Pursuing praxis

February 12, 2006

A pretty patchwork quilt

Filed under: Personal, Art

Originally posted Monday, January 10, 2005.

I look at my little apartment, my little life in a box, and it has so much to say. It perhaps says more about me than I know what to say myself. These observations at a time when the old question, “Who am I?” rings anew, and a bit painfully, given the circumstances under which I lost the answer to that question.

So what do I see? Lots of white. Bare white walls, two white bookshelves, a white wardrobe with a white stuffed bear on top, a bedstand, two white lamps, an immaculate white kitchen, and a sheer nylon curtain over the main window. But interspersed are patches of color. Red and green pillow-cushions on the floor, a black-brown desk of modest style, a black stereo, blue flannel sheets, a sunset-colored quilt made by Mom, the rainbow of titles on my shelves. In the kitchen my Swiss Family Robinson plant dominates the place a table should be, a bottle of red whine, a red spice candle and a bowl of apples and cherries sits on top of my white stackable shelves. If they were oranges I would think of Cezanne.

Apart from color, I notice the variety of books. They speak volumes, so to speak. A whole shelf of philosophy, followed by art, religion, music, literature, a little poetry, pulp fiction, biography, physical and natural sciences, health and beauty guides, comic books, English and French dictionaries, field guides, an aircraft reference manual, a myriad of folders containing notes, papers, and materials from past classes, and their accompanying textbooks. On the shelf above my stereo are framed pictures of family and friends – Karen, Samee, Rushdia, Mom, Dad, Paul and Grandma and Grandpa. My one precious but worthless fossil lies wrapped in an old pink handtowel in front of the portraits. My trusty blue and white porcelain piggy bank stands ready, but empty, alongside. On the shelf above, poorly arranged, are various gifts and trinkets. The Italian candlesticks Rose gave me. The Israeli egg holders from Karen when she was in Iraq. The wooden puzzle-piece pleisiosaur. Three Grotto candles. My plastic RA box of foreign coins, old coins, coins I keep for silly sentimental reasons, and odd bits I keep in there out of habit-turned-tradition – the Route 66 keychain from the Bob Dylan concert with Sarah, the eraser I meant to return but never did, the keys to the trout lab that I forgot to give back. And finally a jar with a rainbow lightbulb in it.

On my bedside table is the statuette of Mary from Grandma on a doily I’ve had for as long as I can remember. Next to her are a rosary from Grandpa’s funeral, earplugs, a clip-on desk lamp, Atlas Shrugged, and a tiny book of sayings from the Dali Lama. On the shelves below are, no surprise, more books: my rosary prayer book, the prayer book from Notre Dame, a Rachmaninoff biography, the text for my vertebrate paleontology class, two journals, a book of Jane Austen quotes, and “100 Ways to Keep Your Soul Alive,” from Heather. On top of the wardrobe is my old clock radio, tuned to the classical channel, currently piping out a symphonic work I don’t recognize, along with a white lotus bowl of dried red rose buds, and my little potpourri jar bubbling away with the last of Mom’s orange-cinnamon-clove mix. Wedged between the wardrobe and the window are my old sketch notebooks. My beautiful, black, though under-used bike leans against the curtained window, tires flat.

On the bed are my silly penguin flannel sheets (topsheet upside down, fuzzy side in), a wool blanket, Mom’s quilt, a comforter, a sheet, and not-Joe, the elk hide Dad lent me that wasn’t from his four-pointer (Joe) whose rack protrudes from our livingroom wall. A lone calendar is pinned to the wall, above the radiator. January shows the silhouette of a helicopter pilot on the flightline, the pale evening sky and purple clouds nearly shrouding the chopper behind him.

What made me originally take note of this was a series of mental-photographs my mind captured while making dinner tonight. I looked in the reflective glass of the kitchen window and saw my hair doing a ‘50s-style wave and curl with a side part, my black librarian glasses making me look either old or sophisticated, depending on my mood, my lips with berry-colored lipliner still holding fast. My black wool shirt and cardigan almost looked like a sweater-set, but were topped by my frumpy gray hooded sweatshirt from the Gap. Then there were Dad’s old army green fatigues from Officer Training School 30 years ago, and the teal and navy bushkins Mom crocheted for me (“bushkin” a la C.S. Lewis’s “Prince Caspian”, which was my bedtime story in the 2nd grade). So there was this 50’s inspired, intellectual-looking, fatigue-wearing girl of indiscernible age, resolutely kneading dough on two square feet of counterspace and heating spaghetti sauce on the stove. Clean, precise, efficient, my kitchen was a stylish little laboratory of domestic beauty, created by a girl perfectly content to survive on cold cereal. I uncorked a bottle of red wine and added some to the spaghetti sauce, popped the biscuits in the oven, and shortly thereafter I sat down with a nice hot meal, classical music playing all the while. That is, I sat down at my desk in front of my computer, with my spaghetti and biscuit on a blue plastic plate and a cup of cold, over-brewed tea that I promptly spilled all over my pile of financial documents.

Such is the collage of analyzable objects, symbols and habits that make up my life. Somewhere here is the answer to the question, “Who am I?” but I am skeptical that a rigorous analysis of all this would encapsulate me. I suppose it’s a lot like my mom’s quilt; the scraps of fabric and miles of thread say little on their own, but when stitched together into a chosen pattern, transported with me through life events, mended here and there, and acquiring a history and personality of its own through time, the essence of the quilt becomes more than the patches that comprise it.

Life goals

Filed under: Goals, Personal, Travel

I started this list on December 5, 1994, and have been adding to it and crossing things off ever since.

Things to do

  • Visit: Egypt, Thailand, Russia (including St. Petersburg), Greece, Italy, Turkey, Machu Pichu, The Seven Wonders of the World, Africa (equatorial rainforest, Sahara Desert, and savannas), Japan, the Nile River, the Amazon River

  • Learn to: downhill ski, swim like a human, play electric guitar, sing, give toasts and speeches,
  • Run a marathon
  • Get my private pilot’s license
  • Become fluent in German and French
  • Learn to read Greek, Latin, Czech, Mandarin, and Italian
  • Take a hot air balloon ride; go parasailing, hang-gliding
  • Play a whole Beethoven sonata
  • Teach one person to play the piano
  • See a polar bear in the wild
  • Live abroad for a year
  • Write a book (not just edit a volume)
  • Own my own business
  • Contribute one key idea to both science and the philosophy of science
  • Own my own land
  • Do something truly original and important for my dissertation, something I’ll always be proud of, no matter how fast it gets eclipsed.
  • Be an expert on some aspect of evolutionary biology and one taxon
  • Seek out the people I want to learn with and work wth, irrespective of career-building strategy
  • Read most of Aristotle’s main works
  • Read the relevant parts of Bacon
  • See Yo-yo Ma, Itzak Perlman, and Lang Lang perform

Goals completed

  • Donate $1000 or more to a charitable organization (I now consider my income tax as forced completion of this childhood goal).

  • Visit: Canada (Oct. 2006; Ottawa, Quebec), China (including the Great Wall)(April, 2006; Beijing, Xi’an, Guilin, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Wuxi), Australia (summer-fall 2000; Fremantle, Perth, Broome; NW Kimberly, Melbourne, Tasmania, Sydney, Adalaide, Kangaroo Island, Caines, Port Douglas, Albany, Great Barrier Reef, Pacific Ocean, Southern Ocean, Indian Ocean), New Zealand (Dec 2000; Christchurch), England (May 2004; London), Washington DC (Jan 2000, July 2003), Czech Republic (May 2004; Prague, Vnorovny), Austria (May 2004; Vienna), Walden Pond (Nov 2003), NYC and the World Trade Center (summer 2001), Texas (2001), New Mexico (summer 2005; Albuquerque, Abiquiu, Santa Fe, Ghost Ranch), Utah (summer 2004; Arches Nat’l Monument)
  • Learn to: cross-country ski (Dec 1999 - I still suck), canoe (summer 2000), play volleyball (April 1999), golf (fall 1998 - boring as hell), waterski (summers in high school), drive a boat, rollerblade (summer 1998), dance ballet (summer 2001 - yeah right), draw (spring 2001), paint (spring 1998), row (1998), snorkel (June 1996), swim a horse (summer 1995?), snowboard (Dec 1998 - a painful, wonderful sport that I’m still terrible at), sail (spring break 1999 - I want more!)
  • Go: whitewater rafting (May 1998, Oct 2000, April 2005)
  • Ride a train (June 1999; Mari’s Wedding in Pasadena, CA)
  • Be a vegetarian for a month (Jan-Oct 1999)
  • Look up my last name in a Czech phonebook, visit Vnorovy (May 2004)
  • See the Lipizzaner stallions perform at the Spanish Riding School in Vienna (May 2004)
  • Run the mile in less than seven minutes (<6:30 and 6:15, fall 1996)
  • Peel an orange in one peel, using just my fingers (Feb 1997)
  • Fall in love (summer 1999, 2004)
  • Learn to shoot and clean a gun (Dec 2004, 2005)
  • Get straight As in high school
  • Study abroad (fall 2000)
  • Live on the east coast (2002-2004; Boston)
  • Go skydiving (March 2005; Bay Area Skydiving)
  • Own my own piano (Sep 2005; Hammond)
  • Go to college out of state (1998; Indiana)
  • Go to graduate school (2004; UCB)

Life’s work, III

Cohesion of all. Dissertation?

"Species selection on variability [unites] two concepts I regard as the most important revisions now needed to mend and strengthen the two main legs of the essential Darwinian tripod: the hierarchical theory of natural selection … and the centrality of constraint as a character of evolutionary direction in concert with natural selection… An important component for explaining the patterning of life’s history lies in limitations and channels imposed and retained by developmental architecture - and these constraints do much of their work at higher levels, in large part by influencing "species selection on variability." — SJG, "SET" pg 666.

Life’s work, II

This is me.

"To summarize, we all agree that an independent theory of macroevolution must identify higher-level causal processes that are not reducible to (or simple effects of) causes operating at conventional lower levels of gene or organism. This premise defines the theoretical salience of the debate about species selection - for if such a process exists and can also be validated as both common in evolution and irreducible in principle, then macroevolutionary theory has been achieved. For this reason, evolutionary biologists, who usually eschew academic philosophy (as the mildly philistinistic culture of science generally dictates), have joined in such classical philosophical debates as the meaning of reduction and emergence."

– SJG, "SET" pg. 662

Post-orals plans

Filed under: Goals, Personal

After my exam, I’m going to:

Bug out on my maddening-as-hell seminar that day
Go to the Mark Twain room and listen to music all afternoon
Go dancing in the city
Dye my hair (blue and/or dark brown)
Go to China with Karen!
Listen to the Rach 3 live with Jenna!
Get my tattoo!
Go for a run as long as I want, as often as I want, with Roxie
Get my bike tuned
Get my piano tuned
Read Sober’s "Conceptual issues in evolutionary biology"
Relearn stats
Learn some programming basics
Take up either krav maga or Brazilian jiu jitsu
Finish up that goddamn Picketwire project
Go to UCSB for a month of paleobiology training (if I get in) from June-July
Read Binswanger’s "Biological basis of telological concepts"
Read Aristotle! Possibly at UCSB
Pow-wow with Dave on possible philosophy research
Go hang-gliding
Try surfing?
Voice lessons
Pay off the last of my loans
Dissertation reading
Map out dissertation, outline chapters
Apply for dissertation funding
Look up class(es) with Searle. Maybe get on his radar
Learn about motorcycles

Music as tiers of concepts

A tangent to my reading in Rand’s ITOE, applied to music:

I played piano for my best friend when she was here just before Christmas. Her comment was, "I have no idea how you remember all those notes." Truth is, I don’t remember them. If you plunked the music down in front of me and told me to sight read it cold, I’d be screwed. Sure, I read the notes and memorized them initially, but now it’s to where I remember the shape of the chords, the position on the keyboard, the required movement from one to the next, and the associated sounds (before, during, and after), which together ensure I play the correct notes. They are totally subsumed under this umbrella of integration by experience.

Now I think, pairing these observations with a re-reading of her theory of concepts, that there’s a parallel between run-of-the-mill concepts, and music. If concept formation requires a collection of percepts from which you abstract the commonalities, yet discard the variations in those commonalities (what she calls measurement omission, generally speaking), that’s a lot like learning a chord by figuring out all the separate notes, and then integrating them into a whole, where all you have to do is remember the whole in order to remember the many. (This way you don’t "blow your crow"). And you do this iteratively - you take these integrated, conceptualized chords, and link them together into phrases, establishing the transition from one chord to the next, till you remember the phrase as a whole, and picking out a single chord requires mentally disassembling the phrase. And on and on, abstractions on abstractions, conceptions of conceptions, till the whole piece becomes folded within a few key concepts that act as starting points, all within your crow.

Because there’s no way I could ever remember all those notes, even though I can play them no problem. Problem solved :o)

How I think

Filed under: Personal, Speculation

Been reflecting on how my thoughts occur, their structure, formation, history, contingency. So far I’m still at the stage of identification. Hopefully this will help me move to evaluation, and then to explicit control and management. My observations are these:

Information, as a rule, does not stick with me if it’s brand new to me. I’ll have to hear it several ways, several times, from several sources. Then the loose ends start meeting up and forming a structure, but the meeting up is largely out of my control. I can stoke the fires of thought, work on it, stew on it, stir it, but I can’t sort through and make the connections consciously. I’m not sure what to think about this yet. A lot of my mental contents and incipient knowledge exist in this amorphous soup.

After a time, when enough loose ends have met up, I require some kind of outside pressure for my thoughts to congeal. It’s like that plaster muck stuff my 4th grade teacher showed us, where you pour it in your hand and it oozes everywhere, but when you squeeze it, it turns really hard - it develops a kind of internal structure when under pressure. The beginning stages of this usually involve demo conversations, teaching, explaining to someone else, self-interviewing, and in a very unimpressive manner.

And when enough of these accumulate, things crystallize and I connect them and I can see and evaluate the relationships, and it’s usually very very good. And only then can I write or lecture coherently, and then my mind works like a scalpel, and it’s where my innovation and cutting-edgeness comes from. The crystallizations are episodic, but the processes leading up to it are always functioning, and working at multiple time scales.

Now, with this information, what does it mean? What do I do? On the one hand, I want conscious, explicit control of something as crucial as this. On the other hand, how is that minds work? Would I know how to manage my mind, if the option was available to me? It may be that this is, by and large, the most efficient way for my mind to work, to synthesize, to evaluate when information is still very raw. Maybe it’s physically impossible to wrest control of my brain’s functions before a certain level of integration has occurred. I think Rand was onto something really key with her theory of concept formation, and how the logical structure of such does not parallel how it unfolds developmentally, for each individual in the course of his own lifetime.

Song of myself

Filed under: Personal

[email to Jenna]

I just had the most amazing conversation with one of my advisors, Clark. I can’t remember how much Gould stresses the 1959 centennial celebration of Darwin’s Origin at U of Chicago in the first chapter, but he goes into it at great length later (big surprise), and all the characters and figures and opinions and dissenters and ideas that were present there. Well - dude, get this - Clark was there. He helped organize the thing. Shared an office for an entire quarter with Julian Huxley. Friends with Dobzhansky. Knew like everyone else. I mean everyone. Holy fucking cow. Like, all this I’ve been reading about, and that’s being held in my mind with some difficulty, just exploded! Just like that, it was real.

And he sees Gould’s book the way you and I do, and not like everyone else who wants a hard, fast, skinny little technical book. Because there’s so much depth, so many tangents, so much to even a single subject - in Gould’s thinking, his writing, in the way people’s minds work, and in the very nature of a subject like evolutionary theory (or any topic for that matter). SET is a treasure trove of connections and possibilities, synthesis and analysis that god only knows what’s going to come out of this, but I think it’s gonna be huge, even if it takes 20 years to play out, bit by bit.

And you know what - Clark knows. He gets it. He talks about books the way you and I do (without being a pervert about it or anything) for exactly the same reasons. He gets it, the high that is learning, and branching out and making connections, and he wears it on his sleeve. Maybe most of my other advisors think the same thing, but if so they’re not obvious about it. Clark’s the teacher everyone wishes they had, no matter how good one had it. Man, him and Gould together, talk about scales falling from my eyes. He points out books on his shelves (and he has a whole office full, four walls, floor to ceiling, overflowing), that have been sitting there all along, and I’m like that one! that’s the book! or another, or another. He talks about buying Simpson’s Tempo and Mode of Evolution in San Francisco before shipping out to the Pacific for WWII, before he’d even been to college, and how it gripped him, or one of Lewontin’s books in London before going to Ethiopia for the first time (he’s a human origins/evolution researcher). Just, so amazing. I’m going to encourage him to write a book about learning and growing as a scholar next time I see him.

Man, I’m so high right now, and I’m starving and 66 pages of Gould still stand in front of me tonight.

Ideas swarming. Hopefully I can catch and pin some down tonight, and with any luck and finageling, I’ll have some really awesome things to share tomorrow.

Ahhh! Man, life’s grand. I wish I could pass this feeling out like party favors.

—-

[email to Joe]

I think I may have just had the best day of my life. I saw the world spread out in front of me, wide open, and so brilliantly bright and full of possibilities that happiness stabbed so hard it brought tears to my eyes. And twice. I’m painfully, joyously aware of how much I can do, and all I have to do is do it, even if it means I’ll be worn to the bone, because I don’t care, there’s nothing that’ll hold me back. And there are no boundaries, no walls in any part of my life; it all goes together, one flows into the next, and success in one is success in another. And I got to share that, in a way, with two people I tremendously respect.

First, I connected with one of my advisors, Clark, despite the distance of a good 60 years, and –I think I’ve been looking for this my whole life. Here’s the teacher I’ve been waiting for, knowing I haven’t any right to expect it, but holding on to the hope all the same. He can’t teach me a damn thing, but he’ll help me do it all myself. He sees that I can take the world by storm, and he nods and smiles, seeing what I see and saying yes to it.

Second, I got your cd, just now, and it about knocked me over. The songs, the way they hang together, and Rand and Rodin and everything. It’s this collection and integration of wierd yet special little snippets of my life - all in one place, and they cohered so fast and so hard I … am speechless, still.

—-

[reply from Jenna]

Hey–It is so awesome when it becomes so *real*– the meeting of a man who’s been there, who has thought along a similar path, who by living validates all that one values. I’m so happy that you’ve gotten to really talk with Clark; that he can understand the weight of the book that really isn’t a weight at all– that it’s a door opening. I hope you’re talking with him regularly now– I’m here cheering you on :) to pick this guy’s brain! He sounds like he has mountains to offer, from what you’ve written– I’ll be in line for his book if he decides to write it!

“He gets it, the high that is learning, and branching out and making connections, and he wears it on his sleeve.”

The party favor has been handed to me, my eyes are tearing, it is *so* beautiful to hear that others have know the high and the ambition, andhave not dulled it nor set it on the wayside as they’ve grown. It’s awesome to hear a lifelong non-complacency, a lifetime’s worth of having doors opened all the time, of not turning away from shut doors.:) I’ve felt this, many times; the mental opening of doors, the innocent wonder and mature gravity– and sometimes scholastically it ends at me– my advisor for physiology actually told me that I need to “relax” or else I’ll “have a stroke”. I know one of his doctoral students and they’ve told me that he never says that to anyone, so in a sense, I take it as a compliement that a rigorous, hard-assed, blunt, and difficult teacher would tell me to relax. But anyway– so glad to know that advisors that appreciate the beauty of SET for each and every sentence– that they are out there, that they can wear it on their sleeves. Even if I may never have such an advisor in cognitive neuroscience, it is more than possible that one can *be* such aperson. While guiding lights such as Clark or Gould exist in many different fields and possibly very few treasure them as what they are, it is also a heady knowledge to know that we (who are in love with the mind) can be guiding lights as well.

“Because there’s so much depth, so many tangents, so much to even a single subject - in Gould’s thinking, his writing, in the way people’s minds work,”

I know! There’s so much depth everywhere, such that each sentence can compose an entire book on its own. I am realizing with amazement, day by day, the multidimensionality (adjectival, not literal *grin*) of existence that I cannot even begin to explain the multitude of connections I ponder about in my brain, much less write it all out. Gould can not only understand it but craft words such that it enables others to see it, if they want to.

Thank you for the wonderful email! I have yet to read chapter 2, but Iwill right now…–J

Life’s work

"But empirical discovery cannot supply the entire (or even, I think, the major) reason for adaptationist hardening, for each favorable case can be matched by a failure (often hedged or unacknowledged), and no adequate assessment of an overall relative frequency has ever been achieved - to this day." [My emphasis]. SJG, "SET"

Bingo, there’s my life’s work. Map relative frequencies of evolutionary mechanisms at the appropriate hierarchical levels for a given clade of animals. Possibly bovids.

The bar has been set.

Check back in 40 years, and render your verdict of me then.

Race cars and intellectuality

Filed under: Reading and Books, Rant

"So much in our material culture is both alluring and dangerous at the same time– try fast cars and high-stakes poker for starters. Why shouldn’t a fundamental issue in our intellectual lives possess the same properties?" –Stephen Jay Gould in Dinosaur in a Haystack. [Thanks to Jenna for culling this quote.]

It does! They all do! Intellectuality backs all of our pleasurable ‘material culture’ from the start, at least in regards to rational people. I think that’s where fast cars and high stakes poker comes from. How many a man, in the course of the last hundred years, couldn’t sleep at night till he devised a hair-raising, rubber-burning car, or any other dream, no matter what it cost him? Too many to count. The same irresistibility fueling a desire for fast cars underpins the more esoteric questions too, which Steve is raising up as higher, more noble concerns. Steve is pitting body against brain, emotion against intellect, parading around Plato’s mind-body dichotomy like it’s a debutante, and not the oldest, hardest-worn crone in Western history.

Nice one, Steve. I’ll have my cake and eat it too, thank you very much. Because the way he’s set things up, that’s not only possible, it’s right. And you know what? I think he knows it. You can’t be a brilliant scholar out of sheer duty, or habit, or lack of other possibilities. No matter your level of innate talent - and his was considerable - no one’s the best without wanting it, loving it, and working for it, right down to the bone. And because you love it - because Steve loved his work, his noodle - it’s the most natural thing in the world, to work like a dog with a smile on your face. That’s when you’re living all the way out to your skin. Whether you’re furiously penning a monster book or climbing into the seat of a Formula-One car.

On atheism

Filed under: Philosophy, Personal

[Originally posted October 23, 2005]
An excerpt from a reply to someone asking about my views and how I got here.

My atheism is a fairly recent development - within the last year or so, although I didn’t realize it until about six months ago. People would probably like to link it with me being a scientist and especially an evolutionist, but I was a happy evolutionary Catholic for many many years. Three key events made me look at the world differently. First, my best friend is a nurse and served in Iraq for eight months last year, patching up marines and zipping up body bags in Fallujah. We talked quite a bit when she got back. She told me about some of the horrendous things she saw, and those images and impressions - though acquired second hand - will stay with me for a long, long time. I have extraordinary difficulty reconciling that kind of suffering and pointless butchery in a theistic world - especially when most everyone supposedly shares the same god, despite religious differences.

That same year I was deeply involved with, indeed wanted to marry, a man who turned out to be incredibly ill. He had schizo-affective disorder (conceptually somewhere between bipolar disorder and schizophrenia), though I didn’t know it until much, much later. I tried to be the titanic column, to reverse the downward trend he was on, to motivate and support both our lives, but he was dragging me down too. In effect, despite all my efforts, I had to sit by and watch the slow, excruciating death of an incredible mind, of the man I loved transcendentally. It’s a horrendous thing, to watch a mind tear itself apart. In the end, we broke up and he killed himself in March.

Through all this, I felt incredibly alienated from god, and had some bones to pick besides. I couldn’t understand why something so shitty should happen to such a good person - my boyfriend or the troops overseas, or to me fighting the good fight all by myself. It boiled down to the problem of evil, which intellectually was not a new problem to me. I mean, I went to Notre Dame; they make sure they cover that stuff in your theology classes. So I was grappling with it anew, but at the same time I didn’t feel that all this was sufficient to chuck god and Catholicism, which has been important to me for a long, long time. I’m a very patient person, in my work and my relationships with men and with God; I’ll grind myself into the ground before I give up. For most of my life, I’ve been a real, conscientious Catholic, not just one of the people that pay it lip-service and go to mass on Easter. I felt things incredibly strongly, and at times had a visceral knowledge of god’s existence.

To help me get through some of the worst times with my boyfriend, I picked up one of my favorite books - Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I’d read it some years before and loved the story. This time I read it for the "you can do it" message just so I could make it one day to the next. At that point I was in a deep depression with severe anxiety from the stress of living with an abusive, suicidal man, and therapy wasn’t enough to override the downward spiral of his health and my feelings. Atlas did the trick. Needless to say, I pretty much maxed out the depression scale when I first went in to the doctor’s for treatment. After two weeks of reading Atlas, I felt alive, and confident, and *strong* for the first time in months. My depression scale score went from a 37/40 to a 2 before the meds could have any effect. The enthusiasm from the book did wear off slowly, but it gave me a shot in the arm when I was scraping the bottom of the barrel, and there’s a good chance it saved one or more lives at least once.

The crazy thing about that book, beyond its message, was how accurate it was in its portrayal of people, and the relationship between thoughts and feelings in those different types of people. I don’t know about you, but I had never been closely associated with someone as ill and as tormented by his feelings as my boyfriend was. I saw that Rand understood the internal conflicts in a way that neither of our families nor our therapists (nor anyone else I knew) could grasp. Whether or not she had had a similar experience as me was irrelevant. However she came upon her knowledge, she knew what I knew, and I wanted to know how she knew it. So, in the spring, I read Atlas again, this time for the philosophy. And it jumped out at me and grabbed me. There’s a notorious 50 page speech in that book that, admittedly, I skipped the first time around. I mean, 50 pages of preaching, come on. It’s now my favorite part of the whole book, because I finally get what she’s driving at and, given my experiences, I’ve seen why these issues really are life or death matters. I used to criticize her for exaggerating. Now I gently reproach myself for not having had a larger view of things (gently because for me it would have been difficult to come to that perspective without a trying experience). I’m a rational person, and I am extraordinarily tough with ideas - I want to see that something can go through the inferno of rigorous testing, that I can do my utmost to tear it down - and if it still stands, then it’s the most beautiful and powerful thing I can conceive of, because it’s essential and fundamental and motivates all my more concrete experiences of beauty, inspiration, etc. whether in my personal life (as here), or something with little or no application outside my work.

After that, I delved into her non-fiction writings and, honestly, they made my heart race more than the book ever did. I distinctly remember forcing myself to put down "Philosophy: Who Needs It", and go for a walk to let my heart rate slow down and my adrenaline recede. Mostly though, I knew I had found what I’d been looking for or trying to create for some years - an integrated, rational system of knowledge to inform my values, and therefore the rest of my life. I had looked for it many years ago, and couldn’t find it, and had resolved to make it myself - my own system of philosophy that made sense from the bottom up, examining and choosing the most fundamental tenets of my worldview, and making the relationships between all derivative things explicit for myself. It really bugs me when I know that I value something but I can’t explain *why*; saying "I just do" or "It just feels right" is thoroughly insufficient. It’s a place to start, to be sure, but I see feelings as indicators of implicit knowledge that, with sufficient effort, can be made explicit. I like Margaret Thatcher’s definition of intuition: Reason in a hurry. Anyway, I couldn’t do that with my values. All the reasons I could enumerate for being a good person were concretes, particulars, derivative answers - I couldn’t nail down the fundamentals motivating those concretes.

So I tried to make my own philosophy, but got stuck on physics and the universe - I didn’t know enough. So I started reading, and realized it would take me years - if not decades - to make my philosophy. So I said ok - it’ll take me a long time, but I’ll do it eventually. And the idea - that goal - had been on the back burner of my mind ever since. Till I found Rand. I saw what I was looking for, what I was unable to do at the age of 22. So I read her stuff. And I saw the fundamentals, the axioms, the relationships between them and their derivatives, and I saw that there was no need for god. And it made perfect sense - internally (as presented, regardless of my experiences) and externally (compared to my experiences and the world around me); to the very best of my knowledge, she’s hit the nail on the head. And it freed me. I was able to throw off the myriad of conflicting "should’s" and the guilt and confusion that come from giving validity to something you haven’t validated (god, in this case), and just like that, I was able to integrate my whole life, without even trying. My beliefs, my personal relationships, my work and my science, and my sense of life all stem from the same values for the same reasons, and there are no contradictions, no compartmentalizations, no exceptions. I’m able to live my life fully, joyously, morally, *to the hilt* in everything I do. I’ve never had more integrity, honesty, or justice (in my definition of those words, or in anybody else’s - everyone describes me as a "good" person, but I think I’m the only one who knows how "good" I am - and how far I still have to go). I’m more moral and more happy than at the peak of my religiousness. I embrace the fact that when I die, that’s it. No pearly gates, no heavenly here-after - and the absence of such things is what makes possible the "aliveness" and the morality of my life now. Suffice to say, my view on god (and a myriad of other things) allows me to move on with my life - these views make possible all my subsequent endeavors. As you can see, I was willing to set aside a good chunk of the time and energy of my life just so I could have an integrated and rational worldview. It’s that important to me. I just got it a lot earlier than I had expected, and now I’m able to get on with the things that interest me - macroevolution, macroecology, philosophy of science, the history of life, etc. All things living, myself and people included. That’s why my interest in philosophy, biology, physics, business, politics, and many forms of art are all variations on a theme for me. They have different names, but it’s all part of the same thing. I’d sound mystic if I didn’t know that I reject all things mystical :o).

Epiphany

Filed under: Philosophy, Personal

[Originally posted May 23, 2005]

I realized bulletins aren’t permanent. This needs to be permanent.

Lo and behold, I think I have a new favorite book. Given how much (you know) I like books, that gives some slight inkling what a significant event this is. You’ll probably not be surprised that it is also by Ayn Rand. It is "Philosophy: Who Needs It."

I practically gasped reading the first chapter, Rand’s graduation address to the West Point class of 1974. God how I wished my commencement speaker had said anything a tenth as insightful, personal, relevant, memorable and motivating as she did.

I’ve had to put down the book at least twice since then, just yesterday, for mental breathing room and to let my heart rate slow down. I’m not joking. And these are non-fiction essays. They are that powerful - unexpectedly too, because her stuff isn’t new to me.

In particular, I read the most fundamentally damning sentence of a person - so damning I didn’t even imagine it possible until I read it: "The widespread fear and/or resentment of morality - the feeling that morality is an enemy, a musty realm of suffering and senseless boredom - is not the product of mystic, ascetic or Christian codes as such, but a monument to the ugliest repository of hatred for life, man and reason: the soul of Immanuel Kant.

"…………… whoa. That makes my palms go cold and sweaty just reading that for the fifth time or so. It’s like a blow to my head that knocks my brain to the back of my skull. And I don’t even know much about Kant at all.

Needless to say, I recommend the book. If you ever wonder how "things got to be how they are" or "why people are the way they are" or why we have the morals, ethics, and "rules" we do, this book is a good place to start. Unlike Kant, it’s not a doorstop, a cure for insomnia, or the province of library-bound ivory-tower-trapped academicians. It’s written for the (thinking) populace. The answer to "Who needs philosophy?" is, of course, everyone, and she says why, clearly.

If ever you’ve experienced an intellectual or idea-driven euphoria or other mentally-induced physical high, you’ll know why I had to write this. This is a personal revelation of reason, an overthrow of a paradigm - of things as they are. It’s a brand new day.

In another life

Filed under: Personal

If all the problems of science were solved, or at least those that I cannot leave alone while they are unresolved - I would happily work as an underling groom in the finest horse stables and training operation I could find.

INTJ

Filed under: Personal

For those so enthralled by personality pigeon-holing, here’s more on me. I guess I’m enthralled because it seems odd that any system could encapsulate me without knowing me (astrology, Myers-Briggs, etc.). According to the Myers-Briggs system, I’m consistently an INTJ(Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Judging vs. Extroverted Sensing Feeling Perceiving).

INTJs: The Systems Builders and Masterminds

INTJs are rather rare, comprising no more than, say, one percent of the population. To outsiders, INTJs may appear to project an aura of "definiteness," of self-confidence. This self-confidence, sometimes mistaken for simple arrogance by the less decisive, is actually of a very specific rather than a general nature; its source lies in the specialized knowledge systems that most INTJs start building at an early age. When it comes to their own areas of expertise — and INTJs can have several — they will be able to tell you almost immediately whether or not they can help you, and if so, how. INTJs know what they know, and perhaps still more importantly, they know what they don’t know.

INTJs are perfectionists, with a seemingly endless capacity for improving upon anything that takes their interest. What prevents them from becoming chronically bogged down in this pursuit of perfection is the pragmatism so characteristic of the type: INTJs apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion "Does it work?" to everything from their own research efforts to the prevailing social norms. This in turn produces an unusual independence of mind, freeing the INTJ from the constraints of authority, convention, or sentiment for its own sake. INTJs are known as the "Systems Builders" of the types, perhaps in part because they possess the unusual trait combination of imagination and reliability. Whatever system an INTJ happens to be working on is for them the equivalent of a moral cause to an INFJ; both perfectionism and disregard for authority may come into play, as INTJs can be unsparing of both themselves and the others on the project. Anyone considered to be "slacking," including superiors, will lose their respect — and will generally be made aware of this; INTJs have also been known to take it upon themselves to implement critical decisions without consulting their supervisors or co-workers.

In the broadest terms, what INTJs "do" tends to be what they "know". Typical INTJ career choices are in the sciences and engineering, but they can be found wherever a combination of intellect and incisiveness are required (e.g., law, some areas of academia). INTJs can rise to management positions when they are willing to invest time in marketing their abilities as well as enhancing them, and (whether for the sake of ambition or the desire for privacy) many also find it useful to learn to simulate some degree of surface conformism in order to mask their inherent unconventionality.

Masterminds will adopt ideas only if they are useful, which is to say if they work efficiently toward accomplishing the Mastermind’s well-defined goals. Natural leaders, Masterminds are not at all eager to take command of projects or groups, preferring to stay in the background until others demonstrate their inability to lead. Once in charge, however, Masterminds are the supreme pragmatists, seeing reality as a crucible for for refining their strategies for goal-directed action. In a sense, Masterminds approach reality as they would a giant chess board, always seeking strategies that have a high pay-off, and always devising contingency plans in case of error or adversity. To a Mastermind, the organizational structure and operational procedures are never arbitrary, never set in concrete, but are quite malleable and can be changed, improved, streamlined.

In their drive for efficient action, Masterminds are the most open-minded of all the types. No idea is too far-fetched to be entertained - if it is useful. Masterminds are natural brainstormers, always open to new concepts and, in fact, aggressively seeking them. They are also alert to the consequences of applying new ideas or positions. Theories which cannot be made to work are quickly discarded by the Masterminds. On the other hand, Masterminds can be quite ruthless in implementing effective ideas, seldom counting personal cost in terms of time and energy.

Personal relationships, particularly romantic ones, can be the INTJ’s Achilles heel. While they are capable of caring deeply for others (usually a select few), and are willing to spend a great deal of time and effort on a relationship, the knowledge and self-confidence that make them so successful in other areas can suddenly abandon or mislead them in interpersonal situations. This happens in part because many INTJs do not readily grasp the social rituals; for instance, they tend to have little patience and less understanding of such things as small talk and flirtation (which most types consider half the fun of a relationship). To complicate matters, INTJs are usually extremely private people, and can often be naturally impassive as well, which makes them easy to misread and misunderstand.

Perhaps the most fundamental problem, however, is that INTJs really want people to make sense. This sometimes results in a peculiar naivete’, paralleling that of many Fs — only instead of expecting inexhaustible affection and empathy from a romantic relationship, the INTJ will expect inexhaustible reasonability and directness.

Probably the strongest INTJ assets in the interpersonal area are their intuitive abilities and their willingness to "work at" a relationship. Although as Ts they do not always have the kind of natural empathy that many Fs do, the Intuitive function can often act as a good substitute by synthesizing the probable meanings behind such things as tone of voice, turn of phrase, and facial expression. This ability can then be honed and directed by consistent, repeated efforts to understand and support those they care about, and those relationships which ultimately do become established with an INTJ tend to be characterized by their robustness, stability, and good communications.

False dichotomies

Filed under: Philosophy, Rant, Personal

Rhetorically-devised or innocently subconscious false dichotomies are the single largest roadblock on the path to objectively true knowledge. Science suffers only slightly less than the populace at large. "Constant vigilance" should be the watchwords for permitting concepts into our minds. Perpetrating thoughts (and rhetoricians) should be mercilessly expunged.






  • li>
  • Get free blog up and running in minutes with Blogsome
    Theme designed by Hadley Wickham