Dr. Velociraptor summer 2012 grounds of his apartment building Victoria, BC.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Monday, March 4, 2013
My Profile supplement: Virtue, Vice, the Transcendent, Women.
Virtues Admired:
Ability to laugh at oneself, admit own privileges, accept disagreement, explore different viewpoints, open one's own views to criticism, admit one is mistaken.
Vices Deplored:
Inability in foregoing, passive-aggressive remarks, self-righteousness, controlling/bullying, pretentious bafflegab, asserting one's own opinions in categorical, overbearing manner as though they are absolute truths (authoritative, superior, unquestionable insights not allowing for rival viewpoints). It's natural to think one's own view is more correct, reasonable, enlightened. However, it's courteous and logical to allow that views different from and opposed to one's own may also be reasonable and plausible. Expecting one view to be the definite truth, the correct one, is often inappropriate.
Special Interest:
Notion of the transcendent - mysticism - putative states of affairs which cannot be expressed in logical, factual language (non-conceptual thought?). Notion of forms of justification which do not need to conform to logic. Although I'm a poet and like Rilke and Blake, I'm sceptical of mysticism as a separate form of thought or knowing. I see my poetry as suggestive indefinite meaning hopefully expressed in pleasing language, not as a form of apprehension providing access to a separate realm of truth or deeper reality. ESP if it exists would still be subject to ordinary verifiability and falsifiability.
Afterlife:
Don't believe in personal afterlife; wish I could - chance to make amends to the dead. Like to imagine there is a force of goodness associated with higher human endeavour: intellect, art, equal opportunity, women's rights, emotional awareness of self and others, open critical thinking, regarding well-being of others as of similar value to one's own, moral development, kindness. Like to imagine this force is associated with Athena, Diotima, Hypatia, etc., and has healing, soothing, encouraging powers.
Monotheism:
Think standard Judaic/Christian/Islamic religion could be classed as mental illness. Am amazed (no saddened) that in 21st century people can still take seriously any religion which refuses the ordination of women. Notion of mental illness could be extended to social institutions and cultures.
Women Superior:
As an athletic 69 year old I'm still attracted to women under 50 but realise they are not attracted to me. Think women on the whole slightly superior to men spiritually and morally - women not quite so self-assertive, status-seeking, controlling, insistent that they are right, more nurturing.
Ability to laugh at oneself, admit own privileges, accept disagreement, explore different viewpoints, open one's own views to criticism, admit one is mistaken.
Vices Deplored:
Inability in foregoing, passive-aggressive remarks, self-righteousness, controlling/bullying, pretentious bafflegab, asserting one's own opinions in categorical, overbearing manner as though they are absolute truths (authoritative, superior, unquestionable insights not allowing for rival viewpoints). It's natural to think one's own view is more correct, reasonable, enlightened. However, it's courteous and logical to allow that views different from and opposed to one's own may also be reasonable and plausible. Expecting one view to be the definite truth, the correct one, is often inappropriate.
Special Interest:
Notion of the transcendent - mysticism - putative states of affairs which cannot be expressed in logical, factual language (non-conceptual thought?). Notion of forms of justification which do not need to conform to logic. Although I'm a poet and like Rilke and Blake, I'm sceptical of mysticism as a separate form of thought or knowing. I see my poetry as suggestive indefinite meaning hopefully expressed in pleasing language, not as a form of apprehension providing access to a separate realm of truth or deeper reality. ESP if it exists would still be subject to ordinary verifiability and falsifiability.
Afterlife:
Don't believe in personal afterlife; wish I could - chance to make amends to the dead. Like to imagine there is a force of goodness associated with higher human endeavour: intellect, art, equal opportunity, women's rights, emotional awareness of self and others, open critical thinking, regarding well-being of others as of similar value to one's own, moral development, kindness. Like to imagine this force is associated with Athena, Diotima, Hypatia, etc., and has healing, soothing, encouraging powers.
Monotheism:
Think standard Judaic/Christian/Islamic religion could be classed as mental illness. Am amazed (no saddened) that in 21st century people can still take seriously any religion which refuses the ordination of women. Notion of mental illness could be extended to social institutions and cultures.
Women Superior:
As an athletic 69 year old I'm still attracted to women under 50 but realise they are not attracted to me. Think women on the whole slightly superior to men spiritually and morally - women not quite so self-assertive, status-seeking, controlling, insistent that they are right, more nurturing.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
my qualifications for writing on psychotherapy
Am I qualified to write on psychotherapy? My life has been unusually strenuous: below average parenting and socio-economic background. Above average psychological deficits. Above average achievement. Considerable experience as a mental health patient/client. Experience as mental health caregiver, support-therapy group leader, and mental health colleague. More than my share of messy personal relationships.
Extensive intense training in clarifying difficult woolly concepts (e.g. mental illness), elucidating underlying presuppositions, and exploring different viewpoints. My M.A. thesis was on: privacy of experience and knowledge of other minds. My Ph.D thesis was on: woolly/nebulous meaning.
As well as being a university philosophy teacher (alas never with the security of a permanent job) I ran a community philosophy group in Victoria, B.C. for a number of years - Diotima. I have two adult sons - one a university math prof in Delaware, the other in pharmaceutical research in Switzerland.
I am a poet, songwriter, musician (guitar/vocals), and racing cyclist. Currently I am focussed on writing up hundreds of music charts arranged for solo guitar and average male voice as an aid for musicians in general.
At age 69 I feel I have reached a stage where I have valuable insights on social issues, psychology, psychotherapy, philosophy, etc. which I would like to share with others before I die.
Extensive intense training in clarifying difficult woolly concepts (e.g. mental illness), elucidating underlying presuppositions, and exploring different viewpoints. My M.A. thesis was on: privacy of experience and knowledge of other minds. My Ph.D thesis was on: woolly/nebulous meaning.
As well as being a university philosophy teacher (alas never with the security of a permanent job) I ran a community philosophy group in Victoria, B.C. for a number of years - Diotima. I have two adult sons - one a university math prof in Delaware, the other in pharmaceutical research in Switzerland.
I am a poet, songwriter, musician (guitar/vocals), and racing cyclist. Currently I am focussed on writing up hundreds of music charts arranged for solo guitar and average male voice as an aid for musicians in general.
At age 69 I feel I have reached a stage where I have valuable insights on social issues, psychology, psychotherapy, philosophy, etc. which I would like to share with others before I die.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
BCMCA Thanks and Suggestions
Congratulations to Peter McCaffery on his enterprise and initiative in utilizing the currently unused Duke Point ferry road for time trials. Thanks to Olav Stana for all his work on the new BCMCA website – www.bcmasterscycling.net. Thanks to steadfast marshals and officials like Larry Pommen, Bruce Falk, Dave Emery, David Garrick, Dave Steen, Kim and Joe Gard, Helen Martindale, Glenda Harling, Pamela Macdougall, Lynda Bowden, and many more.
It makes sense for BCMCA to have Nanaimo as a main location for races – accessibility from Vancouver without car. I would like to see several exact 16, 20, 25, 30, or 32 k out and home tts in the Nanaimo area in the Masters’ schedule. Easy marshalling. Is there a hill climb course within riding distance of Jonanco, Nanaimo River Rd. so we could have a tt and hill climb on the same day? Near to the Nanaimo crit course too?
BCMCA would have more options if we adopted road race age standards, and criterium age bonus point scoring standards such as the ones I have developed (see previous posts).
Ability based handicap can easily conform to BCMCA age handicapping. Have ability groups based on 25 mile tt times. 1. Under 58 minutes. 2. 58 – 1’02”. 3. 1’02” – 1’06”. 4. 1’06” – 1’10” 5. 1’10” – 1’14”. 6. Over 1’14”. (Honour system plus judges’ discretion.) Start at 5 minute intervals for an average 64 k road race – time 2 hours for an average 60year old. Then employ age standards for group riding such as the ones I have developed to actual finishing times for overall age group results. Thus we would get 2 sets of results for the same race – ability handicap and age standard. Have periodic reviews of age or ability standards and handicapping. But keep it simple. Remember no system of handicapping is perfect.
Notwithstanding the preceding the present age based start gaps work well. (I favour starting the 30s only 2 minutes after the 40s instead of the present 3 minutes for a trial period.)
BCMCA should keep the format of staggered starts in road races – more acceptable to municipalities and the ministry of transportation.
I will use the Members’ Forum on the new Masters’ website, plus my drvelociraptor.blogspot.com and http://www.velociraptors.ca/website to stimulate discussion within the Masters’ membership. Exploration of different viewpoints is part of personal and social growth.
I differ from some admirable, distinguished BCMCA stalwarts in holding that we should become a registered non-profit society with a clear, written constitution and byelaws. There should be a proper AGM (2 hours minimum) distinct from awards ceremonies so there can be serious and open discussion of members’ proposals. Having this in the Lower Mainland makes sense – centrality, accessibility to all. No one should be a director for life no matter how valuable his or her previous service. We should aim at 3 regions within BC each with a membership of 200+ and a full racing schedule. An overall championship (triple points?) could alternate between the 3 regions. Best 12 to count, only 9 being from one region – encourage broader athletic and social contacts.
The main focus of BCMCA should be: recreational cycle racing for all ages and abilities. I would like a name change to BC Seniors and Recreational Cycling Association – politically more appealing, avoiding elitist connotations of ‘Masters’.
Cycling BC can have the Olympic and professional hopefuls, and young diehards. We can have the general athlete and fitness types, older or more mellow guys. Apart from promoting cycle racing (all forms including velodrome, grass track, mountain, and cyclo cross) BCMCA or BCSRCA should advocate overall use of the bicycle instead of the private automobile. We should link up with the various cycling coalitions, triathlon groups, and school and college athletic associations. We should encourage the growth of similar organizations in other provinces, states, and countries. We should cater more to women racing cyclists.
According to my experience in philosophy it is unlikely that a majority will agree with most of my proposals or suggestions. That’s okay. The important thing is to get people thinking and active in cycling. I disagree with many Canadian laws but I’m still a fairly content, law abiding Canadian. I accept my role as loner, oddball – bit of a pest. Hopefully I provide some amusement and don’t just annoy.
It makes sense for BCMCA to have Nanaimo as a main location for races – accessibility from Vancouver without car. I would like to see several exact 16, 20, 25, 30, or 32 k out and home tts in the Nanaimo area in the Masters’ schedule. Easy marshalling. Is there a hill climb course within riding distance of Jonanco, Nanaimo River Rd. so we could have a tt and hill climb on the same day? Near to the Nanaimo crit course too?
BCMCA would have more options if we adopted road race age standards, and criterium age bonus point scoring standards such as the ones I have developed (see previous posts).
Ability based handicap can easily conform to BCMCA age handicapping. Have ability groups based on 25 mile tt times. 1. Under 58 minutes. 2. 58 – 1’02”. 3. 1’02” – 1’06”. 4. 1’06” – 1’10” 5. 1’10” – 1’14”. 6. Over 1’14”. (Honour system plus judges’ discretion.) Start at 5 minute intervals for an average 64 k road race – time 2 hours for an average 60year old. Then employ age standards for group riding such as the ones I have developed to actual finishing times for overall age group results. Thus we would get 2 sets of results for the same race – ability handicap and age standard. Have periodic reviews of age or ability standards and handicapping. But keep it simple. Remember no system of handicapping is perfect.
Notwithstanding the preceding the present age based start gaps work well. (I favour starting the 30s only 2 minutes after the 40s instead of the present 3 minutes for a trial period.)
BCMCA should keep the format of staggered starts in road races – more acceptable to municipalities and the ministry of transportation.
I will use the Members’ Forum on the new Masters’ website, plus my drvelociraptor.blogspot.com and http://www.velociraptors.ca/website to stimulate discussion within the Masters’ membership. Exploration of different viewpoints is part of personal and social growth.
I differ from some admirable, distinguished BCMCA stalwarts in holding that we should become a registered non-profit society with a clear, written constitution and byelaws. There should be a proper AGM (2 hours minimum) distinct from awards ceremonies so there can be serious and open discussion of members’ proposals. Having this in the Lower Mainland makes sense – centrality, accessibility to all. No one should be a director for life no matter how valuable his or her previous service. We should aim at 3 regions within BC each with a membership of 200+ and a full racing schedule. An overall championship (triple points?) could alternate between the 3 regions. Best 12 to count, only 9 being from one region – encourage broader athletic and social contacts.
The main focus of BCMCA should be: recreational cycle racing for all ages and abilities. I would like a name change to BC Seniors and Recreational Cycling Association – politically more appealing, avoiding elitist connotations of ‘Masters’.
Cycling BC can have the Olympic and professional hopefuls, and young diehards. We can have the general athlete and fitness types, older or more mellow guys. Apart from promoting cycle racing (all forms including velodrome, grass track, mountain, and cyclo cross) BCMCA or BCSRCA should advocate overall use of the bicycle instead of the private automobile. We should link up with the various cycling coalitions, triathlon groups, and school and college athletic associations. We should encourage the growth of similar organizations in other provinces, states, and countries. We should cater more to women racing cyclists.
According to my experience in philosophy it is unlikely that a majority will agree with most of my proposals or suggestions. That’s okay. The important thing is to get people thinking and active in cycling. I disagree with many Canadian laws but I’m still a fairly content, law abiding Canadian. I accept my role as loner, oddball – bit of a pest. Hopefully I provide some amusement and don’t just annoy.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
BCMCA Goals and Structure 2
Additions to my proposals for the BCMCA constitution for discussion (see Dr. Velociraptor 29/8/11) as follows:
To support and provide training for BC Seniors Games and other national and international seniors games;
To support cycle racing as part of schools athletic programs;
To promote grass track racing on municipal or school board grounds as a safe venue;
To encourage the development of safe closed circuits for cycle racing;
To support velodromes;
To promote and encourage commuting, touring, shopping, delivery, and transporting by bicycle.
To promote cycling and cycle racing as an environmental, health, and community benefit.
To support worthy charities through cycle races and fun rides.
To change our official name to BC Seniors/Masters Cycling Association.
To support and provide training for BC Seniors Games and other national and international seniors games;
To support cycle racing as part of schools athletic programs;
To promote grass track racing on municipal or school board grounds as a safe venue;
To encourage the development of safe closed circuits for cycle racing;
To support velodromes;
To promote and encourage commuting, touring, shopping, delivery, and transporting by bicycle.
To promote cycling and cycle racing as an environmental, health, and community benefit.
To support worthy charities through cycle races and fun rides.
To change our official name to BC Seniors/Masters Cycling Association.
Monday, August 29, 2011
BCMCA Goals and Structure
Due to the informal nature of the BCMCA we lack a clear accessible statement of its constitution and bylaws. BCMCA is not a registered BC non-profit society. The constitution and bylaws of a registered BC non-profit society have to comply with certain criteria.
Different BCMCA members will have different views on the philosophy and goals of the BCMCA and how these can best be realized. My own suggestions, for discussion, are as follows.
Become (again) a registered non-profit society – eligibility for government grants; enhanced image for municipalities, Ministry of Transportation, sponsors, etc.; criteria for governance transparent.
Constitution. (Purposes).
To promote and organize lifelong recreational cycle racing for people of all ages and ability levels.
To promote athletic fellowship, exhilaration, enjoyment, social, and personal well-being through helping with, and participating in, cycle racing.
To honor the following: performing community service through contribution to cycle racing; maintaining athletic ability in, and participation in, cycle racing despite aging, genetic endowment, medical limitations, and limited training time; displaying chivalry, fairness, and concern for others while racing – winning is not the main thing.
Special emphasis (not necessarily exclusive) on the following:
Cycle racing for Seniors (55+) and Masters (40+);
Australian Pursuit road races (staggered starts are less disruptive of traffic flow and hence more acceptable to municipalities and Ministry of Transportation than mass start);
Age standards and results and awards based on age standards;
Starting gaps in Australian Pursuit based on age;
Classification of riders in the main competition into A (elite) and B (regular) with separate awards for the latter;
Development of comprehensive age standards and starting gaps for all races not just 50 – 75 k (‘2 hour’) road races;
Development of plausible criterium age-related points scoring;
Provide incentive for under 40’s to participate in the main race;
Provision of B races of shorter length, e.g. 40 k, starting just after the main race, for those with a medical condition or just out of shape;
Provide incentives for people to marshall.
To give due weight to the judgement of long-time organizers, administrators, and founders.
Bylaws. (Structure and Governance).
Directors: President; Secretary/Treasurer; Results Coordinator – main competition; Web Master; Awards Coordinator – subsidiary competitions; at least 1 director from each of the recognized geographical regions (currently 3 – Island, Lower Mainland, Interior).
No restriction on number of terms served.
Members to submit proposals and suggestions to directors at any time. Directors to discuss amongst themselves and make recommendations to the membership before a general vote.
AGM (and social) to be held outside of racing season, e.g. late October, in Greater Vancouver, e.g. Delta, - accessibility to members from Interior and Island.
Motion for 2011 AGM: To strike a committee consisting of the aforementioned 5 officials plus Olaf Stana, and Ray Morrison, of the Interior to discuss BCMCA Constitution and Bylaws, members’ suggestions and proposals, and to report back to the general membership with recommendations by March 21st 2012.
Different BCMCA members will have different views on the philosophy and goals of the BCMCA and how these can best be realized. My own suggestions, for discussion, are as follows.
Become (again) a registered non-profit society – eligibility for government grants; enhanced image for municipalities, Ministry of Transportation, sponsors, etc.; criteria for governance transparent.
Constitution. (Purposes).
To promote and organize lifelong recreational cycle racing for people of all ages and ability levels.
To promote athletic fellowship, exhilaration, enjoyment, social, and personal well-being through helping with, and participating in, cycle racing.
To honor the following: performing community service through contribution to cycle racing; maintaining athletic ability in, and participation in, cycle racing despite aging, genetic endowment, medical limitations, and limited training time; displaying chivalry, fairness, and concern for others while racing – winning is not the main thing.
Special emphasis (not necessarily exclusive) on the following:
Cycle racing for Seniors (55+) and Masters (40+);
Australian Pursuit road races (staggered starts are less disruptive of traffic flow and hence more acceptable to municipalities and Ministry of Transportation than mass start);
Age standards and results and awards based on age standards;
Starting gaps in Australian Pursuit based on age;
Classification of riders in the main competition into A (elite) and B (regular) with separate awards for the latter;
Development of comprehensive age standards and starting gaps for all races not just 50 – 75 k (‘2 hour’) road races;
Development of plausible criterium age-related points scoring;
Provide incentive for under 40’s to participate in the main race;
Provision of B races of shorter length, e.g. 40 k, starting just after the main race, for those with a medical condition or just out of shape;
Provide incentives for people to marshall.
To give due weight to the judgement of long-time organizers, administrators, and founders.
Bylaws. (Structure and Governance).
Directors: President; Secretary/Treasurer; Results Coordinator – main competition; Web Master; Awards Coordinator – subsidiary competitions; at least 1 director from each of the recognized geographical regions (currently 3 – Island, Lower Mainland, Interior).
No restriction on number of terms served.
Members to submit proposals and suggestions to directors at any time. Directors to discuss amongst themselves and make recommendations to the membership before a general vote.
AGM (and social) to be held outside of racing season, e.g. late October, in Greater Vancouver, e.g. Delta, - accessibility to members from Interior and Island.
Motion for 2011 AGM: To strike a committee consisting of the aforementioned 5 officials plus Olaf Stana, and Ray Morrison, of the Interior to discuss BCMCA Constitution and Bylaws, members’ suggestions and proposals, and to report back to the general membership with recommendations by March 21st 2012.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The Meaning of Life
Standardly, when people talk about the meaning of life they are not particularly clear about what they mean – they don’t mean anything very definite or clear-cut. Rather, as usually happens with terms and concepts with a heavy philosophical weight, they have something rather woolly or nebulous in mind which nevertheless seems very important. Perceived philosophical depth is typically inversely proportional to clear-cut cognitive, factual content. Use of loose or opaque language is often a substitute for clear, testable thinking.
‘Meaning of life’ is semantically associated with finding a reasonable, somewhat objectively verifiable purpose in life which will bring a fairly lasting, resilient sense of fulfillment, validation, of your life being worthwhile. ‘Meaning of life’ is conceptually connected with self-validation, self-worth, and also with finding comfort and consolation. The question of ‘the meaning of life’ arises when your own life or contribution seems paltry given your talents and opportunities, you have made terrible mistakes, your own prospects for happiness seem rather hopeless, your present situation is not good, you have not accomplished anything like what you thought you would.
‘Meaning of life’ is semantically associated with finding a reason/justification for going on living even if your own prospects for fun, enjoyment, happiness, status, wealth, romance, health are not good. What sort of lasting inner fulfillment, satisfaction, contentment, peace of mind, together with making a contribution which others could reasonably judge as worthwhile, are still available to you even if you lack some of the common goods, benefits, and privileges? ‘Meaning of life’ as a psychological problem is not just academic, theoretical doubt that human achievement in general is significant in the cosmos. It is doubt that one’s own life has been or still is worthwhile.
If you are fairly happy, comfortable, enjoying life, healthy, with good prospects of continuing in this state the question of the meaning of life is not of great concern. You might admit that you are not contributing much to higher values and that the cosmos is indifferent to higher values but this does not disturb your equanimity. If you have money, health, status, and love it is fairly easy to laugh at life being ultimately rather pointless. Moreover, if you have money, health, status, and love it is easy to convince yourself you are making a good contribution (living a meaningful life) whether you are a civil servant, bank manager, sell cars or bottled water. It is easy to be the smug, amused, calm philosopher above material concerns when you have nearly a million dollars in assets and are in reasonable health. It is much easier to find happiness or meaning in life if you have money and good health.
‘Meaning of life’ is in part about how to be happy if you lack some of the common aids to happiness. But it is also about questioning the importance given to common aids to happiness. Sure, money and status – recognition, appreciation from others for one’s achievements, efforts, contribution – are important, but should these be the main goals in life or society? Is the main point in life to have ever-increasing economic growth, material standard of living, while ensuring that the poorest have the basics?
Examining the meaning of life even questions whether happiness itself – maximizing one’s own happiness and allowing others to do the same – is the sole intrinsic good, the only real worthwhile-making feature of life. Isn’t there more to a full, enriching, meaningful life than just the pursuit of happiness (let alone just the pursuit of wealth, fame, and pleasures)? Where do art, literature, philosophy, intellectual attainment, promotion of justice, kindness, and animal rights fit in? Is it better that everyone be satisfied consumers or that there be some dissatisfied Socrates?
Finding a meaning to life seems to have two components. On the one hand finding inner happiness, contentment. On the other a justifiable belief that you are making a significant contribution to higher values – that you are doing something worthwhile. The two are empirically, causally, psychologically connected. You are likely to have a lasting inner happiness if and only if you have a reasonably well-founded belief that you are making a significant contribution to higher values. If you find a lasting inner happiness you are likely to find life has sufficient meaning – your contribution is good enough.
Human beings have remarkable capacities for self-deception, rationalization, denial, delusion, obsession, fantasy, repression, suppression, idealizing, demonizing, etc. – protective, coping, psychological defence mechanisms. Thus, it is possible for an intelligent, well-informed person to be mistaken that she is making a significant contribution to higher values (or the best contribution she could make given her circumstances). Consider a woman who gives up a promising career as a musician and music teacher to a) watch tv soap operas; b) be a housewife; c) strive for a manicured lawn and spotless, neat household; d) play golf; d) run a marathon in under 3 hours; e) care for a severely brain damaged child; f) run a cat’s home; g) join a fundamentalist religious cult. Virginia Woolf and Sylvia Plath may have been mistaken in thinking that their lives were no longer worthwhile and that suicide was their best option.
People do make serious mistakes about what will make them happy. They may be mistaken about the source of their happiness/unhappiness. Perhaps you can even be mistaken about the extent to which you are happy/unhappy. There are layers of feelings, desires, thoughts, misgivings, doubts, hopes, regrets, anxieties, disappointments, conflicts, etc. and one can focus on the good or the bad.
Many assume that the meaning of life must consist in some overarching purpose we can ascribe to the cosmos, life, or human life in particular (apart from common biological drives and processes). This could be the conscious intent or desires of a creator God, or the inexorable development towards some higher goal of an underlying divine power, life force, or historical process. But if there is no overarching pre-ordained goal to human life it does not follow that life is meaningless, that objective meaning cannot be given to human life in general and your life in particular, that there are not some states or activities (available even to those who are relatively poor, in poor health, aging, or disadvantaged) which fairly objectively make life meaningful, worth living. To ask ‘Why are we here, what is life for?’ in the sense of what is the overarching, embedded purpose apart from biological drives is the fallacy of the false question like ‘Have you stopped beating your wife yet?’
It might be there is no ultimate purpose to the cosmos or the emergence of higher consciousness or higher values. This just happened. Perhaps, too, there is no inevitable cosmic progress or evolution towards full realization of goodness (or reabsorption into a godhead). Again, thirdly, it may be that pursuit of higher values does not lead eventually, after death or rebirths perhaps, to some kind of personal reward – heaven or more abstractly nirvana. Even without these religious props, though, it is possible objectively to find meaning in life which does not consist simply in having as much personal pleasure, fun, enjoyment, or even happiness as possible.
God is very much a human construct rooted in human psychology good and bad. There may be healthier, albeit more challenging, ways of finding meaning in life than through religion. The standard God is a Jekyll and Hyde creature. On the one hand benevolent, loving, merciful, forgiving – perhaps goodness and justice conceived as a transcendent, supernatural power independent of human activity. On the other an omnipotent, omniscient, creator law giver judge demanding absolute submission and obedience, who is vindictive, jealous, sexist, patriarchal, homophobic, anti-pleasure, anti- open critical thinking, petty, obsessed with rituals of behaviour, clothing, and diet. This second aspect of the traditional God reminds one of the worst kind of husband, father, schoolmaster, priest, or political leader – not a nice chap. Indeed the concept of God as absolute lawgiver is probably in large part a projection of primal ugly features of the male ego and id – a sexually insecure control freak wanting power over others, not tolerating disagreement. Men (and women) can regard this God monster/tyrant as great precisely because it is a fundamental part of their own natures (what they aspire to, or are familiar with). It is no psychological accident that psychopathic, megalomaniac dictators and religious leaders receive the same mass following and adulation as the traditional lawgiver God. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Khomeini, Kim Jong Il, Khadafy, Robert Mugabe, et al, not Jesus, are the incarnation of the traditional Godfather, the God of Abraham and Muhammad.
God devotees claim we cannot, with our puny minds, grasp the how and why of God (though they have no trouble themselves making all sorts of dogmatic pronouncements about what God wants!!) – ‘where did God come from?’ God just is eternally. But then why not suppose matter/energy just is eternally, or that it somehow popped out of nothingness? The appeal to a creator God supplies a familiar anthropomorphic model of creation and purpose but then arbitrarily forbids further inquiry. Likewise, the appeal to God as the ground of Being, or as Being in itself is a pseudo-explanation. God as Being does not explain why there is something rather than nothing, but rather affirms that things do exist and that there is a mysterious foundation, ‘support’, or sufficient reason for this but one can’t say what it is. When you want an explanation but can’t find one, just call it God (or Fate). Back this up with a powerful institution based on supposed divine revelation. Add that to question the purported divine revelation (blasphemy – blaming or slandering the Almighty) is to challenge the Divine Lawmaker and Goodness itself and hence must be severely punished.
God is not necessary philosophically, scientifically, morally, spiritually, or aesthetically. Rather God is a psychologically necessary prop for most human beings given traditional systems of education and upbringing. Religious claims (including those of quasi-religions such as Marxism, Jungianism, astrology, or Deconstruction) are questionable even when (or especially when) they hide behind supposed incorrigible insight or revelation. Similarly, it is a reasonable question whether religion in general is a force for good or rather evil. If I am not allowed to criticize religions why should the religious be allowed to criticize my atheism, humanism, or pantheism? If criticism of religion is forbidden why not ban criticism of someone’s artistic, literary, or political beliefs or tastes, or cultural practices? Is it healthy to suppress questioning or calm, reasoned criticism on the grounds that it offends or supposedly might lead to prejudice towards some allegedly disadvantaged group?
We can revere goodness without grounding it in the edicts of a supernatural Deity. We don’t need the sanction of Divine command or threat of Divine punishment to pursue goodness. Citing God’s commands to justify being moral is basically an appeal to force (and personal reward) rather than to the inherent nature of good for its own sake. Even if there is no God (at a minimum a quasi-eternal force of goodness existing independently of human activities – see my blog posting Minimalist God ) goodness still exists or can be cultivated, e.g. equality of opportunity; equitable distribution of wealth; open critical thinking, reduction of suffering; right of women to higher education and birth control; providing all with the basics; kindness; courtesy; empathy; personal responsibility. With or without belief in God there will always be room for disagreement about what policies or practices are good and just, and what goodness and justice consist in.
It is probably psychologically more challenging to find meaning in life without the solace of traditional religious belief. If there is no personal afterlife or rebirth there is diminished capacity for making amends for one’s own grievous errors, making it up to someone you hurt. At some point, too, there is little chance for further personal happiness. No more chances – this is it mate. For instance, when you are 60 years old you realize you love someone deeply (someone you mistreated and did not appreciate), that she/he is a wonderful person just right for you. Before you can tell her and enrich her life and yours she is killed or dies prematurely. You will never meet again. You will likely never have another soul mate. Again, if there is no arbiter God or karmic law then there is no guaranteed tangible personal reward for your efforts towards goodness - all the suffering, deprivation, and striving you may go through. The possibility of simply greater inner peace may seem insufficient reward. Also, without an arbiter God or karmic law, it is harder to bear the unfairness of life – sometimes good things happen to bad people and vice versa. Even in a just society some people will have a better chance at happiness than others – some have better genes and parenting than others.
There are several different paths by which people commonly seek meaning in life (consciously or unconsciously). Many seek meaning through individual personal achievement and distinction. This could be artistic, intellectual, athletic, physical feats, career, business, profession, or in politics. Others are oriented more towards the goal of personal pleasure or happiness as supplying the meaning of life – romantic love, material standard of living, financial security, sex, thrills, eventual reward in paradise. Third, some find meaning in the pursuit of virtue, community service, good works, being a good person for its own sake. Fourth, some people find meaning in life largely through supposed spiritual development – cultivating compassion, letting go of anger, resentment, material desires, the ego, being more aware of the putative transcendent, deep, consoling mystical states, qualities, and apprehensions which allegedly go beyond ordinary, utilitarian, logical language. Fifthly, people can find meaning in life by pursuing knowledge, greater understanding or clarification largely for its own sake (or artistic creativity for its own sake). Sixthly, some people in effect get their meaning in life largely by merging with or identifying themselves with some cause or group. This could be a religion, ideology, ethnic group, sports team, pop star, or literary celebrity. Submitting oneself unquestioningly to the supposed will of God might be included in this sixth path.
There is a seventh route to meaning in life which is unduly neglected. This is the path of emotional development – being more aware of one’s own feelings and emotional processes including triggers, investments, and those of others. Being more able to admit one’s own biases, privileges, and flaws. Being curious about one’s own emotional processes, and those of others. Exploring, imagining, what it would be like to be of a different gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, religion, class, philosophical or political outlook, have different aesthetic preferences.
This elucidation, analysis, and exploration of the meaning of life has several implications. One: it may be a mistake to look for some one all-encompassing meaning or comfort in life whether through Jesus, Allah, Virgin Mary, Jung, Marx, or Dalai Lama. Two: it may be a mistake to look for some fairly straightforward foolproof recipe for finding meaning (or happiness) in life which fits people of all temperaments, abilities, and interests.
Nonetheless one can point to some general aids to finding meaning (and happiness). First, pay attention to basic biological and psychological needs. Second, allow time for fun, enjoyment, and relaxation. Third, develop the whole person – intellectual, athletic, artistic, emotional, social, spiritual, and moral. Fourth, stop thinking mainly or solely of your own well-being, welfare, just treatment, or interest (wealth, health, security, opportunities, rights) or that of your family, tribe, or ethnic group. Have regard for the well-being and happiness of those outside your group. Fifth, switch your energy and focus to simple goods which are available even if you don’t have money, good health, or romantic partner e.g. kindness, friendship, beauty, literature, art, music. Sixth, remember there are others who have gone through similar suffering who would be sympathetic to you. Seventh, remind yourself there will always be some unfairness and mistakes in life – others have suffered far greater misfortune and injustice, and made worse mistakes than I. Eighth, let go of having to be right. Instead focus on developing tentative views which are plausible and reasonable
The meaning of life is that there is no definite, demonstrable, certain meaning to life. You have to make it up, work something out for yourself, as you go along. Some ways of finding meaning harm others or yourself. You can be mistaken about what is worthwhile even for yourself. Learn to live with doubt, uncertainty, disagreement, mistakes, disappointment, rejection, sexual frustration, loneliness, unfairness. Develop flexible mechanisms for coping with life’s inevitable setbacks. Life is messy and frustrating. Accept your weaknesses and strengths.
You are just one amongst billions of humans, and one amongst billions upon billions of sentient beings. Yes you are unique but so is every snowflake, blade of grass, leaf, or bacterium. You are part of the flow of life and so are those you dislike or who dislike you. You (and those you dislike) are more wonderful and intricate than a butterfly or sparrow. You have a capacity for nobility lacking in an eagle, lion, or killer whale. The nobility you attain depends on you. If you are lucky you will have a lover and best friend who challenges, encourages, and treasures you. If you are unlucky you can be an unsung, unknown treasure. There will always be some conflict and flaws. Heaven is when you realize there is no heaven.
‘Meaning of life’ is semantically associated with finding a reasonable, somewhat objectively verifiable purpose in life which will bring a fairly lasting, resilient sense of fulfillment, validation, of your life being worthwhile. ‘Meaning of life’ is conceptually connected with self-validation, self-worth, and also with finding comfort and consolation. The question of ‘the meaning of life’ arises when your own life or contribution seems paltry given your talents and opportunities, you have made terrible mistakes, your own prospects for happiness seem rather hopeless, your present situation is not good, you have not accomplished anything like what you thought you would.
‘Meaning of life’ is semantically associated with finding a reason/justification for going on living even if your own prospects for fun, enjoyment, happiness, status, wealth, romance, health are not good. What sort of lasting inner fulfillment, satisfaction, contentment, peace of mind, together with making a contribution which others could reasonably judge as worthwhile, are still available to you even if you lack some of the common goods, benefits, and privileges? ‘Meaning of life’ as a psychological problem is not just academic, theoretical doubt that human achievement in general is significant in the cosmos. It is doubt that one’s own life has been or still is worthwhile.
If you are fairly happy, comfortable, enjoying life, healthy, with good prospects of continuing in this state the question of the meaning of life is not of great concern. You might admit that you are not contributing much to higher values and that the cosmos is indifferent to higher values but this does not disturb your equanimity. If you have money, health, status, and love it is fairly easy to laugh at life being ultimately rather pointless. Moreover, if you have money, health, status, and love it is easy to convince yourself you are making a good contribution (living a meaningful life) whether you are a civil servant, bank manager, sell cars or bottled water. It is easy to be the smug, amused, calm philosopher above material concerns when you have nearly a million dollars in assets and are in reasonable health. It is much easier to find happiness or meaning in life if you have money and good health.
‘Meaning of life’ is in part about how to be happy if you lack some of the common aids to happiness. But it is also about questioning the importance given to common aids to happiness. Sure, money and status – recognition, appreciation from others for one’s achievements, efforts, contribution – are important, but should these be the main goals in life or society? Is the main point in life to have ever-increasing economic growth, material standard of living, while ensuring that the poorest have the basics?
Examining the meaning of life even questions whether happiness itself – maximizing one’s own happiness and allowing others to do the same – is the sole intrinsic good, the only real worthwhile-making feature of life. Isn’t there more to a full, enriching, meaningful life than just the pursuit of happiness (let alone just the pursuit of wealth, fame, and pleasures)? Where do art, literature, philosophy, intellectual attainment, promotion of justice, kindness, and animal rights fit in? Is it better that everyone be satisfied consumers or that there be some dissatisfied Socrates?
Finding a meaning to life seems to have two components. On the one hand finding inner happiness, contentment. On the other a justifiable belief that you are making a significant contribution to higher values – that you are doing something worthwhile. The two are empirically, causally, psychologically connected. You are likely to have a lasting inner happiness if and only if you have a reasonably well-founded belief that you are making a significant contribution to higher values. If you find a lasting inner happiness you are likely to find life has sufficient meaning – your contribution is good enough.
Human beings have remarkable capacities for self-deception, rationalization, denial, delusion, obsession, fantasy, repression, suppression, idealizing, demonizing, etc. – protective, coping, psychological defence mechanisms. Thus, it is possible for an intelligent, well-informed person to be mistaken that she is making a significant contribution to higher values (or the best contribution she could make given her circumstances). Consider a woman who gives up a promising career as a musician and music teacher to a) watch tv soap operas; b) be a housewife; c) strive for a manicured lawn and spotless, neat household; d) play golf; d) run a marathon in under 3 hours; e) care for a severely brain damaged child; f) run a cat’s home; g) join a fundamentalist religious cult. Virginia Woolf and Sylvia Plath may have been mistaken in thinking that their lives were no longer worthwhile and that suicide was their best option.
People do make serious mistakes about what will make them happy. They may be mistaken about the source of their happiness/unhappiness. Perhaps you can even be mistaken about the extent to which you are happy/unhappy. There are layers of feelings, desires, thoughts, misgivings, doubts, hopes, regrets, anxieties, disappointments, conflicts, etc. and one can focus on the good or the bad.
Many assume that the meaning of life must consist in some overarching purpose we can ascribe to the cosmos, life, or human life in particular (apart from common biological drives and processes). This could be the conscious intent or desires of a creator God, or the inexorable development towards some higher goal of an underlying divine power, life force, or historical process. But if there is no overarching pre-ordained goal to human life it does not follow that life is meaningless, that objective meaning cannot be given to human life in general and your life in particular, that there are not some states or activities (available even to those who are relatively poor, in poor health, aging, or disadvantaged) which fairly objectively make life meaningful, worth living. To ask ‘Why are we here, what is life for?’ in the sense of what is the overarching, embedded purpose apart from biological drives is the fallacy of the false question like ‘Have you stopped beating your wife yet?’
It might be there is no ultimate purpose to the cosmos or the emergence of higher consciousness or higher values. This just happened. Perhaps, too, there is no inevitable cosmic progress or evolution towards full realization of goodness (or reabsorption into a godhead). Again, thirdly, it may be that pursuit of higher values does not lead eventually, after death or rebirths perhaps, to some kind of personal reward – heaven or more abstractly nirvana. Even without these religious props, though, it is possible objectively to find meaning in life which does not consist simply in having as much personal pleasure, fun, enjoyment, or even happiness as possible.
God is very much a human construct rooted in human psychology good and bad. There may be healthier, albeit more challenging, ways of finding meaning in life than through religion. The standard God is a Jekyll and Hyde creature. On the one hand benevolent, loving, merciful, forgiving – perhaps goodness and justice conceived as a transcendent, supernatural power independent of human activity. On the other an omnipotent, omniscient, creator law giver judge demanding absolute submission and obedience, who is vindictive, jealous, sexist, patriarchal, homophobic, anti-pleasure, anti- open critical thinking, petty, obsessed with rituals of behaviour, clothing, and diet. This second aspect of the traditional God reminds one of the worst kind of husband, father, schoolmaster, priest, or political leader – not a nice chap. Indeed the concept of God as absolute lawgiver is probably in large part a projection of primal ugly features of the male ego and id – a sexually insecure control freak wanting power over others, not tolerating disagreement. Men (and women) can regard this God monster/tyrant as great precisely because it is a fundamental part of their own natures (what they aspire to, or are familiar with). It is no psychological accident that psychopathic, megalomaniac dictators and religious leaders receive the same mass following and adulation as the traditional lawgiver God. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Khomeini, Kim Jong Il, Khadafy, Robert Mugabe, et al, not Jesus, are the incarnation of the traditional Godfather, the God of Abraham and Muhammad.
God devotees claim we cannot, with our puny minds, grasp the how and why of God (though they have no trouble themselves making all sorts of dogmatic pronouncements about what God wants!!) – ‘where did God come from?’ God just is eternally. But then why not suppose matter/energy just is eternally, or that it somehow popped out of nothingness? The appeal to a creator God supplies a familiar anthropomorphic model of creation and purpose but then arbitrarily forbids further inquiry. Likewise, the appeal to God as the ground of Being, or as Being in itself is a pseudo-explanation. God as Being does not explain why there is something rather than nothing, but rather affirms that things do exist and that there is a mysterious foundation, ‘support’, or sufficient reason for this but one can’t say what it is. When you want an explanation but can’t find one, just call it God (or Fate). Back this up with a powerful institution based on supposed divine revelation. Add that to question the purported divine revelation (blasphemy – blaming or slandering the Almighty) is to challenge the Divine Lawmaker and Goodness itself and hence must be severely punished.
God is not necessary philosophically, scientifically, morally, spiritually, or aesthetically. Rather God is a psychologically necessary prop for most human beings given traditional systems of education and upbringing. Religious claims (including those of quasi-religions such as Marxism, Jungianism, astrology, or Deconstruction) are questionable even when (or especially when) they hide behind supposed incorrigible insight or revelation. Similarly, it is a reasonable question whether religion in general is a force for good or rather evil. If I am not allowed to criticize religions why should the religious be allowed to criticize my atheism, humanism, or pantheism? If criticism of religion is forbidden why not ban criticism of someone’s artistic, literary, or political beliefs or tastes, or cultural practices? Is it healthy to suppress questioning or calm, reasoned criticism on the grounds that it offends or supposedly might lead to prejudice towards some allegedly disadvantaged group?
We can revere goodness without grounding it in the edicts of a supernatural Deity. We don’t need the sanction of Divine command or threat of Divine punishment to pursue goodness. Citing God’s commands to justify being moral is basically an appeal to force (and personal reward) rather than to the inherent nature of good for its own sake. Even if there is no God (at a minimum a quasi-eternal force of goodness existing independently of human activities – see my blog posting Minimalist God ) goodness still exists or can be cultivated, e.g. equality of opportunity; equitable distribution of wealth; open critical thinking, reduction of suffering; right of women to higher education and birth control; providing all with the basics; kindness; courtesy; empathy; personal responsibility. With or without belief in God there will always be room for disagreement about what policies or practices are good and just, and what goodness and justice consist in.
It is probably psychologically more challenging to find meaning in life without the solace of traditional religious belief. If there is no personal afterlife or rebirth there is diminished capacity for making amends for one’s own grievous errors, making it up to someone you hurt. At some point, too, there is little chance for further personal happiness. No more chances – this is it mate. For instance, when you are 60 years old you realize you love someone deeply (someone you mistreated and did not appreciate), that she/he is a wonderful person just right for you. Before you can tell her and enrich her life and yours she is killed or dies prematurely. You will never meet again. You will likely never have another soul mate. Again, if there is no arbiter God or karmic law then there is no guaranteed tangible personal reward for your efforts towards goodness - all the suffering, deprivation, and striving you may go through. The possibility of simply greater inner peace may seem insufficient reward. Also, without an arbiter God or karmic law, it is harder to bear the unfairness of life – sometimes good things happen to bad people and vice versa. Even in a just society some people will have a better chance at happiness than others – some have better genes and parenting than others.
There are several different paths by which people commonly seek meaning in life (consciously or unconsciously). Many seek meaning through individual personal achievement and distinction. This could be artistic, intellectual, athletic, physical feats, career, business, profession, or in politics. Others are oriented more towards the goal of personal pleasure or happiness as supplying the meaning of life – romantic love, material standard of living, financial security, sex, thrills, eventual reward in paradise. Third, some find meaning in the pursuit of virtue, community service, good works, being a good person for its own sake. Fourth, some people find meaning in life largely through supposed spiritual development – cultivating compassion, letting go of anger, resentment, material desires, the ego, being more aware of the putative transcendent, deep, consoling mystical states, qualities, and apprehensions which allegedly go beyond ordinary, utilitarian, logical language. Fifthly, people can find meaning in life by pursuing knowledge, greater understanding or clarification largely for its own sake (or artistic creativity for its own sake). Sixthly, some people in effect get their meaning in life largely by merging with or identifying themselves with some cause or group. This could be a religion, ideology, ethnic group, sports team, pop star, or literary celebrity. Submitting oneself unquestioningly to the supposed will of God might be included in this sixth path.
There is a seventh route to meaning in life which is unduly neglected. This is the path of emotional development – being more aware of one’s own feelings and emotional processes including triggers, investments, and those of others. Being more able to admit one’s own biases, privileges, and flaws. Being curious about one’s own emotional processes, and those of others. Exploring, imagining, what it would be like to be of a different gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, religion, class, philosophical or political outlook, have different aesthetic preferences.
This elucidation, analysis, and exploration of the meaning of life has several implications. One: it may be a mistake to look for some one all-encompassing meaning or comfort in life whether through Jesus, Allah, Virgin Mary, Jung, Marx, or Dalai Lama. Two: it may be a mistake to look for some fairly straightforward foolproof recipe for finding meaning (or happiness) in life which fits people of all temperaments, abilities, and interests.
Nonetheless one can point to some general aids to finding meaning (and happiness). First, pay attention to basic biological and psychological needs. Second, allow time for fun, enjoyment, and relaxation. Third, develop the whole person – intellectual, athletic, artistic, emotional, social, spiritual, and moral. Fourth, stop thinking mainly or solely of your own well-being, welfare, just treatment, or interest (wealth, health, security, opportunities, rights) or that of your family, tribe, or ethnic group. Have regard for the well-being and happiness of those outside your group. Fifth, switch your energy and focus to simple goods which are available even if you don’t have money, good health, or romantic partner e.g. kindness, friendship, beauty, literature, art, music. Sixth, remember there are others who have gone through similar suffering who would be sympathetic to you. Seventh, remind yourself there will always be some unfairness and mistakes in life – others have suffered far greater misfortune and injustice, and made worse mistakes than I. Eighth, let go of having to be right. Instead focus on developing tentative views which are plausible and reasonable
The meaning of life is that there is no definite, demonstrable, certain meaning to life. You have to make it up, work something out for yourself, as you go along. Some ways of finding meaning harm others or yourself. You can be mistaken about what is worthwhile even for yourself. Learn to live with doubt, uncertainty, disagreement, mistakes, disappointment, rejection, sexual frustration, loneliness, unfairness. Develop flexible mechanisms for coping with life’s inevitable setbacks. Life is messy and frustrating. Accept your weaknesses and strengths.
You are just one amongst billions of humans, and one amongst billions upon billions of sentient beings. Yes you are unique but so is every snowflake, blade of grass, leaf, or bacterium. You are part of the flow of life and so are those you dislike or who dislike you. You (and those you dislike) are more wonderful and intricate than a butterfly or sparrow. You have a capacity for nobility lacking in an eagle, lion, or killer whale. The nobility you attain depends on you. If you are lucky you will have a lover and best friend who challenges, encourages, and treasures you. If you are unlucky you can be an unsung, unknown treasure. There will always be some conflict and flaws. Heaven is when you realize there is no heaven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)