I suppose most of my life I've been a little depressed. Not enough to warrant any one's attention. Just enough to dwindle away any remaining hope, pride or confidence from a once playful child. A once hopeful squirt.
Along the way and at no time, in particular, the lust for life and all it could offer subsided. Reality set in hard and with little push back from myself and for Reality, it was easy to interject a little taste of spiteful consequence into an already uncertain world.
Ahead, I only saw chaos and unpredictability. All I saw was my own failure, greed and no one to make proud, least of all myself. Who am I to demand such things of myself? Am I not just another human, doomed to a life on this earthly hell? With torments within and torments abroad.
The world, seeking to destroy you throws death and confusion at you. So you accept your fate. I told myself I was just another in a long line of worthless humans. No more important than the distant stars, a speck of dust on the planet. With no God and no one to impress and no chance for greatness, why even try?
In the background of my mind negativity was always there, demanding more and expecting less. Never enough and never to anywhere. I thrived amidst the opportunities afforded. Blessed and cursed by the world's prescribed options. Adrift and ashamed.
I am still ashamed of my lack of fortitude and passion. I am still ashamed when I find myself following someone undeserving of my loyalty. But it is not the case that I am just a cog and it is not the case that I have no choices. I have consequences to conjure and futures to inspire.
It is the case that I can accept my frailties and work toward improving the best aspects of myself. To take on tasks that improve my attitude, my mood and that create confidence. The ones that help me appreciate life and find joy. Activities and indulgences that I can take pride in even if I'm not always willing to divulge them to others.
There are positive and negative behavioral feedback loops that one engages in whether one is paying attention or not. If one is paying attention and wants the depression to lessen then it makes sense that one should engage in activities that promote positive psychological feedback.
A great book that I read that facilitated my acceptance of my current state and empowered my dedication to make my life better is called The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem by Nathaniel Brandon. Another book I read that helped me rethink my relationships with others is called Real-Time Relationships: The Logic of Love by Stephan Molyneux. After reading these books I came away with actionable steps to take control over my life in a way that I didn't know was possible beforehand. I started to look at my life as something to be taken seriously as a limited resource that was worth investing in. For more on this topic read my blog about losing 45 lbs and why as well as other blogs about personal development.
Even after about five years of a concerted effort to no longer treat myself as a worthless meat-sac I still get depressed and still, my depression takes the form of a subtle, yet persistent pessimism, nihilism, and doubt. A voice inside my head that looks at my accomplishments, skills, and humanity and judges it all as a pointless endeavor unworthy of continuance. I stop writing, stop learning, stop appreciating myself and I start to doubt that I am worthy of any effort at all. Fortunately, as time goes by and I work at improving my self-esteem these bouts of depression are fewer and far between and I hope that in time positivity and enthusiasm will take on a more dominant role in my psychology.
If kids can vote at 18 and everyone thinks they should vote then why is there essentially no formal education related to political philosophy? They should also be practiced in evaluating candidates and understanding the process and its consequences.
There seems to be a gap between whose role it is to teach life skills and job skills. Formal education was originally a supplemental experience that would prepare one with a means to know how to do something valuable. Something that would ensure they get a skill-based job. I'm sure that it all originated with apprenticeships and other on the job training and then, in time, turned into more and more of an institutionally based endeavor. Education, it seems, has become bastardized by laziness, bureaucracy, and politics. (Yet another example of how the government corrupts a good idea.)
More and more people started sending their children to school. This allowed them to get a head start on reading, writing, and math, which was becoming more and more of a necessity in industrialized nations. As occupations went away from farming, parents spent less and less time at home and needed somewhere for their children to be during the day. Soon, and with the help of the efficiency born of the factory, schools started taking up more and more of the role that parents once held.
Life skills were traditionally taught by parents by both modeling and direct teaching. Parents would teach their children about household duties, sex, religion, politics, and all the things that are involved in navigating once's culture. It was the role of the parent to truly prepare their children for the outside world and it was the role of the school to prepare their mind for fundamental cognitive abilities that would become financially viable.
Throughout much of American history, mothers stayed home and took care of household maintenance and fathers went off to work somewhere for most of the day. As women started joining the workforce and the government decreased the value of money through inflation in an effort to increase tax revenue children became more and more neglected. Now we have a situation where the vast majority of citizens live in the working class, which means that they typically need a two household income in order to pay bills. This means that there is less time to teach their children life skills and with schools teaching nearly everything under the sun, parents don't know what their children are missing. Also, because they were never formally taught modern life skills they assume that their children will learn as they did, just by doing it.
I think that we would all be better off defining the roles of both parents and educational systems. I think that the government's "free" schools should either provide life skills or not. If they are going to take on the role of educating the youth to create effective, successful and productive adults then they should teach the things necessary to accomplish this. This includes teaching skills such as sex education, finances, political philosophy, cooking, health, computers, typing, etc. If this was the case then this would be on the top of the goals list of teaching children job skills as well, such as math, science, geography, English and the like. This is a lot of work for the government and it seems that they are already in charge of much of this and yet don't seem to have a clear goal in mind. If you are going to take on the task of educating the future entirely then you should do it well.
If the government is not the right choice for the job of educating children in life skills then it would fall to either the parents or a private agency such as a private school. The nuclear family seems to be falling apart and one thing that is helpful about the nuclear family is it relieves the parents of some of the burden and allows for a more stable, nurturing and ultimately healthy environment for the development of a child's capacities. As single-parent households rise parents are more stressed, less attentive and more absent in their children's lives, leaving less room to teach life skills. Also, because the parent is struggling it does not provide a hopeful example for the child either. Why would a child listen to the advice of someone who is barely making it? They won't. They will go somewhere else.
Where do children go to learn life skills? Now, it's the internet. If they want to learn about sex they look it up online. Not just porn but articles about how to be in relationships. Or they just watch porn. Only the more intelligent look deeply into their own potential and seek out experts. Many just do as others do and will end up just like their parents even though they despise them. They look to celebrities and emulate their personalities in a naive attempt to become someone important instead of becoming themselves.
The world is becoming more and more complicated and young people have more possibilities ahead of them than ever. Even if parents take the time to teach their children they are most likely unaware of the current considerations that young people should be made aware of. Every year there are new technologies, industries, laws, and cultural mores that parents can't keep up with and therefore cannot educate their children in a way that will be relevant for them in the future. The government takes so long to update their curriculum and continually changes their standards that they cannot educate the youth in a way that prepares them for our complex and rapidly changing world. It makes sense that so many young adults (and many not so young adults) find themselves scrambling to understand the world that they are thrust into when they turn 18.
Waiting for people to "figure it out" on their own is terribly inefficient and wastes so much potential. Well before someone graduates, they should be immersed in the real economic world. Diverse and extensive job experiences before the age of 18 would help transition the young into the world that they are already a part of but are separated from partly out of necessity and partly out of fear. People learn from doing and so if you want people to understand the world they must experience it. For children, this is facilitated by adults and for teens, mentors can help transition them into the world. If parents don't take the time to mentor and educate their children then there will exist a gap between the real world and the insulated world of children. On the other hand, some children are thrust into the real world too early and are forced to engage in adult activities before they understand them.
Maybe companies like Youtube, Kahn Academy, Udemy and others will bridge the gap that exists but children don't know what they don't know and if they don't actively engage in educating themselves then they will go through the growing pains that most of us deal with when we have to fend for ourselves. While people make due and some will be very successful and some will fail miserably with the majority somewhere in between the world could be improved by taking education more seriously, not for the sake of the state but for the sake of humanity and freedom.
I am not in control of others. I am barely in control of myself.
The only way to control others is through force, everything else is a negotiation.
When I listen to certain people prognosticate about what we all are doing or should be doing I can't help but become curious about what they mean by "we". "We" is a collective noun that takes on different forms depending on the context it is used in. A Christian can address a group of Christians and say the word "we" and it is to whom they are referring. Namely, Christians. But if that same Christian was in a room full of atheists and used the word "we" he might be referring to his fellow Christians or he might be appealing to a more general "we" as in "we are all humans," or "we are all Americans".
The term "we" requires an assumption on the part of both the speaker and listener which offers two opportunities to misinterpret the meaning of the word. The speaker assumes that the listener knows which group they are referring to and the listener assumes they know what group the speaker is referring to. Both parties may be wrong in their assumptions. This is just another reason why clarification is important and why using vague, abstract or lazy terms is problematic.
Another issue with using the word "we" is that if the group being referred to is large enough it loses any generalizability or coherency. Saying, "We should all do this or that", referring to all people or all Americans, for example, is either so generically obvious it doesn't need to be stated such as in the statement, "We should strive to make the world a better place" or it becomes so vague as in the statement, "We, the people of the United States of America..." that it holds no specificity and therefore does not offer to reveal any real identity.
Another example is in the following sentence, "what we did in Vietnam," and we assume that what they mean is America if they are American, which is exceptionally vague because the "we" in this statement attempts to hold a large number of people responsible for something they had nothing to do with. Not that no one in America still living had nothing to do with the war in Vietnam. Even if the speaker is referring to the historical fact that America did something in Vietnam the meaning is still not clear as the definition relies on the ever-changing definition of the peoples of America, for the word "we", when spoken by a person, typically includes humans and certainly does in the above statement.
The definition of "America" in 1969 would not only include all the individuals that lived during that time but would also describe their actions. Obviously, this is an impossible thing to do accurately, hence the simplifying use of the word "we". The actions of the government would be the most representative of the US to anyone outside of the United States so one must include the actions of the government as well, which means that you have to separate out the individuals that made up the government and weigh their actions heavier than the civilian population. Then you might want to include the most financially affluent as they probably funded many of the politicians that ended up in the government and for their contribution to American culture. The words "America" and "Americans" only represent an abstract concept and it's actual definition evolves constantly.
Can a nation be considered a continuous entity? What is the statute of limitations of a nation's crimes?
Considering that I have asserted that a "nation" is nothing more than a concept referring to individual people, then holding a "nation" accountable could be dealt with in a similar fashion as holding individuals accountable. One can not sit a "nation" down and demand recompense, as the true definition of a "nation" should include the sum total of its inhabitants at a given time. That does not mean that one can't identify those that made decisions that directly lead to the guilty act. This is typically the responsibility of the governing body of the nation but might also include the wealthy and otherwise influential.
When you hold all the weapons you are only accountable to yourself.
If a speaker is using a form of "we" that is devoid of persons or includes non-humans then it should be clear within the context of the statement. Maybe in a world full of sentient aliens and humans, the use of the word "we" would grow to include non-humans as a norm. Also, if the word "we" refers to all biological entities then it refers to non-humans as well but when was the last time someone said the word "we" to refer to all biological forms?
I suppose that part of the reason that I have a problem with anyone using the word "we" in a way that ascribes responsibility is that groups of people don't do anything. Individuals do things and make decisions. When they work together it is easy to group them up and consider their efforts as a whole. It makes it easier to talk about what happened and what you think should have happened.
To be accurate one should name everyone involved but it is hard to say all the names of the people involved when groups become larger than a few people. When there are too many people to state their names one can take shortcuts. The problem with linguistic shortcuts is that when they are repeated without consideration their original meaning can get lost and one stops using our critical faculties. This is one of the reasons that abstract language leads to misunderstandings. Another abstract concept is represented by the word "group". This is another vague term that relies on context and shared knowledge. The word "group" is the more objective version of "we" just and the word "they" is an externalized version of "we".
The pyramids were not built by groups of people. One might say that it was built by Jews, a recognized group of people, but one should not say that it was built by "the Jews". Many Jews had nothing to do with it and considering that it was so long ago the accuracy of any statement about the history of the pyramids should be suspect. Even the word "Jew" as an identifier of individual characteristics is not well defined. In using the word "group" in this fashion one is forgoing every bit of information related to the actual physical reality and representing it in an alternative way. They are redefining the event and abstracting its contents. This is a necessary aspect of communication via language as efficiency is important. People do not have the time to name and address every human and activity related to an event. All of history is told using abstractions, metaphors, and vagueries.
The story of the pyramids is what lingers. Not of the actual entities that were involved.
The pyramids were built by lots and lots of individuals that used their bodies to accomplish work. While one can create endless categories in an effort to describe similarities or differences among individuals the fact still remains that it is individuals that act. They may use justifications that appeal to communal concepts but they still act of their own accord even if not totally of their own volition. They are responsible even if they are not completely in control. Environmental pressures and the drive for survival have a great influence on behavior but even in the face of death, some have had the will to fight their instincts and act of their own will.
So, then in what circumstances is one permitted to use the word "we", you might ask. I actually think it is perfectly fine for people to use the word "we" whenever they want but one should be aware that it may lead to miscommunication and misattribution. One should strive to be accurate in their speech and not succumb to the laziness of using vague words and idioms. If one is referring to all humans then they certainly can use the word "we" but in most other cases one should be careful and deliberate with their use of the word.
Maybe one of the reasons that the word "we" is used so wantonly is that it promotes communalism. By using the word "we" one can hold many people responsible for something without having to find and name all the individuals. Humans are a highly social species and do not thrive in isolation. In fact, I would venture to guess that group identities were formulated well before individual identities in humanity's linguistic past. The identification of outsiders was and is a survival instinct that has roots that go deeper than our Homosapien speciation. Therefore, the notion of a "We" is hardwired into we humans. A small person might be called a wee human.
One of the problems with using the word "we" in a lazy fashion is that one will likely end up holding someone responsible for something they had nothing to do with. This makes it easy to identify large groups of people, some of which might actually be immediately responsible, but some might have just been on the outskirts of the group and knew nothing of the occurrence. Groups are rarely in full unison and while many may act as if they always agree with their group's decisions in public many will debate its merits in private. Groups of humans are not mental monoliths or cyborg hiveminds.
The question might then arise, "are a state's citizens responsible for the actions made using their tax dollars but without their direct permission or involvement. Governments make many decisions that are never put in front of the citizenry so can a citizen be held morally responsible because they did not withdraw their financial support? Can a citizen be expected to risk their life and their family's life to disobey a government that acts against their value system?
While a citizen might not be expected to withdraw financial support to a corrupt government by not paying taxes, they can still use other means such as voting, petitioning, speaking out, or whatever else is not deemed illegal by the sitting government. What is important to understand here is that the government is another group that is incapable of taking action. It is simply a concept. A narrower but still vague "we" that is actually made up of individuals who make decisions and take action. Individuals are responsible for what the government does but it is easy to spread the responsibility thin in a culture the masks responsibility under the guise of communal togetherness.
On Consciousness and Free Will:
Maybe if the universe is deterministic then it doesn't matter if we hold the wrong person responsible for things. Maybe we are all on a rollercoaster that never ends and our momentum leads us down the only path available. Maybe that means that there is no "we" as there is no "you"? If the self is an illusion then so is the concept of we. What is a group of illusions called? Are we only an illusion to ourself or is it that our concept of ourselves is an illusion? Is the entirety of our internal conception of ourselves an illusion or are some aspects real? If the external world is real then are others not real? If others are real then I am real to others? If they are real to me but not to themselves then there is a contradiction.
Either, we are all real or we are all an illusion.
The definition of the self becomes important here. I would use the following to begin to define the self:
1. The self is a minimally reducible entity that still maintains the other attributes.
2. The self is composed of a person's physical body, regardless of deformity or loss of organic material.
3. The self is alive. (Unless one believes that the self is separate from the body or denies biology in general.)
Here is a short list of things I attribute to my personal concept of my self:
4. I am conscious.
5. My consciousness relies on my biology and is born of it.
6. I am responsible for my actions.
7. I am only partly in control of my actions.
8. I can discipline my will power and grow its effectiveness.
Free will is an acceptance of your participation in the actions of your body. Free will is taking responsibility because someone has to. Free will is holding people accountable for not trying. While free will is not always activated it is always available unless the person is broken somehow. That is why we do not imprison people we deem mentally incapable of exercising their will power.
Is it not just an expression of our total narcissism as a species that we might think that we are important or in charge of the world.
The whole concept that there is something bigger out there is based on the collective value system and the vastness of the external world and the hierarchy of the pack.
I think many times when people say "we" they mean "I" such as in the sentence, "How do we feel..." If the speaker had used the word "I" instead, it would have no inaccuracies and cause no confusion about who is being referred to. But when they use the word "we" they create a disconnect from the subject of the statement. They broaden their scope and add something when something more is not needed and may not exist. They are obscuring the meaning of the statement and creating an unnecessary abstraction.
If one draws a picture of people standing around then there are only individuals. If one then draws a circle around them and then calls the group "they" or "we" then one is still referring to individuals but pulling back on the detail which leaves room for entropy and a lack of clarification. One is sacrificing the truth for convenience and efficiency, which is not all bad, and utilizing an abstract concept that only exists within the brain as opposed to referring to actual physical bodies, ie: the individuals.
There are things that exist outside of the body and there are things that only exist within the neural network that exists in the body. Consciousness seems to be an emergent phenomenon that exists due to neural networks. Until recently the only notable network was within the human body but now there are networks outside the human that may contain the same emergent properties such as on the internet. Maybe this is not a meaningful distinction or category of existence.
On AI:
When Sam Harris or Elon Musk talks about the future of AI and say things like, "we" have to consider this or that or that "we" need to be careful, who the fuck are they talking about? Maybe they are just talking to those who are responsible for creating and developing AI and robotics or those that are funding research but because the word can apply to everyone in this context it is hard not to be confused about what they are asking of me. If the "we" here means every human then I am not sure what I can do to stop AI, especially considering it is already here and that I have no idea how it works.
Now, humans have created catastrophically bad technologies but again I ask, who is to blame? It seems like it would be the individuals that acted to create these terrible technologies or who chose to use them. The same human drive that created the atom bomb created the polio vaccine. It seems that with the explosion of creativity and scientific understanding we get a combination of both terrific and terrifying technologies. Thus the universe stays in balance. A balance between chaos and order. Entropy and cohesion. Humans are constantly encountering the sublime and the horrific.
After reading "Lonesome Dove" by Larry McMurtry and finding out that it was just one in a series of Western books written around the characters of Gus McCrae and Woodrow Call I went out and immediately purchased "Dead Man's Walk". For my review of "Lonesome Dove" check the link below. I was so impressed and enthralled with the storytelling in "Lonesome Dove" that I knew that I would enjoy another adventure and this book does not disappoint.
"Dead Man's Walk" is a prequel to "Lonesome Dove" and offers up the story of Call and Gus as they begin their careers as Texas Rangers. Where "Lonesome Dove" shows the two characters in their wizened forms, "Dead Man's Walk" shows them as real greenhorns poised to be molded into the hardened leaders of men they would become. Knowing that they will survive all the ordeals in "Dead Man's Walk" does not take away from the excitement and intrigue the book delivers but instead opens the characters up for a more intimate and raw examination.
The book begins with the two new recruits on an expedition into the baren American frontier in hopes of discovering a usable road west of San Antonio along the Rio Grande river but what they find on the trail is only their own ineptitude. This is when we are introduced to the main characters that will accompany Gus and Call for the bulk of the book. We meet Matilda Roberts, also known as "The Great Western", who is the only woman on the journey but as she is larger than most men and braver and more surly than most as well she doesn't take a side role in the ensemble. We also meet Bigfoot Wallace and Shadrach, who are the most experienced frontiersmen of the group and provide Gus and Call with mentorship throughout their hard journeys. Along with about twenty others, they make their way along the Mexican border.
Not far into this, their first rangering expedition, the group runs head-on into a small group of Comanche warriors and discover that the native people are not to be fucked with. One of the groups' members is killed within spitting distance and they don't even notice. Then they watch as one of their friends is scalped while running away from the Comanche Chief named Buffalo Hump. This wouldn't be the last time they see Buffalo Hump either. Not by a long shot.
Not long after our main characters return to the relative peace of civilization they find that another expedition is preparing to leave and this one would be an even better opportunity to find fame, fortune and whatever it is that Call's after. The new expedition is from San Antonio to Santa Fe and is headed up by an ex-pirate with a pension for pomposity and violence named Caleb Cobb. The expedition starts with over one hundred members but within just a few weeks dwindles steadily down as many simply turn back. The men that are left end up running directly into the wrath of the Comanches lead by Buffalo Hump, who does everything he can to terrorize the soldiers.
Soon the men split up only to find that they are well into Mexican territory and that the Mexican army knows they are there. With no water and no food, the soldiers have to decide whether to fight the superior Mexican army or surrender. The decision would be another in a long line of circumstances that lead to pain and suffering, which is really the main event featured in this book. It could have entitled "The Ordeals of the Ignorant" or "A series of horrible yet avoidable events". The hardships that the characters endure are seemingly never-ending and as a reader, it was never boring.
I am not sure what I would think about this book had I not read "Lonesome Dove" first. I might think that it is a bit one dimensional as there is not much under the surface of the text. The plain language of the narrator and characters does not leave much room for mystery or suspense but the whole thing seems like it is plucked out of a 19th-century western frontier campfire story. Because I have read "Lonesome Dove" I was excited to read about what made Call and Gus the hardened cowboys they became. I was even more enticed getting to know the accompanying characters Matilda, Bigfoot, and Shadrach. I definitely recommend this book to anyone who likes westerns even if they have not read any of the other Lonesome Dove series books before but if possible I think reading "Lonesome Dove" first is ideal. It is a deeper book that explores more of the emotional side of the characters as they reach retirement age. Also, below is a link to the very long movie based on "Dead Man's Walk" and I highly recommend watching it as a supplement to the book. The story and dialogue are essentially right out of the book and might be the most accurate adaptation I have seen. If you like westerns or want to try something new please check out these books.
