care of that for you” for that last 50 years, but that system is now starting to look very shaky, and we realise we have been taught the wrong skills.
The skills one needs to work in the service industry, in sales, in IT, in the insurance industry, in a call centre, are of very little use when one starts thinking about what might follow that in a more localised near-future. What those of 2 generations ago had that we have lost was a practical attitude. They knew how to use the various tools around them, and had a confidence that they could turn their hands to most things. They had the core skills they would need to get through most challenges. Dig for Victory was possible because most people still knew how to garden.
It is interesting to me how specialized professions have become and how much we take for granted in terms of food supply, transportation, etc. If you begin to unravel that support infrastructure, many other aspects of society (including specialized careers) no longer make sense. Need to get going on teaching the kids some basic skills.
Over the last few weeks I have been doing oral history interviews with older people ... of their memories of the 30s, 40s and 50s. They remember working with horses on the farms, raising children with gas lamps, candles, home grown vegetables and home made clothes. This is less than 2 generations ago. What emerges is an innate sense, in the generation that made it through World War Two, of what constitutes enough, of an instinctive sense of self-reliance and an almost universal ability to turn one’s hand to anything.
A couple of years ago I went to London to a peak oil conference, and the evening before it I went to the pre-event social. I was struck by the fact that everyone there (with one exception) was male, aged 25-40, and, as far as I could tell, worked in IT. They were all very pleasant, intelligent, well read on the whole peak oil issue, and as able as anyone to argue that the peak is imminent and we need to act. There were however, almost no women, no gardeners, no builders, no foresters in the room, nor at the subsequent conference as far as I can tell.
Writers such as Shepherd Bliss and Carolyn Baker have questioned why it is that women are less prominent in the peak oil community. I have a nagging suspicion that it is because what we are seeing is, in part, a generation of men awakening to the fact that they are completely ill-prepared for life beyond oil. Almost all of the peak oil writers, and the vast majority of peak oil website writers and bloggers, are men. When I have organised peak oil-related events, finding female speakers on the subject is very tricky.
From the oral history interviews I have been doing, I have seen how older men are less concerned about “going back” to the kind of lifestyles of the 40s and 50s because they still remember how to do things. They often say “well it’s not a problem, I still know how to do all that stuff”. Something happened around the 1960s and the passing-on of that knowledge just stopped. Perhaps mens’ natural instinct is to protect and to provide, and at a time when we feel on some level the need to be doing so again, we are realising that our education has left us completely incapable of doing either. The oil-based economic system has basically said “don’t worry about that, we’ll take care of that for you” for that last 50 years, but that system is now starting to look very shaky, and we realise we have been taught the wrong skills.
The skills one needs to work in the service industry, in sales, in IT, in the insurance industry, in a call centre, are of very little use when one starts thinking about what might follow that in a more localised near-future. What those of 2 generations ago had that we have lost was a practical attitude. They knew how to use the various tools around them, and had a confidence that they could turn their hands to most things. They had the core skills they would need to get through most challenges. Dig for Victory was possible because most people still knew how to garden.
It is interesting to me how specialized professions have become and how much we take for granted in terms of food supply, transportation, etc. If you begin to unravel that support infrastructure, many other aspects of society (including specialized careers) no longer make sense. Need to get going on teaching the kids some basic skills.
Nothing New Here
I read this article in the Washington Post about two months ago. It's about a group of people in San Francisco that decided they weren't going to buy anything new (aside from necessities like food) for a year. It's a little extreme but they set a good example for the rest of us. Reducing consumption is definitely key to helping solve a number of the world's challenges. The most interesting quote from the article (at least for me) was: ""I go on talk radio shows, and I'm amazed by the anger of some people, the Chamber of Commerce president who calls up and says, 'You're trying to ruin the economy' ... I think it upsets people because it seems like we're making a value judgment about them. When we're simply trying to bring less . . . into our house." During the holidays, I gave some of my in-laws checks for $10 to buy energy-efficient light bulbs for their homes. It definitely wasn't a value judgment; just trying to make a contribution to reducing electricity consumption.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)