comment malfunction (UPDATED)

It seems like comments aren't working...

...on that note, I guess I might as well tell you, I dislike greatly the Blogger service.  I will be exporting this blog to wordpress soon, I think...

Update:  It seems that it wasn't blogger, it was the custom template I had installed.  I've changed it (I like this one better) and the comments are working again.  Enjoy!

Levity [Humor]

A quick perusal of this blog makes it seem like I really don't have a sense of humor...

That's unfortunate, because I really feel like the crux of what I'm after in these posts is to help myself and others like me be at peace with the world, and I think that happiness, laughing, and general buoyancy of spirit are ESSENTIAL to letting the world wash over you without negative effects.

So every now and again I'm going to tag something with [Humor] in order to lighten the mood!

This guy is Awesome!

You can check out the story, but this is an adorable 8 (i've also read 10) year old boy who was banned from youtube after he got popular enough for the site admins to notice he was under the 13-year-old minimum.  So, of course, 4chan fights back with a viral campaign of porn clip mashups.  Apparently it was wildly successful, and hilarious.

Other, equally successful retaliations:
-repost all videos of parkour with naked performers
-find a way for this guy to repost his amazing videos : http://www.wired.com/underwire/2008/02/parody-videos-s/
-1-for-1 legit video for rickroll exchange.  Trust me on this one.

How would you mess with youtube?  Honestly, the possibilities are endless.

The Outsider Perspective

Observation is a powerful tool, and we use it from the moment we're born until the moment we die as a way to gather information. Our culture has formalized observational technique into multiple disciplines such as anthropology, behavioral biology, quantum physics (paradoxically), sociology, and so forth. The list is long because of how important observation is to our ability to gather information, and our senses seem designed to operate in a way that allows us to be absent as an agent but present as an observer.

Some will state that it is impossible to be an observer in our society, that we are all influenced by the situations we see and the way in which we process them. This is absolutely true, but only to a point. For the most part, the faculty most incapable of remaining impartial is our emotive capability, and the influence of our emotions seems directly tied to our investment in the situation at hand. To put it another way, the further removed from a situation you are, the better you will be at observing it impartially.

This premise is difficult to argue with; it is relatively clear that emotions and logical processes inhabit separate locations in our minds and while they certainly create feedback, noise, and difficulty for each other at times, it is theoretically possible to distill one without the other. Philosophy finds this as the ONLY method by which to approach problems of life, the universe, and everything.  The scientific method is based on this idea, on the assumption that there are facts and laws and mechanisms that can be known and understood based on observation and variable elimination.

And yet, almost to a person, we believe that the most essential way of knowing a person or a group of people is to be that person or a part of that group of people.  The distinction is incredibly important, because there are intrinsically subjective elements to being a unique organism or being part of a unique culture that cannot be understood from a separate context.  We have words to describe the inaccessibility of this knowledge, the most notable is Empathy.

To be empathetic is to have, for a split second, an understanding of what it means to be a part of the situation being observed.  This point of reference is used from that point onward in order to alter the situation, but at no point has the observer become the observed.  This is akin to our forays into astrophysics, which are based entirely on snapshots--generally stationary--of systems we cannot touch, feel, or measure directly.  We know that in all reality, this is the closest we'll come to a true understanding of the cosmos or of each other.

Interestingly, there are cases in which we do trust others to have more knowledge about ourselves than we do.  Psychotherapy is a perfect example of this, in which a total stranger is asked to help illuminate things about ourselves that we would otherwise be relatively blind to or in denial about.  The methodology surrounding psychology/psychiatry is such that rather than building a catalog of all the possible personalities, a good therapist will look for markers that indicate more common TYPES of personalities or ways of coping with life.

All of this is just a lead-up, though.  I want to talk specifically about efforts to "improve" the world (quotes for subjectivity).  Activist groups are a special breed, passionate to an intensity head and shoulders above the rest of their respective cultures and generally interested chiefly in solving problems that affect them at their specific social locations.  Western progressive activism tends to center itself around the concept of intersectionality, under which characteristics of a person decide their unique social location and end up creating subtly different communities underneath the larger progressive umbrella.

Race, class, gender, sexual orientation, (dis)ability, body type, educational level, and geography all play into this matrix of forces that influences us every day.  People at certain locations have more privileges than others due to history, context, and the Isms that describe the multiple types of discrimination faced by regular people every single day.  And thus, activists tend to rally in order to overcome these Isms.

(Full disclosure:  I'm white, male, well-educated, generally straight, without any disabilities)

The general feeling within these activist groups is one of emotional support, empowerment, re-education, and direct action.  There is not a huge amount of room for scientific discovery, which is in part due to the rejection of science as a valid way of describing human society (see this post).  However, there also seems to be a general sentiment that empathy is not enough.  To effectively  fight an Ism, you have to be affected by it.

And that's fine!  I'm not whining that I can't participate in empowerment campaigns for groups I don't belong to.  Being a progressive, forward-thinking individual, though, I do see room for improvement.

Activism could benefit greatly from a big dose of Outsider Perspective.  Not the hostile, "what are you whining about?" type, because this is given all too willingly and all too often.  I'm not even talking about the sort of white guilt that results in somewhat well-intentioned but ultimately doomed efforts to "save the children" of poorer, less-western, less-white cultures.  What I'm referring to is the perspective held by those of us who empathize with the cause but cannot participate due to the hypocrisy that would result.

And this is where I tend to get into trouble.  How do you approach a group of legitimately marginalized people and tell them, here, my privileged life has yielded a more helpful way of doing things!  I used to do this as a kid, before I understood the error I was making, by questioning the submissiveness and lack of academic integrity embraced by many young girls my age simply because they were girls.  It just wasn't my place to tell them that something was off, but it didn't change the fact that I knew.

Rather than end with a resolution, I end this post with a dilemma:  how do the well-intentioned, entirely devoted outsiders of a cause make a positive impact?  There has to be a way, just as there was a way to overcome the problem of powered flight, just as there was a way to fuel the civil rights movement in the 1960s, just as there now is a way to communicate nearly instantly using invisible ones and zeroes over thousands of miles.

tiredness

I can't write today. I'm just too tired. But I am forcing myself to write SOMETHING every day, so, this is it. An admission of physical weakness. I'm giving up coffee and caffeine until my insomnia resolves itself.

I've got some new ideas though. And some great improvements to make to the blog, like references, links, pictures, and videos. That should really get it jumpstarted, eh?

see you tomorrow.

Corporate Responsibility

This is going to be a short one, because like yesterday, I'm just too tired to actually write anything worth sharing with friends.

I just wanted to touch on the ways in which we think about corporate responsibility. Opinions vary wildly depending on where you are in the world, if you are part of a corporation (and sense are both dulled and sharpened while being part of the machine), and so forth.

So, what does it even mean to be responsible? Is that something that's applicable to corporations, which by their very definition operate on the principle of the free market? Most people think that yes, there should be a guiding dogma for all corporate entities, and that this dogma be based on some amount of regulation. And yes, I'm including even the most radical laissez faire advocates in this analysis: even these individuals agree with holding companies to some amount of international law (like not killing people, for instance).

In our country, we try to regulate heavily based on the principle that corporations have a responsibility to consumers, investors, employees, and when large enough, the general public. The specifics of these regulations and the logic behind them differs from state to state and from market to market, but for the most part, our government seems to get that we want safe products made by workers who are treated well.

However, this is entirely at odds with corporate philosophy. Most, if not all, corporations operate on the principle that if a venture is profitable in the end, then steps along the way are justified. On the more responsible end of this continuum are companies that try to make ends meet, and when they can't, ask for input from employees and make changes based on collective bargaining. On the sleazy end are companies that perform massive layoffs, lower the quality of their products (or the quantity per dollar), or ship their industry to places where they are tax-exempt or where labor is cheaper. The degree to which they are motivated by Machiavellian economics varies, but the guiding principle is the same: the bottom line defines success.

And there are many in our country who believe that this is the way things should be. After all, we were founded on the principles of capitalism, meritocracy, and Locke's idea of equal starting points. Why is it then that companies with worse business models, practices, and products become more successful? Why is it that despite massive regulation, most industries find way to bypass the law? And why is it that despite a call for new jobs in the United States, a record number of positions are being shipped overseas?

I don't have answers to this. I personally think that capitalism is crap, an educated white man's justification for retaining the purse strings of an entire globe in the face of widespread poverty, violence, and intolerance. To me, the corporate structure reinforces the hierarchical structure of our society and maintains the perceived integrity of those on the top while dooming those at the bottom to obscurity.

But, like any person with an opinion but without a solution, I can't say that my perceptions are all that valid. I know I don't like what I see, but is there any way to successfully communicate ideas of frustration and disgust without an alternative in mind? For the most part, this is what gets those with a social conscience (some call us progressives. that was a joke.) are accused of on a daily basis: having criticisms without being able to forge a new paradigm from the decay all around us.

What do we need in order to do that? Collaboration? Better ideas? A new perspective? More power? LESS power? Inner peace? Inner pain?

Who knows?

No seriously. Who does? Do you?

The Science of Sleep

Boy, am I tired today. Sometimes, even well-intentioned people can be loud until midnight when you need to get up at 6:30 the next morning.

I woke up and did a quick analysis of my condition. Eyes barely staying open. Arms lethargic, legs like lead weights, coordination entirely off. 5 hours of sleep, after a weekend of extreme, strenuous, exhilarating fun (New Years, visit from my brother, a great evening with a new friend, and today, my birthday!). I'm about 12 hours in debt to myself, and there's really no sign that this deficit will be repaid any time soon.

But, as I arrived at work, buffeted by the bone-chilling Westchester Wind (I've anthropomorphised this Beast of Winter), I remembered something incredibly important that is honestly quite easy to keep in mind while I'm feeling well. In fact, it's become second nature to me, except when I'm cranky, anxious, or tired. Unfortunately, those are the times when advice such as this is most necessary. Bandages aren't that useful when you don't have a wound in need of dressing, and therapy is generally lost on even the most damaged of individuals if they happen to be in a good mood at the time.

But I digress. I walked, and I thought the following: at some levels, both the highest level of being (the Observer) and the lowest level (the Reactor), we need only BE. There is no need to engage ourselves in every distraction that comes our way. As long as we are engaged in our own existence, we are safe no matter what happens to us.

So today, I'm exhausted. I really would rather be at home and asleep than at work, but I know that focusing on that will only make my estrangement from bed all the more painful. As a culture, we tell ourselves all the time that focusing on the negative is not helpful, but in general our solution is to distract ourselves in some other way. For instance, I could focus on work or writing this post, but in the back of my mind, I will always be thinking about wanting to go to sleep.

This method sucks (at least for me). And I know I'm on a Zen-Heavy trip these days (sans the dogma and doctrine), but in a lot of cases, the Zen answer is the correct answer. In this particular case, we find that rather than distracting ourselves further, the healthiest course of action is to acknowledge the discomfort, let it be felt, and let the thought dissipate naturally. Don't dwell, but don't try to artificially replace the thought either. And voila! You're out the other side, on your way to some sort of sleep-deprived enlightenment!

Every moment of my life in which I deal with thoughts and experiences AS THEY COME is a successful moment for me. Every moment in which I succumb to distraction is slightly annoying, but not sinful. There is no sin in this world, and that's what makes it so powerful. Sin is just another distraction from self, a roadblock that must be overcome in order to be truly OK with the world from moment to moment.

And, that, my friends, is how you write a barely cogent blog post. It feels good, though.

Happy New Year!

This doesn't mean a whole lot now, considering no one reads this blog yet, but I want to set a precedent of having an "open thread" where people can just comment on whatever they want, and talk about whatever is on their minds. Enjoy!
A blog about social change, written from Brooklyn, New York. Currently looking for contributors.