do we deserve to survive?

the more one looks at the world, the more disenfranchised one gets with the state of human rationality. we pride ourselves on being the only sentient beings on this planet, but at even a cursory glance, that belief is quickly evaporated in the face of human behaviour.
what would a rational species do in a situation such as ours right now?
well, as things stand right now, our survival as a whole is at stake, from more than one perspective.
leaving all moral discussion about human behaviour aside, the current decisions being made and the current practice in very substantial matters are very far from rational.
to stick to the two most pressing issues, global climate change and the threat of nuclear war, human behaviour past and present has shown quite clearly that we are not at all sentient to the extent we would like to believe.
a sentient being would regard the opinions of specialists on said matters highly and would act accordingly. but if one looks at public opinion on either matter, it is clear, that human emotionalism is far more powerful than human rationality.
scientists in both areas have more than often warned us about the current state of affairs. global warming is not only a real threat, it is a nasty type of threat. it is fairly unnatural for a human to act on something not immediately visible. though the entire scientific community has been preaching in unison the dangers of enviromental irresponsability, the public reacts far more violently to populism and business-run propaganda based on base fears and the dislike of smarter-than-thou opinions. the massive counter-information campaign in this matter is so disturbingly effective, it begs the question, what are we do-gooders really trying to save?
humanity in our hopelessly optimistic mind is a noble species, capable of great achievements in science, morals and other areas we can all agree are the highest ideals we can strive towards.
if we are realistically to succeed in our endeavour of saving ourselves, we must allow one shameful conclusion. we cannot do so without stooping to our enemies' level of manipulation. and alas, fighting fire with fire in this instance has also proven to be a sisyphus project.
the rational few, who hold little real power over information dont stand a chance against the massive media-juggernaut we face.
humans dont only lie themselves into a false sense of security though, we also choose to simply ignore pressing issues, though the origin of this behaviour is the same as the aforementioned.
one can rant and rave as long as one wants to about the dangers of nuclear war, but as long as our rulers and their most powerful enforcers (mass-media) are against the idea of dismantling nuclear arsenals worldwide, we will never see the dawn of a wmd-free world.
motivations are as plain as the nose on your face. what bully would voluntarily and without force cease to terrorise his peers? power is the most terrible drug known to man. none can resist it and none would ever give it up willingly.
back we go to rationality and its impotence in the face of a violent and power-loving species.
our tactics always make one fatal mistake. we assume that we can abide by the collectively established peaceful means we as a fictitiously rational species claim to strive towards, and achieve a massive change in attitudes and behaviour. in the climate of total domination of our lives by a select few, this is a lost battle from the get-go.
we have every possible systemic disadvantage imaginable. should we use our knowledge, empirical proof and logical arguments to attempt to pursuade, we are battered by emotionally laden rhetoric. should we dare suggest direct action, we are quite literally battered by the other pillar of our rulers enforcing-machinery, the executive arm of government. should we suggest indirect action, the only successful tool we really have at our disposal, our army (the general public, the holders of all real power in any society) is faced with existence-threatening measures (loss of work, alienation, ridicule etc.).
we face a losing battle, my friends. we are left with a simple decision to make. keep up the good fight (good as in neccessary, not as a moral judgement. we agreed to leave that aside), or admit defeat.
the fundamental success of the powerful few lies in a simple truth. a powerful being is only as powerful as he believes himself to be. and after decades of propaganda, distraction and mind-numbing advertising, the human we wish to really exist, himself doesnt know he (potentially) exists.
we cry about waking up said human, but do we really want to? the human we wish to see arise from its slumber is a mental ideal. it doesnt exist. should we awaken the bohemoth it will be a directionless one, leaving a vaccuum of control at the top, which in our utopia we, the rational ones, would wish to fill. the problem is, this model produces the same world we are struggling to dismantle right now. power is a drug, and no human, even a sentient one, is immune.

The Quality of Pirsig

Recently Miles lent me his copy of Robert Pirsig's book "Lila" and having read Pirsig's first book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" I thought I should give Lila a go. Miles informed me that this book contained more information about Pirsig's metaphysics of quality.
In his first book, Pirsig talks briefly about the concept of "quality" stating it is impossible to define it as it precedes reality. The motivation for further expanding on his theory of quality is Pirsig's willingness to prove that he has not simply evaded any discussion about quality by defining it as undefinable. So in "Lila" he has interwoven his metaphysical theory with a story about sailing (more or less...we want to focus on his theory).
First of all, quality is value. According to Pirsig, value is the underlying force of all being (hence metaphysics). Value and quality are synonyms. This is more or less what Arthur Schopenhauer also said about the world as a moral force, and before him many others including certain Buddhist philosophers.
A problem arises however when we consider who has values. It must certainly be one of man's defining traits that man alone holds values. How could atoms, after all, judge what they are doing without consciousness or the capacity to reflect? An animal does have a certain moral character. It feels pain and does not like it, it makes loud noises and tries to struggle free from whatever is causing it pain. But can we say that it is moral if it expresses a willingness to avoid pain? Is morality not a certain way of acting expressed between two people?
We could also view as problematic the concept of a universal force behind all being. We might hold the view that there are many forces behind life. Or we could negate the possibility of any force behind life. This of course is difficult to debate, as there is no way of finding out the truth, nor is this discussion not routed in the physical world but in the world behind the physical world. This is the main problem metaphysics faces. It is really just a matter of setting up theories about which one can hardly debate as the theme of the debate is far greater than our minds could conceive. That is why there were so many different theories postulated 2000 years ago, at the time when most philosophers were searching for the one force behind all being, the apeiron. With the arrival of science in the 17th century the energy of mankind was focused on physical matters.
But let's get back to Pirsig. After naming "quality" as the metaphysical force driving all being, Pirsig divides quality into dynamic and static quality. These two categories are not contradictory, as they make up one force.
Dynamic quality is change. Static quality is a lack of change.
Dynamic quality is instantaneously recognised without conception, whereas static quality describes conceptualised patterns.
What this comes down to is social criticism (dynamic quality) and tradition (static quality).
Pirsig further divides static quality into four sub-categories:

-inorganic static quality (from now on SQ)
-biological SQ
-social static SQ
-intellectual SQ

According to Pirsig, there is an evolutionary relationship between those four subcategories, meaning that inorganic static quality is less evolved than biological static quality and so on.
Inorganic SQ is matter. Biological SQ are living things and instincts as well. Social SQ are all institutions of society, rituals and habits. Intellectual SQ are ideas.
One thing Pirsig does not clarify is to which category emotions belong.
Are they part of biological SQ or intellectual SQ? And if they are part of biological SQ, is Pirsig of the opinion that pre-dominantly emotional people are less evolved than pre-dominantly intellectual, analytical people? And how can ideas be static? Are they not to be judged by their content, so that an idea can be either static or dynamic?
There certainly are many people who abide by the law, who follow rituals set by society. According to Pirsig, those people are less evolved than intellectuals. I would say that intellectuals are well-read, learned and educated when it comes to a certain part of knowledge (as a physicist is learned in physics), but this does not mean they are ethical or learned when it comes to ethical behaviour. Perhaps a person is intellectual when it comes to his/her field of expertise but follows set ethical rules. Is this person then evolved and unevolved at the same time?
Pirsig describes the 19th century as the century dominated by social SQ and the 20th as the century dominated by intellectual SQ. The 20th century was, according to Pirsig, not free from social SQ. He says that most of the problems of the 20th century came from the struggle between social SQ and intellectual SQ. Apparently the first world war had nothing to do with economic interests, the struggle for power and territory...Kaiser William the second was just following social convention which was, at that time, to start the largest war in history (until then)...
Anyway, all in all, I think Pirsig's theory is not exactly wrong, but unoriginal and in many ways problematic. The book itself has many beautiful scenes and is well-written. It is definitely worth reading, but I find it is better to regard Pirsig as an author and not a philsopher, and "Lila" as literature, not as a book on metaphysics.

---

Metaphysics of Quality homepage

Why I can leave out the "I think"

When having political discussions, or in fact any discussion with diverging opinions, people always find it necessary to say "I think" or "in my view" or something of that sort, to make it clear that an opinion is being uttered. But why should this be necessary??

People are always easily offended by absolute sentences like: it is wrong to do x. Of course this tendency does not restrict itself to the ethical or political realm; people may easily be offended by absolute statements about aesthetics like: EMO is a load of shit. The reason why people are more offended when it comes to ethical or political statements is because ethics and politics are far more serious and important to our personal well-being than most other things. Ethical and political statements are almost always value judgements and most people are of the opinion that value judgements can never be absolute. They think this, because they say people are determined by their genes and by the experience they've gained, and of course these two factors can never allow for an absolutely encompassing judgement about any subject.

This brand of moral relativism hasn't been around for such a long time, but relativism/skepticism in an epistemological sense has. It dates back to the Greek philosopher Pyrrho, who denied that it is possible to know the very nature of things. Pyrrhonists were very fond of making this doctrine clear by avoiding stating: "this house is red", and instead saying: "it APPEARS to me that this house is red" or "I THINK that this house is red". In this same way people nowadays avoid absolute statements by always adding "I think" before stating anything.

What I disagree with is the following: if we all think it's impossible to utter the nature of things, then why do we feel the need to make this fact obvious?? If this is the human condition, then all we can do is present our interpretation of the nature of things. Why is it then necessary to state our human condition? Isn't the human condition always the same, regardless of whether we state it or not??

It's obvious that the human condition does not change irrespective of whether it's stated or not. Therefore it is not necesary to state it. Expressing it is merely a formal or an aesthetic act and not one of subtance, meaning that it's perfectly fine to leave out the "I think" when uttering your opinion in a discussion.

The reason why people become angry if the formal "I think" is left out, is because they feel that someone is judging something about which they have no right to make an absolute judgement. However, considering the afore-mentioned, can there ever be something about which a human can make an absolute judgement? Concerning things which stand outside our realm of experience, no, a human can never make an absolute judgement (things which can be conceived independently of whether they exist, can of course be conceived). Of course in matters concerning one's own being, it is possible to make an absolute judgement, since the body, actions or thoughts compose the realm of one's experience.

Another reason why people need to say "I think" is because the idea of this brand of skepticism has only been widely accepted for around 50 years or so. Before it was still believed that it was possible to make absolute judgements. However, since we all believe in skepticism, it has become unnecessary to say"I think".

Anyone who believes in skepticism knows that if I say: you're an asshole, it's the same as saying: I think you're an asshole, or: due to my experience and my beliefs, I think you're an asshole. These sentences all mean the same thing, since there are always underlying
assumptions whenever anything is said or done. So if anyone reading this meets a person who really still believes in absolute (moral) judgements, just have an epistemological discussion with him/her and if that person should still believe in absolute judgements, you can walk away content, knowing that whatever anyone says is his/her opinion and nothing more. So there's really no need to become angry if someone doesn't say "I think".

PS: Of course I say "I think", but I shouldn't need to!!

Paper Cuts

you know those times when youre trying to open a frozen pizza box or youre reading some type of magazine and turn the page clumsily?
after an initial small shock you think nothing of it... then about 87 seconds later you see that tiny red line form on your finger, that for some reason begins to itch and hurt at the same time.

yes, you did it! you cut yourself on that thin sheet of bleached and compressed woodpulp.

few things are more annoying than this mosquito of bodily injuries (perhaps a stubbed toe you accidently hit on the coffee table), not because of the sensation itself, but for its lasting and almost always unfortunate placement.

in the most exquisite and consistent proofs of murphy's law, the papercut will always find itself situated at a much-used place on your hand, so that every time you wash your hands, every time you reach for a cigarette, every time you start massaging yourself to that disgustingly graphic gonzo-porn you just downloaded, you will be reminded of your recent mishap.

and thats not all... it hurts! being that the fingers are laden with nerve-endings, paper cuts are disproportionately painful, making it that much more infuriating that you didnt take your time in opening that cursed pizza box more carefully.

as enlightened men have noted, all life is suffering. im sure one of the first and most powerful experiences that led them to this conclusion, was the paper cut.

Lament for the Sand Saga

In the midst of the human rights movement, hippies and the vietnam war, a then little known auther named Frank Herbert gave birth to one of history's most influential and long-lived science fiction epics, the saga of the desert planet 'Dune'.
Over the following two decades the series found millions of fans, and rightly so. Its depth of thought and gripping intricacy more than merits the fanaticism of its followers.
Quite understandable it is then, that after giving us so many hours of fascination, we find ourselves betrayed by the ones who took upon themselves the task of keeping alive the spirit of 'Dune'.
First, we were presented with David Lynch's cinematic adaptation. Visually as perfect as can be, but, as is the nature of fanatics, we were left wanting at the effort to condense the immensity of the first of the series into one 120 minute film. The insertion of the 'weirding module' as a plot device is ridiculous, despite the blessing of the creator himself. The omission of the central feature of 'other memory', the moronic idea of guild navigators actually bending space themselves, with no mention of the 'holtzmann generator', all these things left us disappointed, though as it seems, this would be the best of all works in the new 'Duniverse'.

Then came the first 'Dune' novel in nearly fifteen years, authored by none other than Brian Herbert, son of the creator himself, and Kevin J. Anderson, a sci-fi author responsible for numerous spin-off novels, most notably in the 'Star Wars' universe. This alliance would prove the most damning blow to the fanbase of the original saga.
Their abominations which they then proclaimed canon, were riddled with inconsistencies, ridiculous simplicity and sheer bad writing. The 'Duniverse' as we knew and loved it was heading for a cliff, and there was nothing we could do about it.
Nevertheless, we bought the abominations. We read them out of our near herion-like addiction for more tales of the spice and of 'Arrakis'. The more we read, the more our hearts broke at the slow death of the epic.

Then came the Sci-Fi Channel mini series. 15 years after Lynch's valiant, but nevertheless failed effort, the saga had another shot at the moving pictures. Alas, once again we were disappointed. Where Lynch had failed, the series succeeded. Where Lynch had succeeded, the series failed... miserably and fatally. Though the series stayed true to most of the plot and the ideas, the execution was so poor, so terribly cheap-looking, that we wrench in pain at the sight. A cuddly Ian McNeice playing the most vile of characters ever to be dreamt up. A pathetic looking youngster with a few liver-spots being sold to us as the future God-Emperor of the known Duniverse... the sandtrout became a living stillsuit not a few patches on his shoulder!


Then came 'Hunters of Dune', the oh so long awaited conclusion to the original saga. We pre-ordered our copies, we revelled as we opened them upon arrival, we cried out loud at the bubble-gum sci-fi it had turned out to be. Gone are the twists and turns, gone are the plots within plots, gone are the feelings of timeless scale.
All we have left is a terminator/matrix clone but with the characters we so loved smack dab in the middle of it all...

Farewell Duncan, you poor bastard
Farewell Miles, we had so much hope vested in you
Farewell Sheeana, we prayed you would not become what you have
Farewell Scytale, you devious critter
Farewell Murbella, we always hated you, but now we hate you even more.

ah the joys of unspoiled cinema!

1999. a new film had just catapulted a director with an unpronounceable name into stardom. apparently it is a well executed thriller about ghosts or something to that effect, and it stars bruce willis (one of my favourite actors at the time).
though i was not expecting all too much from it (cynical as i am), i nevertheless intended to see this movie. that motivation had quickly disappeared after a classmate of mine blurted out '...and i couldnt believe bruce willis was actually a ghost the whole time teehee' in that bimboesque tone we all know and hate of largely breasted, dim-witted females. i was fuming to the point i almost upturned the dinner table our group had been sitting on as this happened.
in my book there is no greater social crime than the lifting of a (good) film's outcome. homicide in these cases should be treated as crimes of passion.
you can imagine the numbness with which i was burdened whilst forcing myself not to think of it, as i watched 'the departed' today, knowing full well the outcome, because some troll had decided to make it his business to post it in an internet forum i frequent.
i call for these people to be removed from not only the internet, but society as a whole. they should be locked up in sandpaper-padded rooms forced to watch uwe boll films over and over.
and im not kidding at all...

an ode to coffee...

you are my very first thought in the early morning
eyes still crusty, stretching and yawning
your glorious odour lifts my spirits
my love for you knows few limits
how gracefully you blend with different ingredients
yet you remain uncannily expedient
as a compliment to many a pastry
you are a fixed item, be the dish sweet or savoury
your industry sadly is bitter sweet, much like your flavour
still countless times you have been a life saver
my heart aches at the downfall of your culture
the fast food nation picking your corps like a vulture
attracting scavengers left and right
with no respect for your history or might
almost gone are the coffee houses of old
sites closed down, locales have been sold
nevertheless, you remain
still refreshing minds, sweetened or plain
i salute the bean, the roasting and the sieve
rest assured, my life you will never leave

---

More on coffee:
National Geocoffic
Coffee geeks
Wicoffee