Navigation in the Novel Situation

[Mark Lapierre]

I just came across a short essay which I think is a wonderful articulation of a positive attitude towards life. Here's a snippet:

If you seek a philosophy which cannot be twisted in the service of power and evil, you will search forever. The true test of an idea is not how it has been or can be abused, but where it can lead when applied honestly and diligently. ALL ideas can be abused, commercialized, enslaved by material powers to increase those powers. To point out such inversions of good intent does not lessen the value of the idea, or of good intent: one perseveres in spite of such co-option.

And then a little further in:

We are rapidly entering new historical territory. The rate of change of cultural and technological evolution is accelerating exponentially, the amount of novelty is increasing. There is only one approach to this situation which is likely to survive and flourish in this situation. That is a perspective which thrives on novelty, which is critical yet spontaneous, determined but playful. It is an ad hoc philosophy, but one which is based on as much awareness of the present situation as possible. It acknowledges the resources at its disposal, but does not become attached to them. Because it seeks novelty, it naturally values cooperation and compassion, seeing conflict as limiting to freedom and thus to a pursuit of the fully novel. On the other hand, when conflict does arise, the non-attached person is not sentimental, but learns what she can from the experience and moves on. This person is forgiving, unattached, compassionate, playful, but not frivolous. She makes critical evaluations but knows the limits of such judgements, and does not mock others for holding different beliefs.

Have a read of the rest then please share your opinion. How does it compare with your philosophy?

[Lola]

Yep. I like this, Mark.

This is pretty much what I'm striving for.

This person is forgiving, unattached, compassionate, playful, but not frivolous. She makes critical evaluations but knows the limits of such judgements, and does not mock others for holding different beliefs.

And this fits with my personal maxim that life, spirituality, personal growth, etc are far too important to be so Serious about them all the time.

What is important here is to balance the usefulness of a presiding model with a degree of flexibility. That is because the world is in constant flux, and thus the conditions under which a metaphor remains relevant are subject to change. Realizing that all we have are metaphors allows us to adapt, upgrade, or discard the metaphors we use, as needed. A sense of humor is essential here, essential in all things. Humor is flexibility, the ability to live with irony.

My area of work as it applies to humor, though, is to avoid using it as a cover for other, more vulnerable feelings.

[Michael Chui]

I like it, too. Nice find.

What bothers me a bit about it is that it's directed towards those who are overly critical, rather than those who aren't critical enough.

To me, many people are more spontaneous and playful than critical and determined, and it's a lack of critical ability that holds them back. Of course, this was written 11 years ago, and times have changed a wee bit. It's like a pendulum, I guess.

On the other hand, that might say more about me than others.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Lola

My area of work as it applies to humor, though, is to avoid using it as a cover for other, more vulnerable feelings.

For sure. I think most teenage guys (at least) go through a stage of using sarcasm to mask their true feelings. I know I did.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

What bothers me a bit about it is that it's directed towards those who are overly critical, rather than those who aren't critical enough.

To me, many people are more spontaneous and playful than critical and determined, and it's a lack of critical ability that holds them back. Of course, this was written 11 years ago, and times have changed a wee bit. It's like a pendulum, I guess.

I tend to agree with you, though I know people who, depending on their mood, wander up and down the criticality continuum. And there are others who are neither playful nor critical. So to me it seems more like a few pendulums.

But that could also be more of a reflection of me

[Jenny]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Have a read of the rest then please share your opinion. How does it compare with your philosophy?

Mark,
Interesting essay and question.

Particularly relevant to my personal philosophy (which is still quite fluid and growing as I do ) were the distinctions between the truth-value of an idea and the use-value of an idea. Very nicely articulated and something that I've believed at a deep level but never quite found the right words for.

The definition of humor was quite unlike any other definition of it I've seen but several of the characteristics assigned to humor in this article also ring true to my way of living in the world such as flexibility, or the ability to live with irony, and the sense of balance, or the ability to stand outside of the problem.

And accepting personal responsibility to examine oneself seems fundamental to any sort of successful personal philosophy - so yep, agree there as well.

I notice though you never answer the question you ask, care to?

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I like it, too. Nice find.
What bothers me a bit about it is that it's directed towards those who are overly critical, rather than those who aren't critical enough.

To me, many people are more spontaneous and playful than critical and determined, and it's a lack of critical ability that holds them back.

Michael,
I think you make some good points here. For many years I've been one of those people who weren't critical enough and am slowly working to exercise those critical thinking muscles. I'd imagine that this very lack of critical thinking has held me back in many ways. That said, I think this article provides a bit of a bridge for someone not yet comfortable in the land of critical thinking to not take it all so seriously but neither to be dismissive of the power of critical thinking. At least that is one thing it provides me.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Jenny

Particularly relevant to my personal philosophy (which is still quite fluid and growing as I do ) were the distinctions between the truth-value of an idea and the use-value of an idea.

That's something that I agreed with, as well as being comfortable with the proposition that no idea is absolutely true.

Originally Posted by Jenny

I notice though you never answer the question you ask, care to?

I talk about myself too much

But since you asked, it's very much the kind of philosophy I've been working towards. A philosophy which values humour and novelty, which acknowledges and embraces the fluidity of our understanding of reality, which advocates the utility of the interpretations we choose to make, and requires that those interpretations are formed through a critical approach.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Jenny

That said, I think this article provides a bit of a bridge for someone not yet comfortable in the land of critical thinking to not take it all so seriously but neither to be dismissive of the power of critical thinking. At least that is one thing it provides me.

I think that the bridge itself is the place to be, according to the argument this fellow lays out. A kind of moderation in all things credo, between overcriticism and underthinking, between doggedness and relaxedness.

It's worthwhile not to take criticism too seriously, for exactly the reasons he outlines: novelty and enjoyment. For instance, one of my favorite movies is V for Vendetta. It's very good at asking hard questions, provoking radical thoughts, etc. On the other hand, National Treasure is also one of my favorite movies. It doesn't ask any question, it's more entertaining than philosophical (it veers into inspirational, but that's it), etc. Not surprising: it's a caper film.

They're both excellent movies, but for different reasons.

What I wonder is this: does a complete lack of criticism have its place, too? A blank mind, unthinking, obedient, ...open-minded... I think so. But, like criticism, it's not an end-all. Thoughts?

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

What I wonder is this: does a complete lack of criticism have its place, too? A blank mind, unthinking, obedient, ...open-minded... I think so. But, like criticism, it's not an end-all. Thoughts?

Hmmm... Would complete lack of criticism be possible? For example what happens if you encounter contradictory beliefs. You can't adopt both of them. As a trivial example, the belief that all vegetable oils are healthy versus the belief that only some are. The latter belief would prevent you from fully adopting the former.

[Michael Chui]

Well, there's complete acceptance, but there's also complete rejection, isn't there? Or would that count as criticism... Hm.

On the other hand, contradictions are not always apparent: they have to be experienced or noted before they can introduce a need for criticism. That's probably how criticism came about in the first place: conflicting worldviews.

[Mark Lapierre]

That wouldn't surprise me. It's certainly how criticism seems to often come about today. First the acknowledgement that someone else's view doesn't agree with one's own, then the reason for one's own superiority (which may or may not be valid or rational). As you said, complete rejection.

The need to notice contradictions before they can be criticised is a good point. I was just thinking about hypocrisy, which is usually something that we're not aware of until someone points it out (and even then some people will vehemently deny it). Though in that case it's the complete acceptance of one's own (distorted) view without consideration for others (or at least without due consideration of one's behaviour). So in that case lack of criticism is undesirable.

[Jenny]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

What I wonder is this: does a complete lack of criticism have its place, too? A blank mind, unthinking, obedient, ...open-minded... I think so. But, like criticism, it's not an end-all. Thoughts?

I imagine a complete lack of criticism both does have a place and is possible (or at least a strong degree of lack as I'm not positive that people are capable of a "complete" anything) although it would likely be time-limited which is no doubt a positive thing.

When? After a belief or practice has been given a preliminary examination, found to have potential and in the beginnings of its practice or acceptance. In many ways it seems that complete openness to a belief or practice is essential to ever really understanding it the same as at some point critical examination of the same belief or practice would become essential to deepen one's understanding.

I imagine this ability to examine without question is either a core component of one's psychological make-up or it must be cultivated rather like skepticism on the other side of the spectrum.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Hmmm... Would complete lack of criticism be possible? For example what happens if you encounter contradictory beliefs. You can't adopt both of them. As a trivial example, the belief that all vegetable oils are healthy versus the belief that only some are. The latter belief would prevent you from fully adopting the former.

I do think a complete (again, or nearly complete) lack of criticism is possible but not for any extended period of time. I don't know though - what about people who hold very strong religious views over long periods of time and even when exposed to contradictory beliefs refuse to budge even to the point of refusing to attempt to understand the views of others? Is this a complete lack of criticism? Not in the way I was thinking of the subject but perhaps.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Jenny

I don't know though - what about people who hold very strong religious views over long periods of time and even when exposed to contradictory beliefs refuse to budge even to the point of refusing to attempt to understand the views of others? Is this a complete lack of criticism? Not in the way I was thinking of the subject but perhaps.

Hrm. That seems to be a lack of criticism of one's own beliefs, but also an excess (I need to stop using italics) of criticism of other's beliefs.

So it's not merely a lack or presence of criticism per se, but where and how and why it's applied.

...that... complicates things... so much, heh.