Nelson Lowhim's Blog, page 121

Familial Madness 2

And now we see the end or perhaps the beginning of the end that we never saw before. 


Enjoyed the writing? Here's a tip jar!

Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format
htmltextmobile

Familial Madness

I'm sorry to have to do this, but with the creation of a fractal story of my own, with Familial madness now destined to be a never ending story, I will have to create story after story that will be able to encompass this entire world. What else does one do then? Well, I need these posts about me to one day become part of that story. You will be seeing more of these.

To all my readers: I am still editing with and dealing with the latest novel. I will be working on When Gods Fail IV to that end and will hopefully wrap up that series as soon as I can. All the best. 




Enjoyed the writing? Here's a tip jar!

Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format
htmltextmobile

(non-fiction) Barbaric vs civilized

All record of civilization is also a  record of barbarianism.

In the horizon of a dusty land there is a new barbarian appearing. And people are scared. The cruelty of ISIS has been revealed to the world and the human beings of civilized nations need to come forth or else be crushed underfoot. The use of the word barbaric recently seems to have gotten out of hand. So I'm tackling this so called confrontation with one of my own. I find the everyday definitions to be too self-serving. Let's see what google has to say about it:

bar·bar·icbärˈberik/adjectiveadjective: barbaric1. savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal."he had carried out barbaric acts in the name of war"synonyms:brutal, barbarous, brutish, bestial, savage, vicious, wicked, cruel, ruthless, merciless, villainous, murderous, heinous, monstrous, vile, inhuman, infernal, dark, fiendish, diabolical
"barbaric crimes"antonyms:civilized2. primitive; unsophisticated."the barbaric splendor he found in civilizations since destroyed"synonyms:brutal, barbarous, brutish, bestial, savage, vicious, wicked, cruel, ruthless, merciless, villainous, murderous, heinous, monstrous, vile, inhuman, infernal, dark, fiendish, diabolical
"barbaric crimes"
That's the dual definition that I see thrown about. But in the most recent times, the first definition seems to be the most used. Usually something comes from ISIS, and people are revolted. Fair enough. Hard side with a group that is more than willing to burn prisoners in cages and to behead them with a knife. But are people in the west (and now I'm speaking specifically of me and my fellow Americans) allowed to speak in such stark terms? 
That they are seems like the most grievous example of tribalism. The likes of Chomsky and Hedges have already pointed out that we have beheaded and burned more people than ISIS ever has. Yes, our missiles and bombs tend to do that. And yes, this has happened to innocents. So using the word barbaric for these acts, for what they evoke in the victims, can easily shown to be misguided (at least as they're being used, for one side only).
What of the perpetrators themselves? There might not be much literature on the matter, but it does seem that it would take someone much more psychotic to kill with a knife, or burn with a lighter than to use a bomb to do the same? On the surface it may seem this way, but when one adds the context of what has been done to people in the middle east (never specifically, but as a group), then it would seem that the word psychotic (and thus barbaric) would not be used. Something more nuanced would have to be added to the mix.
It seems that the only thing that most people seem to be against aren't ISIS' acts, specifically, but the fact that it's an "other" doing it, and that ISIS seems to want to advertise what they're doing. Yet, when it's phrased that way the word barbaric doesn't apply (and if that's the line, then it's a misuse, for some of us truly believe that the word should be used for most kinds of 'barbaric' killing).
Perhaps I'm wrong. It's happened before. Perhaps people are truly referring to the 2nd definition and saying that the methods used are primitive and unsophisticated. In this world view (one I hope only exists in the darker parts of internet comments) it's the fact that a knife is a simple tool used to behead, while a bomb with its shrapnel is something that's based on technology and represents a sophisticated society that is able to build and create such items. And if we're to carry on talking in terms of money (the true measure of efficacy, as it would seem these days) that bomb had research and development behind it, that bomb has jobs behind it. What of the jobs created by the knife ISIS used? [1]
I like to think that this is about something more than just what goes on behind the scenes of the weapons we use. We should understand just what these weapons do to the people affected by them. Again, this is a perfect example of manufacturing consent. That we only see our own actions through the prism of a distant explosion, while we see the actions of the enemy as viscerally as possible only goes to show that the media is trying to sway our opinions in a very specific way. Think, my fellow Americans, before you react. When someone starts to use words (especially amongst the ones not directly affected) that are meant to evoke emotions, not thought, be very careful, and hold on (to your wallets, people want that at the end of the day).

Update:  Well, then, I must say that though I shy away from using barbaric or civilized in general conversation (it has been tainted much too much in history, used much too much by those with ulterior motives) I think that if barbaric is to be used for savage acts, it should be used for the results of any one act. So the pressing of a button, or the siege of a nation, or the chopping of a head are equal only if there are numbers of equal size. To simply base things on a visceral reaction, especially for those of us not directly affected, is simply foolish and as anti-intellectual as one can get.

And if we talk of civilized, we're venturing into more and more subjective topics. Thing is that one needs to focus on what a civilization can create. In All Quiet at the Western Front, the narrator talks of the uselessness of a civilization if its end result was the trench warfare of the Great War. Is that a fair assessment? I dare say that it is.

Are we merely saying that civilization is the sum of power? Are we saying that it is art and literature? Or is it the gilded edges of chairs and walls? Most people, with science as their new god, are of the idea that with this new race in innovation that there is only one metric. There isn't, but all worshipers of a new god tend to reach into the past, co-opt it and trace a line into the future. Hard to get followers using other methods. (there is so much more to this topic. We could talk of the most recent 'good war' and what lessons we learned from that. It isn't clear, but I will certainly say that the Nazis were not civilized, no matter their technological prowess)

I'll say that mass utilitarianism is still the order of the day.


[1] Sad to say ISIS doesn't manufacture those knives or cages. They don't have the capacity for creating such things. But this logic is weak, as we would be immediately faced with the same issue if they were found to be creating these items in some underground factory, wouldn't we?

Enjoyed the writing? Here's a tip jar!

Then Subscribe to my mailing list (get stories and discounts not available elsewhere!)* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format
htmltextmobile

Barbaric vs civilized

In the horizon of a dusty land there is a new barbarian appearing. And people are scared. The cruelty of ISIS has been revealed to the world and the human beings of civilized nations need to come forth or else be crushed underfoot. The use of the word barbaric recently seems to have gotten out of hand. So I'm tackling this so called confrontation with one of my own. I find the everyday definitions to be too self-serving. Let's see what google has to say about it:

bar·bar·icbärˈberik/adjectiveadjective: barbaric1. savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal."he had carried out barbaric acts in the name of war"synonyms:brutal, barbarous, brutish, bestial, savage, vicious, wicked, cruel, ruthless, merciless, villainous, murderous, heinous, monstrous, vile, inhuman, infernal, dark, fiendish, diabolical "barbaric crimes"antonyms:civilized2. primitive; unsophisticated."the barbaric splendor he found in civilizations since destroyed"synonyms:brutal, barbarous, brutish, bestial, savage, vicious, wicked, cruel, ruthless, merciless, villainous, murderous, heinous, monstrous, vile, inhuman, infernal, dark, fiendish, diabolical "barbaric crimes"
That's the dual definition that I see thrown about. But in the most recent times, the first definition seems to be the most used. Usually something comes from ISIS, and people are revolted. Fair enough. Hard side with a group that is more than willing to burn prisoners in cages and to behead them with a knife. But are people in the west (and now I'm speaking specifically of me and my fellow Americans) allowed to speak in such stark terms? 
That they are seems like the most grievous example of tribalism. The likes of Chomsky and Hedges have already pointed out that we have beheaded and burned more people than ISIS ever has. Yes, our missiles and bombs tend to do that. And yes, this has happened to innocents. So using the word barbaric for these acts, for what they evoke in the victims, can easily shown to be misguided (at least as they're being used, for one side only).
What of the perpetrators themselves? There might not be much literature on the matter, but it does seem that it would take someone much more psychotic to kill with a knife, or burn with a lighter than to use a bomb to do the same? On the surface it may seem this way, but when one adds the context of what has been done to people in the middle east (never specifically, but as a group), then it would seem that the word psychotic (and thus barbaric) would not be used. Something more nuanced would have to be added to the mix.
It seems that the only thing that most people seem to be against aren't ISIS' acts, specifically, but the fact that it's an "other" doing it, and that ISIS seems to want to advertise what they're doing. Yet, when it's phrased that way the word barbaric doesn't apply (and if that's the line, then it's a misuse, for some of us truly believe that the word should be used for most kinds of 'barbaric' killing).
Perhaps I'm wrong. It's happened before. Perhaps people are truly referring to the 2nd definition and saying that the methods used are primitive and unsophisticated. In this world view (one I hope only exists in the darker parts of internet comments) it's the fact that a knife is a simple tool used to behead, while a bomb with its shrapnel is something that's based on technology and represents a sophisticated society that is able to build and create such items. And if we're to carry on talking in terms of money (the true measure of efficacy, as it would seem these days) that bomb had research and development behind it, that bomb has jobs behind it. What of the jobs created by the knife ISIS used? [1]
I like to think that this is about something more than just what goes on behind the scenes of the weapons we use. We should understand just what these weapons do to the people affected by them. Again, this is a perfect example of manufacturing consent. That we only see our own actions through the prism of a distant explosion, while we see the actions of the enemy as viscerally as possible only goes to show that the media is trying to sway our opinions in a very specific way. Think, my fellow Americans, before you react. When someone starts to use words (especially amongst the ones not directly affected) that are meant to evoke emotions, not thought, be very careful, and hold on (to your wallets, people want that at the end of the day).


[1] Sad to say ISIS doesn't manufacture those knives or cages. They don't have the capacity for creating such things. But this logic is weak, as we would be immediately faced with the same issue if they were found to be creating these items in some underground factory, wouldn't we?

Enjoyed the writing? Here's a tip jar!

Then Subscribe to my mailing list (get stories and discounts not available elsewhere!)* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format
htmltextmobile

Future Narratives. Guest post by Ausar English

I recently returned to New York City and met up with a friend in a cafe on the penumbra of Union Square. It was after New Years, and the air felt brittle and tired. The friend, Ausar, joined me to discuss our fiction works in progress and the conversation moved to the current state of the narrative. It seems something of a cliche to think that the state of the prose is under attack, or that it is (will?) undergoing some great changes due to technology (people still read, it's what they're reading that's changing). Nevertheless we discussed this, discussed the myriad of ways that technology today would take narratives as we know them and turn them into something else, something that perhaps hasn't even been done yet.
Now, when it came to this subject, I sensed that Ausar had a little more insight into the matter given his ability to partake in multiple storytelling forms (whereas I merely focus on one). So I asked if he would be able to write something up for my blog. Luckily, he did. So without any more delays, I present his thoughts below. Enjoy:
When I decided to write about my thoughts on the future of storytelling, I would never have guessed that Fifty Shades of Grey would be my inspiration.  A few days ago I snuck into an evening showing of the adaptation of the S&M literary phenomenon. The lights went on, the end credits began to roll, and I smiled, relieved that I hadn’t wasted $14.50.  It’s not that I was expecting a contender for the Oscars—even though the film had top notch direction and cinematography, and a star-turning performance from lead actress Dakota Johnson— the problem was that I couldn’t figure out why a book that had whipped millions of readers into an erotic frenzy made for such a boring film.  Even more puzzling was the fact that much of its dullness stemmed from the performance by the lead actor playing Christian Grey. Christian Grey: in a few short years the name has become synonymous with sex god in popular culture, and yet every time the character came on screen I wanted to fall asleep. In his New York Times review of the film, A.O Scott observes that “... In print, Christian is a blur and a blank — a screen onto which any given reader can project a customized masculine ideal. “But that “On the screen, he risks becoming just some guy, which is how Mr. Dornan plays him…” 
As A.O Scott’s point out, print differs from other mediums like television and movies in that a big part of the written word depends on the reader’s imagination, but due to current developments in technology prose is beginning to adopt aspects from those same mediums. 
Not only are more people opting to read books and articles on tablets, kindles and smartphones, a lot of what they’re reading is now being designed with audio and visual enhancements. Online journals like The Atavist are routinely incorporating audio and visual illustrations in their journalism and non-fiction features. And then there are book trailers.  In the past, someone looking to learn about a book before they bought it could only rely upon reviews or jacket-cover synopses, but now, video previews and teasers, once solely the domain of movies and music videos, are used to promote everything from fiction to non-fiction. 
Yet, not only is technology changing the literary world, it is also creating new forms of storytelling. Case in point: virtual reality. No longer just a plot point in science fiction, virtual reality is on the cusp of becoming a part of real life. With companies like Microsoft and Samsung heavily investing in it, by all accounts virtual reality is at a point similar to where the development of television was in the early 20thcentury.  The most viable vr prototype so far, the Oculus Rift headset, is so promising that Facebook bought its company for 2 billion dollars last year. More recently, guests at this year’s Sundance Film Festival were treated to exhibitions of several Oculus Rift projects. The standouts included one that places its user in the perspective of a flying bird and another that allows you to assume the viewpoint of a sex-crime victim. If a major reason to tell stories is to foster empathy, the possibilities seem endless.
Then again there are those who fear that new technology will result in the extinction of traditional forms like prose, but such anxiety is misguided. The same way that movies never replaced photography, even as new mediums like virtual reality are established, the written word will always exist. In fact, a benefit of technological progress is that different mediums are able to influence one another while maintaining their uniqueness. After all, the essence of telling a story is the same whether you’re reading, playing a videogame or strapping on a headset. That will remain true no matter the future. 

Ausar English is a NY-based, writer/actor
Website Title: The New York Times Article Title: Review: In ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ Movie, Sex Is a Knotty Bus[…] Publisher: The New York Times Electronically Published: February 12, 2015 Date Accessed: February 23, 2015 Author: A. O. Scott
Enjoyed the writing? Here's a tip jar! Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format
htmltextmobile

On the existence of ghosts

Once upon a time I stopped smiling, dear readers. A time when my innocence was robbed. Let me tell you what happened. It’s a horrible thing when a human loses his/her previous underpinnings for their belief-system. Me? I never believed in ghosts before. Sure, I heard the stories, but I didn’t trust what others said about what they saw. I placed them in the same category as those who were abducted by UFOs, or those who believe in conspiracy theories of the kind that had no evidence and had assumed some rich cabal was behind every act of violence in the world. Whenever I’d meet such people they seemed to have the same stupefied look in their eyes. So you can only imagine my surprise when I found out that there were in fact ghosts in the world. I was 33 when this revelation happened, and I hated myself for finding them—but it’s also hard to truly come to terms with the life lived blind. It all happened when I was walking through a house here in the NW that me and my significant other (SO) were considering as a rental. It was large, much too large, and I lost the real estate agent and my SO, pausing to stare at a room. Standing there, my skin tightened and my stomach started to churn. And that’s when I saw movement out of the corner of my eye and felt something cold brush up against me. My heart tripped and fell fast into my guts. Legs shaking, I could barely stand straight.

I turned to see the agent there. I forced a smile.
Nice room, said the agent, grinning, all teeth.
I would later find out that a man had hanged himself in that room. Finding that out scared me to no end. My scientific mind tried to think it through. After all, wasn’t I alone? It could have been a cold draft mixed with the lighting of the room that set off the more primitive parts of my mind.
But belief is a hard thing to defeat. And the more I thought on that moment in that house, and the more I read about the dead man, the more certain I was that I had come across a ghost.
Now, before this moment, I knew that there were a few scientific studies pointing to the influence of blood spilled on the ground. The influence appearing in the behavior of the people in the area, even if they had no part of the act of the blood being spilled, or even if they had never heard it. Some of the invented reasons—such as social transmission, a kind of reasoning that required a constant human chain to work—were ones I assumed as reasonable, but now I sensed they were silly. Because I knew that it wasn’t just humanity, but a curse of ghosts, as the one I felt had touched me.
Yet as much logical sense as my new model of the world made, I hesitated to share it with others. So I allowed the idea to settle in my head, then slowly move down through my body, an unplaced rock drifting, causing me pain, bodily harm—still I would not talk.
But one day a friend and I were arguing geopolitics somewhere in downtown Manhattan. It was about our latest military actions. I had just turned the argument on him, and he was coming around to see the pacifists’ cause, at least in this matter. We ran into a statue, an odd hooded thing with a dark hollow hole where the face should have been. An ode to fighting men of a battle hundreds of years ago, it seemed out of place here amongst the glass buildings of the finance district. That’s when I saw my next ghost. Like a shadow, it leaped from the statue and seemed to run through my friend. From the light in his eyes, I was certain that he saw what I did, but neither of us said anything, and we walked away briskly from the statue.
My friend then doubled down on his previous position that mimicked that of a government shill and his verbosity and fury increased to such a level that I had to concede the argument. After he was done huffing, and we managed some sort of detente, we stopped at a cafe made from the ruins of a church. The hour was growing late and a beautiful couple from Mali worked the espresso machine. We sat next to a window, coffees in hand, and watched as the just turning street lights punctured the dusk and the world trembled. For a second, I saw ghosts everywhere. I started to hyperventilate. What would become of me? Was I truly losing it? I decided to tell my friend. I asked him if he saw anything odd near the statue. And he only gave me an odd look and said it was wasting space when it could be used for something that made the city money. I pressed on, asking if he saw something else.
He eyed me warily, and remaining silent, his look teetered towards disgust. I didn’t let that deter me, and still pressed on. His face grew serious and angry and he asked if I knew what I was asking. I said yes.
He sighed and leaned back on his chair. It creaked under his weight. Of course, he said. I saw it.
My heart jumped, wondering if he was humoring me. I asked him how he could be so nonchalant about it. He shrugged and said that one just had to ignore them or else they would take over your life. I didn’t believe what I was hearing. How does one ignore them?
You have to, he said, leaning forward, his face growing soft like he was talking to a child. I felt a slight embarrassment, of course, and I turned red. I asked if he knew anyone else who knew about the ghosts.
He said he had a few friends who knew about them, so he assumed that like many things in the world, everyone knew about it. Then he looked at me with disgust and said that everyone knew one couldn’t talk about them. To do so was to give them a power over you that was certain to make you crazy. And if you were to point them out, you would be in a strait jacket by the end of the day.
I sipped my coffee to help deal with this verbal assault. I was mostly concerned with me just finding this out this late in life. We parted ways after the cafe and I searched the internet for any information on the matter. There was little. And the websites that did have information were filled with all sorts of conspiracy-theorists. I went to sleep as confused as ever, and the next day the confinement only seemed to have grown in strength. So I called the same friend and went over to talk to him. He was furious that I was still on the same subject, and that I had come over. I asked if he was serious about the ghosts. He hissed that he didn’t want to be taken down with me.
I asked how he managed to ignore them if they were everywhere, he pursed his lips together and shook his head. Knowing I needed a different strategy, I asked if he could point out some, so that I may be more aware of them in the future. He countered that not seeing them was a blessing. But I needled him until he was swearing at me in languages I hadn’t known he knew. Nonetheless, he took me to his computer and showed me a news clip. One from the middle east. The usual violence.
My friend asked if I was certain I wanted to see this. I nodded, though my stomach churned.
He stopped the news clip and zoomed in. And there, hanging above a child’s head was a shadow. It moved back and forth and then it was gone.
I realized then that I was shaking, my palms sweaty, and that another rock had formed in my chest. My friend, looking at me, smiled in a most sinister way. I should have warned you, he said, that they aren’t contained by video. I didn’t know what that meant, but I needed a cure for my shaking. He told me to go and have a drink and forget all this ever happened.
I never saw or heard from that friend again, though he was right about being blessed by not seeing these ghosts. For days I was seeing them everywhere, worming their way up from the ground and pushing people this way or that. It was horrid, and I couldn’t think of a single way to free myself from this horrendous sense that the world was infested. But, soon I learned to take my friend’s advice, and I started to forget, to turn away each time I saw these ghosts. And so I did, and I was able to be free. So for now, dear readers... for now I’m smiling all the time.

Enjoyed the writing? Here's a tip jar! Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format
htmltextmobile

Adding Context to Debate (revisited)

I was wrong once, and now I try to never repeat that mistake. All the buzz in the news about ISIS and how vile they are, have had me entangled in a few debates. Usually, since I’m not pro-government propaganda, I’m accused of being on ISIS’ side and of changing the subject. That brings me to the topic of wanting to, or needing to, adding context to vs obfuscating a debate. 
The human mind can only hold a few ideas at any one time. When we debate (orally, but this applies to the textual internet as well) it usually helps to focus on the subject at hand, as time constraints don’t allow for much more. Thus, when I try to add context to any situation, I am called out for changing the subject, for muddying the waters. Is that what it is?
Adding historical context to any debate is needed. For those who only want to look at one situation in a vacuum (as if such things exist), then that is an effort to take out history, to make sure no one can see the situation for what it is. Only a child comes to the world without history. We then try to teach them things. Let’s not move away from that. Keep teaching and adding context.
No one’s perfect: I would like to say that when it comes to geo-politics, I’m good about adding context. Yet I tend to, sometimes off hand, dismiss that which I hate, when it comes to domestic politics. Say it comes from the extreme right and it’s against Obama (not always, but a lot of times); I’ll assume it’s baseless and not even look into it. So the context, in this respect, becomes noise and is lost. What to do in such a situation? When I moved out of the south, there were, at the time, many straw-men that I was aware of and didn’t want to hear anymore. Thus when cries came up about Obama’s birth certificate, I dismissed them as just these straw-men. I still think that was a correct decision. What then of the context versus noise?
I once argued with a friend of mine who said I should take every opinion I hear seriously, and only when I can take in all the facts can I make a decision for myself. This is true. In theory. I held this view when I was young and tried to adhere to it. I was more well read about many subjects than most of my peers, I dare say, and still I ended up being wrong (some people’s heuristics ended up trumping my ‘evidence’, so take from that what you must). How is that? There is limited time, and I, simply, ended up taking in the wrong information. This is part of the reason why I’m so adamant about figuring out the best way to read the news.
What can you learn from this? That when people (me included) decide to cut out context, they are, in fact, being defensive and even smart, for there is much context that is put out there to be noise (or propaganda) and one must live one’s life, so it isn’t feasible to go through all of it. What’s a human to do (and this goes for all levels, one can only truly be an expert in one very niche subject in this life, and even then, I’m sure you aren’t absorbing all the information available)?
Well, to cut through the noise, one must find a good source (academic ones tend to be the best). This is hard. Very few sources have the impeccable credentials of not being wrong, or of not allowing their biases — let’s be honest, they will all have biases — to muddy the truth. This leads us to looking for prophets; especially these days when the media is so fragmented and opinions are hard to trust. But we must find them. And when something does not seem right, when that gut feeling has been honed with learning and critical thinking, one must be able to take the time to take in different evidence and move from there.
So take in the context as best as you can. One thing we should not do is reject context because it flies in the face of what we want. This does not mean, if it flies in the face of all evidence, for this is when we must cut off the noise. Note, I said “evidence”, not what you’ve been told, or what you think.Also think about the sources you’re using. I would say that books that have been, on some level, peer-reviewed, need to be considered. As well as those in the academic world. And in the end, one should always use whatever knowledge and experience they have to judge. This is not always sufficient, as I can attest to. Some times, growing up, we simply place our faith in those authority figures around us. It’s not easy to usurp them. Not on our own. But we must try. That’s why having a diversity in education, as well as in one’s reading list, as well as in one’s news list, are of paramount importance.
Does this make sense? We’re talking about massive amounts of information thus using critical reading skills will be needed. Be skeptical about most everything that you read. Don’t be afraid to ask questions.
And what when context is propaganda that is meant to obfuscate? After all, it has been shown that on internet comments, if the first one is contrary to the article, people will still believe it on some level, thus when someone does it they are influencing the debate, even if they have no evidence for their views (see climate change as well as the evolution debate). Unfortunately, we seem to believe that which we read with great ease. Again, look into what the sources are (never easy, rarely automatic) and how certain conclusions are based on reliable sources (even harder for real time news).But, oh, to find that prophet.
Thoughts?

Enjoyed the writing? Here's a tip jar!

Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format
htmltextmobile

Why I write. The Struggle knows not the logic of morals.

As I sit here and listen to rain scratching my window, out here in the North West of our country, I find myself thinking on Iraq. A funny thing, the mind, how it works, for this region of the country, geographically speaking, and certainly weather-wise, is about as far from Iraq as can be. Must be that the news, with all its talk of Islamic extremists is again filtering through my mind no matter what happens. 
There have been a lot of veteran reactions to what has happened in Iraq, to include veteran stories (the more famous ones, I suppose) about their deployments there. Well, I'm not sure that I'm ready to tell all just yet, but the events out there have had me mulling many things. I know that I've been saying that I'll comment on the matter, but for the most part emotion has prevented me from doing so. I will soon, though, I promise. 
One thing I mulled was my sophomore effort at talking about Iraq. The novel in question, The Struggle Trilogy, was meant to represent many things and talk about many things too. It was my effort to talk to the American people about what happened there. But it was mainly my effort, through the effort of prose, to understand a multiple stream scenario, as well as Iraq. On the latter part, I should say I was being too ambitious, or perhaps even disingenuous with myself. No story about a single neighborhood would tell the tale about Iraq going through such a tumultuous time—or any other neighborhood for any other nation for that matter. And on the matter of telling people about the situation there, as prescient as the novel is about today's situation, it really didn't reach out to many people, nor was it shared. A couple reviews (such as this one) keep my ego intact. 
But a unknown project of mine is not the point here. Nor is it a matter of another veteran's reaction to Iraq. Rather, Ive been pondering the Arab quote that I open my book with: 
" The Struggle Knows not the Logic of Morals "
I'm not speaking of what it implies: that's clear enough. Nor am I thinking about why I used it originally; that was to imply that fighting against powers that you perceive as sources for your iniquities will always be brutal, perhaps more so than those perceived iniquities may be. No, I'm thinking more on the matter of: how the violence around the world is speaking of some sort of struggle. And though my first reaction is revulsion—how can it not be so?—that there is something more at play. And that which is at play, that which is close to a nihilistic violence and will need more than bombs to end.
This was not meant to be an answer. Merely a pondering as rain still attacks my window pane, a million little creatures trying to climb to my roof. And no, I do not want nor need people to chime in with the theory that only with real fire, only with Dresden and Tokyo, to say nothing of Hiroshima, will we be able to change people. No, I need none of that. I want to thoughtful ideas here. 

Enjoyed the writing? Here's a tip jar! Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format
htmltextmobile

On Debates and Context (updated)

The most recent news on ISIS and their barbaric ways (apparently some odd effort to mimic aspects of bombing itself?), seems to have everyone in a fury. What to make of this group and what seems to be their nihilistic ways, or perhaps their self-defeating ways? Are they truly that despicable? Is it merely a role of propaganda to make them seem this bad? George Packer over at the New Yorker seems to have one take: that it is a death cult bent on some sort of purification. In other words, a rabid dog that needs to be put down.
Indeed, it must. I've never said otherwise. In many ways, it's much like the Munster city state, the Nazis, & the Khmer Rouge in many ways. Yet whenever I, an Iraq War veteran, tell people that there shouldn't be a rush to bomb that we need to think harder upon the causes here, they ask if I'm on the other side. Interesting. The only thing I see here, is a will to be much too easily goaded into a fight. That is surely what they want Jordan and many other Sunni dominant countries to do: send troops. One should note the hesitance to send all but fighter pilots into this war on the part of Sunni nations. I think, and I'm sure many others do, that they understand that would be playing into ISIS hands.
To go back to being accused by anonymous interneters as well as friends of being on the side of so heinous a group: I can only think that they are being broiled with emotion and are truly being tribalistic for those reasons alone. What else can one say about such reactions? I do know this: that for all ISIS is doing, for all the war crimes they are carrying out, when people here are telling us not to sit and have a rational discussion, that to do so aids the enemy, I know that then it is truly a matter of needing that rational discussion, and anything else is conflation.
And I'm still wondering if, even if we were to wipe out ISIS with some magic bomb, people will stop to think about what it is that caused it to happen in the first place. This goes deep. And we must consider this part as well. Or else we'll face the same thing all over again. In fact, if we don't think in terms of the violence that has taken us this far, we won't get anywhere anytime soon. So all this wanting to claim it's many things (there isn't much information coming from that area except from ISIS' marketing branch; and this is much a result of what ISIS has done) without information seems rushed. I did see them in a video and they were obsessed with some sort of justice. I really doubt that they are all foreigners (doing so well in a foreign land). If so, where is that information coming from? What are the numbers? Nothing solid, all conjecture at best... What of the violence of others in that region? No, don't add context, don't add anything.
So that brings me to context when used in debates. It is well known that the human mind can only take into account a handful of things. When we debate (orally, but this counts for on the internet as well) it usually helps to focus on the subject at hand, as time constraints don't allow for much more. Thus, when people like me try to add context to any situation (usually because of odd tribal outbursts like the one I mentioned above), we are called out for changing the subject. Indeed, is it? It seems like a time honored tactic, to say the least.
But it can be done right. If someone is truly trying to add historical context to any debate, then it is a needed action. For those who only want to look at one situation in a vacuum (as if such things exist), then that is an effort to take out history, to make sure no one can see the situation for what it is. So if you hear me say something that offends you, you should think about what that says about yourself and the need to have a view of the world that takes out all history. Only a child comes to the world without history. We then try to teach them things. Let's not move away from that. Keep teaching and adding context. To not do it is to fall for someone else's trap.

Update Feb2015:  First, this is me saying how the debate is, and how we should strive to work away from heuristics instead of gut reactions. After all, I too make this mistake, and thus I have to apply this frontal lobe thinking at all times to the subject matter. We tend to fall for the easy route, but if we want debates to go somewhere, then some rules must be followed (I'll come up with rules for a debate soon).

I would like to say that when it comes to geo-politics, I'm much better about adding context (perhaps because I have read more on the matter, a result of having "lived it" on more than one level). Yet this even matters for domestic politics as well. I tend to, sometimes off hand, dismiss that which I hate. Say it comes from the Tea Party and it's against Obama (not always, but a lot of times) I'll assume it's baseless and not even look into it. So the context, in this respect, becomes noise and is lost.

What to do in such a situation, as I'm sure many people make this same mistake? When I moved out of the south, there were, at the time, many strawmen that I was aware of and didn't want to hear anymore. Thus when cries came up about Obama's birth certificate, I ignored them as ignorant. I still think that was a correct decision. What then of the context versus the noise? There is some truth to this (and this would be a strong retort to what I was saying).

I once argued with a friend of mine who said I should take every opinion I hear seriously, and only when I can take in all the facts can I make a decision for myself. This is true. In theory. In theory, communism works. In other words, I held this view when I was young and tried to adhere to it. I was more well read about many subjects than most of my peers, I dare say, and still I ended up being wrong (some people's heuristics ended up trumping my 'evidence', so take from that what you must). How is that? There is limited time, and I, simply, ended up taking in the wrong information. This is part of the reason why I'm so adamant about figuring out the best way to read the news, with its multiple platforms and so forth.

What can I take from this? That when people (me included, at times) decide to cut out context, they are, in fact, being defensive and even smart, for there is much context that is put out there to be noise (the propaganda issue) and one must live one's life, so it isn't feasible to go through all of it. What's a human to do (and this goes for all levels, one can only truly be an expert in one very niche subject in this life, and even then, I'm sure you aren't absorbing all the information available)?

Well, to cut through the noise [1], one must find a good source. This is hard. Very few sources have impeccable credentials of not being wrong, of not allowing their biases—let's be honest, they will all have biases—to muddy the truth. This leads us to looking for prophets, especially these days when the media is so fragmented, and opinions are hard to discern. But we must find them. And when something does not seem right (again, this is what I spoke of when I mentioned that one must keep history in mind), when that gut feeling has been honed, one must be able to take the time to take in different evidence and move from there.

I would say that academic evidence tends to be good. But even peer-reviewed journals aren't perfect. So take in the context as best as you can. One thing we should not do is reject context because it flies in the face of what we want. This does not mean, if it flies in the face of evidence, for this is when we must cut off the noise. Note, I said evidence, not what you've been told, or what you think. Though I admit that this can be very hard to completely understand or even separate.

The best example that I can give is, of course, personal. I was a die hard conservative, and I made a switch from that to something more liberal (at least when talking about the matter of war, or geo-politics). The thing that got me to stop, think, read other books (opposing books, even) on the matter, was having the evidence of my experience counter that of the leading "prophets" of conservatism. And so it goes.

I started to read books and from then on I changed my mind with the evidence available. There is surely much to be discussed/debated with even this aspect of context. After all, what books, and at what level? I would say that books that have been, on some level, peer-reviewed, need to be considered. And in the end, one should always use whatever knowledge and experience they have to judge. This is not always sufficient, as I can attest to. Some times, growing up, we simply place that base of faith on those authority figures around us. It's not easy to usurp them. Not on our own. But we must try (that's why having a diversity in education, as well as in one's reading list, as well as in one's news list, are of paramount importance).

Does this make sense? I'm not sure that it is a perfect step by step, and for that I apologize. We're talking about massive amounts of information and how to read it is hard. But using critical reading skills will be needed. Be skeptical about most everything that you read. See how many people agree with such matters. Don't be afraid to ask questions.

And what when context is propaganda that is meant to obfuscate? After all, it has been shown that on internet comments, if the first one is contrary to the article, people will still believe it on some level, thus when someone does it they are influencing the debate, even if they have no evidence for their views (see climate change as well as the evolution debate). Unfortunately, we seem to believe that which we read with great ease. Perhaps we could change this during our children's education? Can we? More critical thinking and reading school programs aside, what should the rest of us lost ones do?

I'm afraid I don't have an answer for this. Indeed much noise and propaganda is out there not to convert people, but to at least muddy the waters on an otherwise clear issue. So we must be defensive about it, but we cannot be too defensive such that we don't allow the real evidence that can allow us a clearer view into our world.

There is another matter on this: that ay ideology worth its salt will have prepared for any and all opposing arguments. Some even have an outright rejection of other ideas by instilling in us a fear or a hatred for the "other" idea. This is not the purview of cults alone, whatever you may think. In groups of people who think themselves as progressive, I have seen this enacted: the quick and outright rejection of an idea seems to be something everyone goes for. Let's be honest, this is instilled in us as an instinct even. For when I see this happen, I also see people who, in said group, seem to come together more, group cohesion goes up, and bonds are made. There is an unwritten and unsaid understanding and very little will take that away. Why destroy that with forced thought and most likely create tension, in addition to be being labelled either anti-social or at best a contrarian?

Well, it must happen if the debate is something more than a feel good exercise. One must simply have the discipline for it, because the end product is a better world. So add context when needed. Add it when it's hard and the group is especially primed to simply parrot each other and add nothing to that debate. So please, allow context to come through, but never let it come through unhindered.
I will, of course, write more on the matter of debates soon.

[1] Not only is there noise of people simply speaking about things for which they know nothing about, but there is the more mendacious noise put out there by those who have another agenda all together to put out. So for most any issue that matters (that has money tied to it) there will be someone willing to pay another person to push what will benefit them (which they may very well believe as true or as helpfuul for the world).

Thoughts?




Enjoyed the writing? Here's a tip jar! Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format
htmltextmobile

On Debates and Context

The most recent news on ISIS and their barbaric ways (apparently some odd effort to mimic aspects of bombing itself?), seems to have everyone in a fury. What to make of this group and what seems to be their nihilistic ways, or perhaps their self-defeating ways? Are they truly that despicable? Is it merely a role of propaganda to make them seem this bad? George Packer over at the New Yorker seems to have one take: that it is a death cult bent on some sort of purification. In other words, a rabid dog that needs to be put down.
Indeed, it must. I've never said otherwise. In many ways, it's much like the Munster city state, the Nazis, & the Khmer Rouge in many ways. Yet whenever I, an Iraq War veteran, tell people that there shouldn't be a rush to bomb that we need to think harder upon the causes here, they ask if I'm on the other side. Interesting. The only thing I see here, is a will to be much too easily goaded into a fight. That is surely what they want Jordan and many other Sunni dominant countries to do: send troops. One should note the hesitance to send all but fighter pilots into this war on the part of Sunni nations. I think, and I'm sure many others do, that they understand that would be playing into ISIS hands.
To go back to being accused by anonymous interneters as well as friends of being on the side of so heinous a group: I can only think that they are being broiled with emotion and are truly being tribalistic for those reasons alone. What else can one say about such reactions? I do know this: that for all ISIS is doing, for all the war crimes they are carrying out, when people here are telling us not to sit and have a rational discussion, that to do so aids the enemy, I know that then it is truly a matter of needing that rational discussion, and anything else is conflation.
And I'm still wondering if, even if we were to wipe out ISIS with some magic bomb, people will stop to think about what it is that caused it to happen in the first place. This goes deep. And we must consider this part as well. Or else we'll face the same thing all over again. In fact, if we don't think in terms of the violence that has taken us this far, we won't get anywhere anytime soon. So all this wanting to claim it's many things (there isn't much information coming from that area except from ISIS' marketing branch; and this is much a result of what ISIS has done) without information seems rushed. I did see them in a video and they were obsessed with some sort of justice. I really doubt that they are all foreigners (doing so well in a foreign land). If so, where is that information coming from? What are the numbers? Nothing solid, all conjecture at best... What of the violence of others in that region? No, don't add context, don't add anything.
So that brings me to context when used in debates. It is well known that the human mind can only take into account a handful of things. When we debate (orally, but this counts for on the internet as well) it usually helps to focus on the subject at hand, as time constraints don't allow for much more. Thus, when people like me try to add context to any situation (usually because of odd tribal outbursts like the one I mentioned above), we are called out for changing the subject. Indeed, is it? It seems like a time honored tactic, to say the least.
But it can be done right. If someone is truly trying to add historical context to any debate, then it is a needed action. For those who only want to look at one situation in a vacuum (as if such things exist), then that is an effort to take out history, to make sure no one can see the situation for what it is. So if you hear me say something that offends you, you should think about what that says about yourself and the need to have a view of the world that takes out all history. Only a child comes to the world without history. We then try to teach them things. Let's not move away from that. Keep teaching and adding context. To not do it is to fall for someone else's trap.

Enjoyed the writing? Here's a tip jar! Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format
htmltextmobile