Shared spaces and the social power of deliberation
Deliberation in America has been on the decline while partisanship and divisiveness has been on the rise over the last century [Mass media and American Politics]. I am of course biasedly pointing to one of a number of things which have changed along with this when I point out that the amount of shared space has decreased appreciably within this time. As pointed out in the education post, mediating institutions and shared spaces where people have equal leverage to challenge one anothers opinions and have opportunities to engage with one another is a profoundly vital and powerful tool, one which unfortunately people loose appreciation for all too easily.
Media outlets thrive off of dramatizing and glamorizing different versions of the same exact story. The problem is that these media are the mediums we're communicating with. There is no "public discussion" as reason cannot take root in 130 character twitter lines, by socially selective circles governed by likability on Facebook, or on public news sites which have us constantly starting back at square one and repeating ourselves. Much of communication is inarticulated body language in either case.
Politicians used to deliberate behind closed doors [Mass Media & American Politics]. Now days the media is let in and they primarily speak to one another through the media. Many in congress are ill informed on what they are voting on. Some do not even know what the bill is about. Coincidentally, [coinciding with a decrease in healthy deliberation] partisanship has also been on the rise. This behavior was apparent to me when I took a political science class in which the purpose was to show up and literally act the part of being a senator. We were told to behave as if our goal was to get re-elected. Does not matter if you want to make a difference or are in it for the power; to gain either as a politician you must get re-elected. To many this seemed to equate to simply agreeing with their side of the room. They often lacked reasoning to justify why their actions even served their academic goal of behaving as if they want to get re-elected, and what reasoning there was [if existent at all] was often short sighted and lacking in observable justification.
Take for example the Davis Bacon act which one student proposed in an attempt to mimick the senator he/ she was pretending to be. The Davis Bacon Act requires workers on government funded construction projects to get prevailing wage. This wage is often in the realm of $30/ hour. The way it was presented was that it would help lower and middle class workers receive a decent pay. There came to be a sense among the democrats that they were supporting the real underdogs of labor industry. Experience however showed me that this is not the case. I've worked a lot of jobs with various people as a day laborer. It is not often we're invited onto government or union contracted sites, but when we are the case seems to be the same most all the time; people working lackadaisically for three times the pay. They got the job in part because they knew the right people not because of merit. In fact my boxing gym had a tournament just to raise awareness about this issue in Oregon - it was themed something like fair employment practices and was a private show for construction workers and contractors.
On the other side of the coin you got private contractors which are people who make their own work and often do it themselves. They work like time is money and expect the same of their workers. If you don't perform it is not likely you'll be working for them much longer. And for good reason; they don't get those $30+/ hour guaranteed contracts. To them, time is money. The Davis Bacon Act did nothing to help them, it only created a social rift in the construction world where employment is less based on merit than before. This especially becomes relevant when technology makes the job easier. Steele workers have beer bellies now days(?).
My point is that you'd need to live it, work it, or hear from someone who has before you realize that what you're doing is not having the intended effect. And of course a number of other examples of this same scenario can be found. But if you have not lived it, then how would you know? This is where deliberation and the ancient, nay, the biological practice of of telling stories - of sharing our observations - comes into play. There is no replacement for meeting this person face to face. To not just listen to what they are saying but to see the way they say it, to get a feel for who they are and what they are trying to describe. To have this person challenge your preconceptions and reasoning.
The city of Athens (the first democracy) would not pass laws until people deliberated in a public space and came to a consensus. If no consensus was reached then no law was passed. This alludes to the value of deliberation; not only do people challenge one another's thinking so as to make one another think critically, but in the process consensus's are formed and/ or equally important, clarification as to what consensus do not in fact exist is established. Being with consensus and knowing that you have it is a very powerful tool for people to have. Being without consensus and being ignorant as to whether or not one actually exists is a dangerous thing as political leaders feel an urge to do something, but if there is no public engaging in critical thought and establishing informed consensus or clarifying which ones do not in fact exists then it is basically impossible for a politician to serve them in any way that will make them all happy. In this case, doing something may be the most detrimental and unwise thing a politician can do.
Media outlets thrive off of dramatizing and glamorizing different versions of the same exact story. The problem is that these media are the mediums we're communicating with. There is no "public discussion" as reason cannot take root in 130 character twitter lines, by socially selective circles governed by likability on Facebook, or on public news sites which have us constantly starting back at square one and repeating ourselves. Much of communication is inarticulated body language in either case.
Politicians used to deliberate behind closed doors [Mass Media & American Politics]. Now days the media is let in and they primarily speak to one another through the media. Many in congress are ill informed on what they are voting on. Some do not even know what the bill is about. Coincidentally, [coinciding with a decrease in healthy deliberation] partisanship has also been on the rise. This behavior was apparent to me when I took a political science class in which the purpose was to show up and literally act the part of being a senator. We were told to behave as if our goal was to get re-elected. Does not matter if you want to make a difference or are in it for the power; to gain either as a politician you must get re-elected. To many this seemed to equate to simply agreeing with their side of the room. They often lacked reasoning to justify why their actions even served their academic goal of behaving as if they want to get re-elected, and what reasoning there was [if existent at all] was often short sighted and lacking in observable justification.
Take for example the Davis Bacon act which one student proposed in an attempt to mimick the senator he/ she was pretending to be. The Davis Bacon Act requires workers on government funded construction projects to get prevailing wage. This wage is often in the realm of $30/ hour. The way it was presented was that it would help lower and middle class workers receive a decent pay. There came to be a sense among the democrats that they were supporting the real underdogs of labor industry. Experience however showed me that this is not the case. I've worked a lot of jobs with various people as a day laborer. It is not often we're invited onto government or union contracted sites, but when we are the case seems to be the same most all the time; people working lackadaisically for three times the pay. They got the job in part because they knew the right people not because of merit. In fact my boxing gym had a tournament just to raise awareness about this issue in Oregon - it was themed something like fair employment practices and was a private show for construction workers and contractors.
On the other side of the coin you got private contractors which are people who make their own work and often do it themselves. They work like time is money and expect the same of their workers. If you don't perform it is not likely you'll be working for them much longer. And for good reason; they don't get those $30+/ hour guaranteed contracts. To them, time is money. The Davis Bacon Act did nothing to help them, it only created a social rift in the construction world where employment is less based on merit than before. This especially becomes relevant when technology makes the job easier. Steele workers have beer bellies now days(?).
My point is that you'd need to live it, work it, or hear from someone who has before you realize that what you're doing is not having the intended effect. And of course a number of other examples of this same scenario can be found. But if you have not lived it, then how would you know? This is where deliberation and the ancient, nay, the biological practice of of telling stories - of sharing our observations - comes into play. There is no replacement for meeting this person face to face. To not just listen to what they are saying but to see the way they say it, to get a feel for who they are and what they are trying to describe. To have this person challenge your preconceptions and reasoning.
The city of Athens (the first democracy) would not pass laws until people deliberated in a public space and came to a consensus. If no consensus was reached then no law was passed. This alludes to the value of deliberation; not only do people challenge one another's thinking so as to make one another think critically, but in the process consensus's are formed and/ or equally important, clarification as to what consensus do not in fact exist is established. Being with consensus and knowing that you have it is a very powerful tool for people to have. Being without consensus and being ignorant as to whether or not one actually exists is a dangerous thing as political leaders feel an urge to do something, but if there is no public engaging in critical thought and establishing informed consensus or clarifying which ones do not in fact exists then it is basically impossible for a politician to serve them in any way that will make them all happy. In this case, doing something may be the most detrimental and unwise thing a politician can do.
Analytical deduction: the basis of reason
From a physicists (in the making) perspective, everything is physical; everything is movement. If nothing moved there would be no mark of time, no acceleration and thus no [net] force, and no neurons in the brain would move to form a thought. A professor of mine once said he does not know what he's doing when he begins problems, he just starts doing something, then he begins to recognize patterns. In my own experience I'd say this is where one begins to gain insight as to what to try next. Other times it just lets you know what not to try. In either case, progress has been made.
Evolution works much the same way; spontaneous [phenotypic] variation followed by natural section. Come up with things, shoot everything down, then except that what is left standing is the closest we've come to such a thing called truth. It is process of elimination, analytical deduction, or more precisely it is objectivity. You see proofs only exist in math, but in physical science and real life the closest thing to proof is disproof, and we use observation to do it.
We just move. Then we observe. Observation is king. We do not take other peoples word for it regardless of how much sense it makes, rather we require it is observable and reproducible.
Objectivity: To describe what is observed rather than explain what you think.
Though reason is slow, when it takes an inch it does not give it back; it is productive. To throw one last quote from yet another professor of mine, "when physicist disagree with each other, they say, "thank you"". Objectivity essentially forces one to attack the argument rather than the individual. Think about it like this; you can tell people the world is round, but they could just tell you they think you're wrong and you'd have a degenerative argument. But if you just show them the world is round, then they begin wondering how and where they went wrong, and what else there might be they may not yet know. A degenerative argument has been transformed into a productive deliberation.
Thankfully people are naturally predisposed to challenge one another's thinking. Reason however, takes time in order to take root. In academic publishing nothing is published unless there is something new to say, and coincidentally journals publish on quarterly/ annual basis not daily/ weekly as does the news reporting social problems.
There is no good reason that objectivity and productive deliberations cannot take root among the public instead of degenerative and unproductive arguments commonly witnessed today. As noted already, we already are naturally inclined to show people they are wrong, not just tell them what we think. Observation naturally gains respect over opinion. So why are "public discussions" today so degenerative, fragmented, and counterproductive?
In the last year or two I've taken to getting involved in city hall and other public meetings. What I've found is the term 'public conversation' which gets tossed around so often basically means commenting on newspaper websites or showing up to public meetings in which [assuming you even managed to find out they were happening and could make it] you show up to an often crowded room in which your time will often be restricted to two minutes to speak, in part because politicians felt the need to kill a half hour congratulating those presenting to them. It will be a one way dialogue occurring only minutes or hours before the matter is put to a vote, and more than likely the politicians voting on the matter at hand showed up already knowing how they were going to vote in the first place.
Agreeableness kills truth in these meetings when real discussion is micromanaged and tightly controlled. We are biological predisposed to it, and without opening the door for objective and productive disagreement, it goes unchecked and produces the most senseless outcomes. but - even if what they're discussing is essentially throwing an entire group of society over a cliff who does not have the good fortune of being present at this meeting - the meeting sounded productive and rational because no one was able to raise their voice, to interrupt, or to say, "you're wrong".
The thing is rationality is not characterized by tone of voice, by one's appearance, or even by what particular words one chooses to express themselves with. Rationality is marked by one thing; does it adequately describe what we've observed? When reading the literature of the founding fathers I am impressed at the level of intellectual thought of politicians of those days. The thing is though, they used to roll up their sleeves and have it out with one another in public meetings.
Evolution works much the same way; spontaneous [phenotypic] variation followed by natural section. Come up with things, shoot everything down, then except that what is left standing is the closest we've come to such a thing called truth. It is process of elimination, analytical deduction, or more precisely it is objectivity. You see proofs only exist in math, but in physical science and real life the closest thing to proof is disproof, and we use observation to do it.
We just move. Then we observe. Observation is king. We do not take other peoples word for it regardless of how much sense it makes, rather we require it is observable and reproducible.
Objectivity: To describe what is observed rather than explain what you think.
Though reason is slow, when it takes an inch it does not give it back; it is productive. To throw one last quote from yet another professor of mine, "when physicist disagree with each other, they say, "thank you"". Objectivity essentially forces one to attack the argument rather than the individual. Think about it like this; you can tell people the world is round, but they could just tell you they think you're wrong and you'd have a degenerative argument. But if you just show them the world is round, then they begin wondering how and where they went wrong, and what else there might be they may not yet know. A degenerative argument has been transformed into a productive deliberation.
Thankfully people are naturally predisposed to challenge one another's thinking. Reason however, takes time in order to take root. In academic publishing nothing is published unless there is something new to say, and coincidentally journals publish on quarterly/ annual basis not daily/ weekly as does the news reporting social problems.
There is no good reason that objectivity and productive deliberations cannot take root among the public instead of degenerative and unproductive arguments commonly witnessed today. As noted already, we already are naturally inclined to show people they are wrong, not just tell them what we think. Observation naturally gains respect over opinion. So why are "public discussions" today so degenerative, fragmented, and counterproductive?
In the last year or two I've taken to getting involved in city hall and other public meetings. What I've found is the term 'public conversation' which gets tossed around so often basically means commenting on newspaper websites or showing up to public meetings in which [assuming you even managed to find out they were happening and could make it] you show up to an often crowded room in which your time will often be restricted to two minutes to speak, in part because politicians felt the need to kill a half hour congratulating those presenting to them. It will be a one way dialogue occurring only minutes or hours before the matter is put to a vote, and more than likely the politicians voting on the matter at hand showed up already knowing how they were going to vote in the first place.
Agreeableness kills truth in these meetings when real discussion is micromanaged and tightly controlled. We are biological predisposed to it, and without opening the door for objective and productive disagreement, it goes unchecked and produces the most senseless outcomes. but - even if what they're discussing is essentially throwing an entire group of society over a cliff who does not have the good fortune of being present at this meeting - the meeting sounded productive and rational because no one was able to raise their voice, to interrupt, or to say, "you're wrong".
The thing is rationality is not characterized by tone of voice, by one's appearance, or even by what particular words one chooses to express themselves with. Rationality is marked by one thing; does it adequately describe what we've observed? When reading the literature of the founding fathers I am impressed at the level of intellectual thought of politicians of those days. The thing is though, they used to roll up their sleeves and have it out with one another in public meetings.
where is the truth in Good vs. evil?
With reason in hand seemingly separate paths converge when one is able to move forward. Disagreements become truths. Enemies perhaps even learn to have love for one another. Maybe we could even take it so far as to say it forms the difference between good vs. evil? No. These are subjective terms, thus I'll propose the following; good/ evil vs. truth.
Two accounts of Rama come to mind; when he fought the gorilla king and the demons of all demons Ravana, the seven headed snake king. The funny thing about these encounters as opposed to modern depiction of demons is that they demonstrate reason.
When Rama came across a wondering gorilla person (neanderthal I believe is the implication) he listened to the gorilla describe how he was unjustly chased out of his tribe without being offered a chance to explain himself by the gorilla king. He said the king did not pursue him beyond the base of the mountain because he feared he'd lose his powers beyond that point.
Rama considered this and decided to help the fugitive. He hid in the bushes as the fugitive baited the gorilla king. From the bushes Rama then shot the king in the chest with an arrow. The king recognized Rama and asked as he was dying, "Rama, how could you, most noble of all warriors, shoot from the hidden cover of a bushes, instead of facing me in combat. And how could you interject yourself into the quarrel of others?".
Rama explained to him that he chose to interject because the king did not give the fugitive a chance to explain himself before chasing him, and he chose to shoot him from the bushes because upon reaching the base of the hill, for fear he'd lose his powers, the gorilla king ceased the pursuit indicating the gorilla king was not interested in a fair fight without his powers in tact to begin with. To me this means more than fighting fair, it also implies that if something was worth fighting over, it should have also been worth losing over. Without the very real possibility of losing being present, then one is not put in check and forced to consider what is actually worth fighting over.
With his last words the gorilla king said [paraphrase], "I am enlightened by this reasoning as I move onto the next life".
I do not recall the exact details of the snake king battle, only that there came a point before their final battle in which Rama shared his reasoning with the snake king. The snake king then replied much the same as the Gorilla king. He confessed he saw the truth in Rama's reasoning, but that his path had already been set and it was too late to turn back now. Thus they had their final battle and Rama vanquished the snake king, presumably without the need for animosity in doing so.
"Even if you are the worst criminal of them all, you will cross over all villainy with just your lifeboat of knowledge." - Bhagavad Gita
So what exactly is this thing called good?
I don't know. Again, we possess a distinct inability to say what things really are, rather we define them by what they are not. But were we to assume we did know what something is we'd never challenge ourselves to discovering the real nature of the thing in question. To this day we do not know what an electron is, but we know that in many ways it does not behave like a proton. Anyone claiming to know what is good has likely killed all incentive to find the truth of the matter. This is a very real problem considering rules and the law itself is not what is written, rather it is in the interpretation of what is written. This is a major cornerstone of our society and is why our legal system operates the way that it does.
Two accounts of Rama come to mind; when he fought the gorilla king and the demons of all demons Ravana, the seven headed snake king. The funny thing about these encounters as opposed to modern depiction of demons is that they demonstrate reason.
When Rama came across a wondering gorilla person (neanderthal I believe is the implication) he listened to the gorilla describe how he was unjustly chased out of his tribe without being offered a chance to explain himself by the gorilla king. He said the king did not pursue him beyond the base of the mountain because he feared he'd lose his powers beyond that point.
Rama considered this and decided to help the fugitive. He hid in the bushes as the fugitive baited the gorilla king. From the bushes Rama then shot the king in the chest with an arrow. The king recognized Rama and asked as he was dying, "Rama, how could you, most noble of all warriors, shoot from the hidden cover of a bushes, instead of facing me in combat. And how could you interject yourself into the quarrel of others?".
Rama explained to him that he chose to interject because the king did not give the fugitive a chance to explain himself before chasing him, and he chose to shoot him from the bushes because upon reaching the base of the hill, for fear he'd lose his powers, the gorilla king ceased the pursuit indicating the gorilla king was not interested in a fair fight without his powers in tact to begin with. To me this means more than fighting fair, it also implies that if something was worth fighting over, it should have also been worth losing over. Without the very real possibility of losing being present, then one is not put in check and forced to consider what is actually worth fighting over.
With his last words the gorilla king said [paraphrase], "I am enlightened by this reasoning as I move onto the next life".
I do not recall the exact details of the snake king battle, only that there came a point before their final battle in which Rama shared his reasoning with the snake king. The snake king then replied much the same as the Gorilla king. He confessed he saw the truth in Rama's reasoning, but that his path had already been set and it was too late to turn back now. Thus they had their final battle and Rama vanquished the snake king, presumably without the need for animosity in doing so.
"Even if you are the worst criminal of them all, you will cross over all villainy with just your lifeboat of knowledge." - Bhagavad Gita
So what exactly is this thing called good?
I don't know. Again, we possess a distinct inability to say what things really are, rather we define them by what they are not. But were we to assume we did know what something is we'd never challenge ourselves to discovering the real nature of the thing in question. To this day we do not know what an electron is, but we know that in many ways it does not behave like a proton. Anyone claiming to know what is good has likely killed all incentive to find the truth of the matter. This is a very real problem considering rules and the law itself is not what is written, rather it is in the interpretation of what is written. This is a major cornerstone of our society and is why our legal system operates the way that it does.
Judging the little guys
I recently heard a story on the news about how rats were overunning a middle class neighborhood. Surely convinced no rodhent had a right to coexist with them, neighbors calmly and politely spoke about killing rats by the hundreds, "yet they keep multiplying".
Now it tooke me camping out to learn that there is a rhym and reason to these little guys. If you have food and try to hide it, then they'll find it and tear through whatever feeble plastic you thought could beat their nose. If you feed them they'll leave you alone, but they'll multiply. If you do not bring food back then they'll steere clear of you.
With this in mind, and having experienced myself how middle class will attempt to cause you to be swept in the middle of dead winter without ever getting to know you, a funny thought crossed my mind; how many of these middle class even entertained the notion that it was in fact them who were the problem and not the rats? Rats are natures cleaners. They only multiply when there is much to be cleaned, and it is us who are living in such inefficient exess that we have food stored and wasted in such high amounts. We have massive dweelings full of unshared space where food falls and rots- begging the rat to come do what it was designed for.
Now it tooke me camping out to learn that there is a rhym and reason to these little guys. If you have food and try to hide it, then they'll find it and tear through whatever feeble plastic you thought could beat their nose. If you feed them they'll leave you alone, but they'll multiply. If you do not bring food back then they'll steere clear of you.
With this in mind, and having experienced myself how middle class will attempt to cause you to be swept in the middle of dead winter without ever getting to know you, a funny thought crossed my mind; how many of these middle class even entertained the notion that it was in fact them who were the problem and not the rats? Rats are natures cleaners. They only multiply when there is much to be cleaned, and it is us who are living in such inefficient exess that we have food stored and wasted in such high amounts. We have massive dweelings full of unshared space where food falls and rots- begging the rat to come do what it was designed for.
conclusion
Critical to any act of interpretation, or to challenging anyone elses interpretation, is that one feels they have a right to do so. Otherwise our law books would be very short (10 commandments perhaps?), one designated priest would make the interpretation and apply these rules, and they'd do so often times without knowing the full extent of the details to a given case. Without leverage there can be no deliberation, just subjective and selective interpretations, social hierarchies, and micromanagement. In unshared space, there is unequal leverage between people.
There is a definite lethality to the surity which goes hand in hand with morality. Directly or indirectly, knowingly or in ignorance, we will kill both each other and rats alike without ever being challenged to see the other side of the story. On that note there is something I often come across in homeless which certainly evokes a biological response which feels like what be called 'good'. It is that they are willing to look each other and other in the eye before the concept of property - of what is mine vs. yours - comes is allowed to come between them. The door to challenge their preceonceived notion of who has the right to be here and control a given space is open.
There is a definite lethality to the surity which goes hand in hand with morality. Directly or indirectly, knowingly or in ignorance, we will kill both each other and rats alike without ever being challenged to see the other side of the story. On that note there is something I often come across in homeless which certainly evokes a biological response which feels like what be called 'good'. It is that they are willing to look each other and other in the eye before the concept of property - of what is mine vs. yours - comes is allowed to come between them. The door to challenge their preceonceived notion of who has the right to be here and control a given space is open.