Speed Screed: Imagining the Tenth Dimension

One problem with dividing everything into “rants” and “raves” is that I don’t really have a neutral category. Obviously lumping things into “love” or “hate” is gross oversimplification that I use as a cheap draw. I may have to invent a new category for stuff that is simply interesting or informative, but that I don’t have a particularly strong opinion about. If I don’t have a strong opinion, you may find it boring, but at least I don’t have to pretend something is either wonderful or abhorrent. Not that I have yet. That’s called integrity. Ahem.

Anyway, I recently checked out this interesting video called “Imagining the Tenth Dimension” which was posted by the writer of a book of the same name, Rob Bryanton. It’s basically a technique that helps you wrap your head around some of the possibilities of the dimensions beyond the three (or four) that we experience, by using lower-dimensional analogies.

For example, if you collapse all of space into a point (i.e. three dimensions) then a line segment moving from that point to another is movement in the fourth dimension, which is roughly described as time (in truth I think it’s more complicated than the way it’s presented; the way the exercises handle time is a little too flippant) It’s an interesting exercise and I highly recommend it.

As a cautionary note though, this whole experience is really an exercise in philosophy and imagination than any sort of scientific model. I somehow doubt that a string theorist who works on Calabi-Yau spaces really considers the sixth dimension as movement between logically inconsistent realities. String theorists have more or less no physical evidence for their claims (though I still think the theory is a good one) so they use higher dimensions as a way to get the equations to balance out; in other words, string theory becomes a usable model when there is an assumption of ten (or eleven) dimensions, but I think they are viewed mathematically and not as “lines of travel” which is what this mental exercise basically assumes.

The author more or less admits that he is trying to reconcile philosophy and science in a certain fashion, but his spiritual and aesthetic side somewhat damages his scientific credibility. He also produced a series of songs that supposedly outline the key concepts of his book – but the man is not a professional songwriter so I felt mostly confusion at his attempts to use music. I felt that he was once again trying to blur the lines between rational discourse and intuitive spiritual belief. I personally believe that there is no such thing as an informative song – songs are not about transmitting information, at least, not in a form where it has any real-world use.

In short, I believe this is a good thing to watch in order to understand how lower-dimensional analogies can be useful in wrapping your head around things that seem impossible, but to take the entire thing with a grain of salt. Particularly telling was the way that he shaped the 10-dimension symbol like the Sefirot, the Tree of Life from the Jewish mystical tradition of Qabalah. Jumping to premature conclusions much?

Speed Screed: Specialty Restaraunts

In Japan, there is a curious culinary phenomenon that is partially influenced by Zen philosophy: restaurants that only serve one type of food. And I don’t they only serve Chinese food, or Indian food, for example. I mean this restaurant only serves tempura. Or eel.

The idea is this: A place that serves only tempura will necessarily serve better tempura than a place that serves tempura along with other items. This idea is logically true first and foremost on an economic basis; if a place only serves one kind of item, then people will only go to that restaurant for that item, and it’s success would logically be predicated on whether better tempura is available anywhere else, including other more general restaurants. Since it’s a sink or swim proposition, they have to make good tempura to succeed. We’re used to this phenomenon in the States mostly in the form of sushi bars. Hell, in real sushi bars you don’t even get to pick what you want; the chef just gives you what he wants, or what he thinks you’ll like.

The Zen part comes in with the “doing one thing to the point of mastery” idea. That’s the philosophy behind the Zen tea ceremony, for example. The actual performance of a tea ceremony, in terms of formal steps, is relatively simple. But the ability to do something perfectly and yet naturally is the heart of learning any discipline, including martial arts. You may think the analogy somewhat far-fetched, but this can even be applied to cuisine. Some guy who has been making tempura for 30 years is going to turn out perfect tempura every time. And perfect tempura every time is how one keeps a tempura-only restaurant going. As well as how one keeps it profitable; after all, if you’re dropping twenty bucks for a couple pieces of tempura, you’ll be happy to do it if it’s amazingly good, and quite pissed off if it isn’t. Such is the delicate balance these specialty restaurants maintain.

Today’s Rant: There’s Nothing Wrong With Anything

I remember the other day I said something to my brother, like: There’s nothing wrong with anything. Or something like: Nothing is wrong; everything is permitted. Something like that. Actually, I need to clarify in this case, just so you don’t go haul off and smash your neighbor with a tire iron, citing my terrible blog as evidence that everything is A-OK.

I don’t mean nothing is wrong. Plenty of stuff is wrong. I’m just saying nothing is Wrong. To wit: beware those that would capitalize the concepts they defend. Something is almost certainly amiss.

I think I must be somewhat unfocused today. Let me try a different angle.

Transcendental thinking is problematic. When something is capitalized, you can be sure that the reference is to something transcendental. You can search for truth; that’s the way of science. But to search for Truth, well, there you’re looking for Kant’s irritating “world-in-itself” which I must say is a real piece of fatuous nonsense. We can only make any decent assumptions about the world that we experience; therefore, to assume that are senses are limiting us in somehow perceiving the world “as it actually is” is a needless construction of no real value.

What bugs me most about transcendental thinking vis a vis a moral code is that it implies that we need not merely common sense but a cosmic father figure to prevent us from going and doing horrible things. I doubt this very highly. The “without God, there is no morality” idea has been echoed down through the ages; but as Nietzsche would argue, our own instincts, will, and self-preservation will pretty much take care of anything really necessary.

First of all, we can all agree that killing someone is wrong. I don’t care if it’s a just cause, etc. etc. or even if the guy is a total asshole, it’s just wrong. However, in the case of someone like Hitler, we’d be committing what would be a very small wrong compared to the massive wrongs that he would inflict on a huge group of people. Is it therefore right to kill Hitler? Well, that’s all moral relativism, which is, as far as I’m concerned, the only reasonable way to go about looking at anything. Moral absolutism, however, will brand things Right and Wrong. It’s Wrong to kill. Even Hitler.

One of the most commonly cited examples of the lack of transcendental, absolute morality is the Crusades. In the name of God, a bunch of completely undeserving people were slaughtered. I think there were like four of them, not counting the monumentally stupid Children’s Crusade. I think the Children’s Crusade should be required reading for anyone considering joining Catholicism.

So the the church says, in this case, it is Right to kill. But, looking back through the lens of history, we can see how idiotic all this carnage really is. If God ordered this, and yet we all look back and say we know better, than either God is flawed, or the church was not talking to God (note, this is the right answer; whether or not it’s because he doesn’t exist (he doesn’t) is up to you).

The point I’m trying to make is that all moral considerations must be made with a firm grasp of reality and a heavy dose of common sense. Think only in terms of the real world and not whether Our Lord will give you a right good thump alongside the ear if you choose Wrong. What scares the bejeezus out of me is the possibility that people are so dumb that they need the threat of eternal punishment looming over them to motivate them to do anything right.

I can’t believe that myself. Even if it were somewhat true, transcendental thinking also inflicts scads of guilt, and transcendental, soul-tarnishing guilt is something that anyone could do without. FYI something else that Nietzsche hates. I may have to write about Nietzsche soon; he is probably the most under-appreciated (and misunderstood) philosopher in modern history.

Speed Screed: Immortality

How about a little musing on the idea of being immortal? I firmly believe that we could probably keep a person alive more or less indefinitely in some fashion within 200 years or so. Maybe sooner, if people don’t keep stepping all over stem cell research. Now I’m just saying one person, and probably at incredible cost.

The most obvious thing would be to use stem cells to continually clone new organs and so forth for the person, but that’s still not going to help with old bones, and then there’s the brain, aging away with no ability to clone a new one. Not to mention organ transplants involve a lot of trauma. I suspect we would eventually nail a more elegant way to go about having the body regenerate itself, as it seems that people mostly die when things go wrong, due to dna getting mutated or some rna transcriptor making some kind of one in a billion error. Perhaps we can reset the cell clocks, in a manner of speaking, using crazy cocktails of rna inhibitors and nanotechnology. In any case, as we learn more about processes on the cellular level, the more we can know about keeping things running ad infinitum. I really think this is far from impossible.

I imagine the process would be prohibitively expensive, even a long time after they’ve figured out a way to essentially give your body a full rejuvenation. It’s possible you’d have to go in once a month for a “free-radical extraction” or some such to keep the process humming along. Who knows?

Other than spitting in the eye of God (who I think would be impressed, and not angry, or at least he’d be impressed if he didn’t see it coming, which of course he did), immortality raises some interesting philosophical questions, many of which I am deeply unqualified to answer. Were everyone immortal, for example, would coming-of-age be a personal choice rather than a socially mandated occurrence? After all, if one is living forever there is no reason why one period of life should end and another begin. You could essentially dick around until you were bored with being a kid (perhaps physically as well as mentally, depending on whether the treatment freezes time or isn’t viable until one reaches physical maturity).

As a side note, the whole idea of cloning someone and transferring consciousness to the clone is pretty much spiritually based, since there is no reason to assume continuity of consciousness, or indeed that consciousness is a product of anything but the functioning of the brain. That would mean, I imagine, that if they transplanted your physical brain into a new body somehow you would probably have continuity of consciousness once you were resuscitated. Anyway, fascinating idea. I’m sure I’ll be long dead before they get the hang of it. Oh well. You win some you lose some.

Diatribe III: The Grand Old Phoenix

I have a problem with the Republican party. I know you want to punch me in the face for saying something so blatantly obvious, but this problem is more central than my usual gripes. Although I take exception to their looting of our precious money and honor and abuse of both our courageous soldiers and Iraqi civilians, I wouldn’t have nearly as much of a problem with it if they actually campaigned on a platform that said, “We will start useless wars. We will take your money and give it to our corporate cronies. We will rule America de facto through fear and misinformation.” Of course, that would hardly get them elected, now would it?

Let me back up a bit.

The Republicans are supposed to be conservative. I can respect conservatism when it is actually applied without subterfuge. I understand people’s natural reluctance to change if they believe what’s already happening is working fine. And it’s only sensible to look before you leap.

Why does the current Republican party receive votes from these mostly sensible people? Please note I’m not talking about rich people, religious conservatives or any number of people who will vote Republican because they don’t want no sissy liberal running their country. I’m talking about swing voters who tend to swing conservatively because they are conservative.

They vote Republican because the GOP labels itself as conservative. It’s not conservative. It’s not even really that far to the right. They’re kind of in their own little world. But they make people think they’re conservative because that’s all they’ve got. Consider the swing to the far right we had as a result of these last two elections. Conservative to me sounds like dead center at this point.

What’s conservative about starting useless wars? A conservative is slow to act, and takes a long time judging a major step, weighing the angles. A conservative does not rush off halfway across the world without fully considering the consequences, but that’s what our supposedly “conservative” administration did.

What’s conservative about giving money to corporations? If government can do no good, then surely government is doing no good giving taxpayer money to corporations. A truly conservative government would cut taxes and government spending, try to pay down debts and practice excellent fiscal responsibility. Overspending is not the hallmark of a conservative. Our “conservatives,” however, cut taxes to show everyone how against government spending they are and then invest the rest back into the military-industrial complex. It’s an amusing bait-and-switch technique; the little man gets a nice little refund check, and they quietly continue slashing programs and giving the leftovers to their cronies.

For the jingoistic patriots they claim to be, their response to Katrina, for example, was abysmal. See, if they had eliminated FEMA in an orgy of program elimination, no one could blame the government for not responding. Of course, they couldn’t do that because they would be the biggest assholes of all time. But rather than eliminating government programs they staff them with their incompetent buddies who helped them spend their way into the White House. Me, I would expect conservatives to hire competent staff. To me, I would hope that a conservative would want any necessary job done right. Of course, with the GOP putting our good old boy W into office, we can be sure that they aren’t that kind of conservative. You know. The kind I can respect.

In short, I don’t know what these Neocons are/were. They set up a perfect campaign, gallivanting around like they were conservatives, but frankly they’ve betrayed their conservative constituents as much as anybody. Their wonderful tactic of running diversionary issues to mobilize their loudest bases (Terri Schiavo anyone?) to take people’s minds off their constant raping of this country’s resources is becoming old quickly. The Iraq war is even more unpopular than the Vietnam War was. You can be sure that even some of the most lock-step Republicans privately knew that they had been betrayed by their own. Sure, they still voted along with everyone else, because the GOP is scared to death of showing weakness and division. But I’ll be you dollars to donuts it exists.

Let me make it clear to you. I firmly believe that the Neocons, riding Reagenesque politics to the end, have burnt the GOP down. The logical conclusion of their policy was not an permanent iron grip on politics in this country because stocking up on incompetent staff and giving money away to corporations does not create stability. Quite the opposite. They managed to overestimate the stupidity of the American people. But more importantly, they underestimated the righteous anger of the American people.

We the people take pride in having a democracy built from the roots up. Yes, it’s not perfect. Yes, reform is needed. But we are damn sure that the President answers to each and every one of us. And nothing pisses off Americans more than the leader that they put into office betraying them. It’s like a national slap in the face. Nixon may have been a political asshole, but he didn’t legalize torture or send our brave men and women in uniform off to die for his own convenience. He didn’t flub recovery from one of America’s biggest natural disasters. So in short, we impeached Nixon. We aren’t going to impeach Bush because we didn’t do it early enough. As much as I’d like to see W sent to jail by the very system he abused so heartily, perhaps we have decided that we’d rather have him skink off into oblivion. He wouldn’t understand why he was being impeached, anyway. The politics we’re hoping to build have no place for people like him anymore.

So, given that the GOP has burnt to the ground, you would expect them to scurry about reinventing themselves, distancing themselves from Bush and saying, er, uh, yeah he betrayed all of us, how did that happen? We’re sorry about that, er….of course, as honorable as that course of action would be, it might cost them the election. And they certainly wouldn’t want that.

So, like a phoenix rising from the ashes, or perhaps more like a cobbled together Reagan statue made of ashes and saliva, the GOP has stumbled to its feet and has decided to get McCain, Bush the 3rd, in on the action. To my utter astonishment, the Republicans continue to insist on prolonging this ridiculous war. Now, part of me thinks this is just a temper tantrum thrown by an empire when it realizes that imperialism has ended forever. Every nation has gone through these growing pains. Of course, we should have realized this 30 years ago, but I guess we’re just fucking stupid.

But still, NOBODY likes this war except people who are so “patriotic” they think it’s wrong to question the government, the military-industrial complex, and a bunch of assholes. What percentage of America do you really think that is? Of course, you probably expect me to say some cynical number like 80%, but I actually think it can’t be any higher than Bush’s approval rating which appears to be about 27%, which I think is the lowest in history. So, if the GOP wanted to have any chance of winning, why in the name of Jesus Mary and Joseph would they not also be saying, “we need to pull out, uh, things didn’t go as we planned.” The backlash of admitting they were wrong would still be less than the votes they would lose by supporting this war. On the other hand, Bush obviously planned to hand the responsibility of pulling out to his successor. Perhaps the GOP just wants to loot the country for another 4 years and then get the hell out of dodge. I can’t say. But I just don’t see how the GOP can win by supporting the war. Obviously, they’ll play the fear card to no end. Say that the war is necessary to keep Americans safe. Only problem is, more and more people know that’s bullshit. In a certain sense, if we suffered another terrorist attack while we were in Iraq (though I would never want that to happen) their argument would evaporate utterly. The fear card is losing sway. That and Obama likes to use facts. Facts are useful things. I think you’ll find the GOP has little practice with them.

In a roundabout way, I was hoping for a complete rebirth of the Republican party, forfeiting power for a while but forging themselves into a new party that I could respect as opponents, or even be able see their side of the argument. This might have happened with Ron Paul. The problem is that Ron Paul would have been supported by only a small number of academically-minded conservative/libertarians who actually believe in taking conservativism to its logical end. Most people who vote conservative don’t even know what they’re voting for. Consider that Ron Paul would probably legalize a bunch of drugs, gut medicare utterly and cut back on military spending, he looks like a goddamn alien compared to the sort of politics we’ve been running for the last 200 years.

But I’d like to see that. Old Republicanism is dead I tell you. (It’s like a mantra.) Libertarianism is like Thomas Jefferson coming back from the dead to preach the virtues of the yeoman farmer. I’d like to see what America would actually do with a big-ticket libertarian platform. Given a choice of true conservatism and the warm embrace of government programs, which way do you think they would turn? It’s a fascinating thought. These people vote conservative until it gets too real for them, and go running back to mommy when it gets too intense.

I’m actually a left-libertarian, philosophically speaking. It’s a tenuous position because I believe that government can do plenty of good with programs, but have no right legislating individuals’ behavior. The Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So as long as you do not interfere with others’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you should pretty much be able to do whatever the hell you want. The government steps in by legislating against crime, and perhaps even negligence (when your pursuit of happiness interferes with others’ because of your failure to provide for them). But that’s it. The government cannot legislate a moral code past that of common sense. The Christian Wrong has been gunning for that for years and years. A libertarian social policy would shut them the hell up for good.

The main problem with libertarianism is that it isn’t realistic. People are too stupid and greedy to be given complete control of their own behavior. Libertarianism is only for people who are willing to take full responsibility for their lives, and I can assure you that that number is definitely in the minority. I think the government making marijuana illegal is stupid, for example. All studies have shown it to be less dangerous than alcohol, and that it can have significant medical applications. Also, I know I can handle the responsibility of using it properly. But so many people are so goddamn stupid that they’ll smoke their whole lives away if given the opportunity. Anti-drug legislation, despite its offensively moral groundings, has the practical application of keeping drugs away from people who can’t handle them. I cannot deny this point of view. As much as I’d like cannabis to be legal, it would be mostly for my own personal reasons.

To return to the topic at hand, the grand reincarnation of the GOP looks to be delayed indefinitely. I don’t see how anyone can tenaciously hold onto such an abysmally failed policy, but I’m sure they are doomed to obscurity if they don’t do something to reinvent themselves, or at least pretend to reinvent themselves. They only other option is patiently wait, wait, wait for the pendulum to swing back their way.

Do you think they have the patience?

Today’s Rant: Freedom

The founder and editor of Modern Drunkard magazine, who I recently met and chatted to a bit at the 4th Annual Drinking and Writing Festival last weekend, maintains that proper writing can only be done when you’re intoxicated. He further posited that Hunter S. Thompson was the last great drunk writer, and that there won’t be anyone else. The end of an era, as it were. Despite the fact that I disagree with him on almost every point in that regard, I am drunk now. Therefore, I will write and you can decide whether my writing skills have improved or degraded into mindless nonsense, as I suspect is the case.

Freedom. What a wonderful founding principle for a country. Freedom to do this, that, or the other thing. Freedom to do nothing at all. Freedom to say whatever the fuck you want, and as long as it isn’t the prelude to a hate crime, get away with it. This is the awesome power of freedom. But sadly, with power comes responsibility, to quote a tired old Spiderman line. Trite but true as it were.

The more free one is, the more of a drain on a society one is. This is true. The average human being is stupid, lazy, and self-centered. I have been know to be all three of these on occasion. While you receive the almost self-defeating benefit of the freedom to be any and all of these things in a place as crazy cool as America, the repercussions on the society as a whole are overwhelmingly negative.

People are happier, sure. But sadly, I don’t know that happiness is the mark of a productive society. A better society, perhaps, in the moral/ethical/philosophical sense. But these won’t raise your country’s GNP. One must be chained to various institutions to produce good in a capitalist sense. Chain me to a job, chain me to a family, chain me to society as a whole. Give me a context where money is the way out. This is the mark of a society that can crush others with its economic might. Let us not forget that the logical extension of freedom is anarchy. Not only can other citizens not tell you what to do, but neither can the government. Fuck, there is no government.

So what’s the problem? People aren’t ready for freedom. It’s not in the nature for people to have to construct an entire destiny for themselves out of thin air. This is the awesome, almost unbearable responsibility that comes with absolute freedom. Though one can argue that true freedom would preclude even this responsibility.

The point I’m trying to make is that no one can truly live life on their own terms. This is a point that I’ve made before from various angles. No matter who you are, rich, poor, smart, dumb, it doesn’t matter. Your very biology dictates certain immutable facts about you that you cannot ignore; that are physical facts that you must abide by. We all must die; we have a biological imperative to procreate, and a social need to carve out some sort of niche for ourselves in whatever environment we live in.

The only person that is truly free is God, and that is only because of His (or Her) omnipotence. Only when one is all powerful does the equation of responsibility balance out with the equation of absolute freedom. When it becomes mathematically equivalent to do everything and do nothing, only then can one be truly free, because any constructed responsibility from any source becomes irrelevant: it’s done, it’s been done, it will always be done. A force of will is arguably not even a requirement; you are all-powerful, who’s to say that a force of will is even necessary to do anything?

You’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t. Fucking A.

Sit back and boggle at the fact that in some way, our founding fathers were some of the greatest political philosophers of all time. But like most philosophers, they were divorced from human nature and the dulling effect of time on the psyche.

Still, isn’t it great that they tried? That we’re still trying? After all, we want freedom, but we want government. America can and must reconcile this contradiction. It seems imposssible, but goddamnit, we’re going to try.

We’re going to try harder.

Today’s Rave: Taoism

Having just read through the Tao Te Ching for the umpteenth time in the last few weeks, I just thought I would say a few words on a slightly inscrutable subject: Taoism. While I am hardly any better than the average person at interpreting this highly esoteric subject, I believe I can shed light on few of the genuine basic tenets, as well as dispel some of the common misconceptions about it, mostly because I used to share them myself. Note that I have this post marked as philosophy and not religion, as Taoism makes essentially no transcendental claims whatsoever. Those who think Taoism is a religion are mistaken, although it does prescribe a code for living like may religions unfortunately do. The simple goal of this way of living is harmony, not reward in the hereafter or avoiding damnation.

In the particular translation I am reading, one of the key concepts is translated as “non-Ado.” I will try to clarify. Ado in this case means bother or fuss. The Tao Te Ching says (I’m paraphrasing all these) “the sage does his work, but sets no store by it.” Additionally, “the secret of the Tao is this: when you have done your work, retire!” What the book is trying to get across is the idea that you should be able to get things done without constantly marking off your achievements, as this interferes with work for its own sake (something Taoism shares with Zen Buddhism). In order to live harmoniously, one must be able to do things essentially without taking credit for them, or at least not caring about credit whether you receive it or not.

While you (and I) may balk at this idea, it is this insistence on ego gratification and ego context that makes everything such a goddamn trial. The simple joy of getting things done should in theory be enough. In fact, without all the fuss over a task, it becomes automatic, as if nothing is being done at all. After all, something is only “work” if you have to force yourself to set about doing it. If it is as natural as breathing, it can’t really be considered “work” in the usual sense. This is the true meaning of “The sage does nothing, yet nothing is left undone.”

This is closely tied to the misconception that Taoism is a philosophy for lazy people. Unfortunately this is far from the truth, unless you are so good at being lazy (and we’re talking The Dude from the Big Lebowski here) that it doesn’t inconvenience anyone else. Essentially, if one can live life in the most genuine sense possible (this is a big philosophy issue, but Taosim does attempt to address it), then the Tao will naturally follow.

It is true, however, that Taoism does teach you to relax, and live in the moment. People’s minds are always in the future or past, but rarely trained on the present. For Taoism, harmony is something in the present, and one must work in one’s current circumstance to achieve harmony.

I would caution you, though, that Taoism, like its social counterpart Confucianism, is predicated on (or perhaps the cause of) the passive-mode morality of most Asian civilizations, which stresses that leaving people alone will usually do them more good than you sticking your nose in their business. This is why Taoism says it is better for people to be stupid than smart, and better to fill their stomachs with food than their minds with ideas. This is better for the state as a whole, even if the overall average person is worse off.

Though I don’t necessarily agree with everything it posits regarding statecraft, I am partial to this passive mode of live-and-let-live myself, and in a very real sense this is what the Constitution is all about. However, the Puritanical crowd have superimposed their active-morality Golden Rule onto our politics, and are working to overturn individual’s rights to match their outdated moral code. We all can see the inherent danger here. I’ve talked about this a hundred times before, so I won’t bore you to death with it.

In summation: Taoism is very interesting. Read about it. Bye.

Diatribe II: The Academic

Note: This contains some melodrama. It happens when you’re writing at 4:00 AM.

It starts as a dull throb in your head. You can feel it; you know it’s there. The problem you try to resolve by ignoring it. It works, but only for so long.

Failure.

A four-letter word. As early as I can remember, this was a simple concept dictated by the letter I received on the top of a piece of paper. If I got the good letters, I was accomplishing. Even achieving. The bad letters meant I wasn’t. Simple as that. Childish, in fact. But even at the age of 21, this was still the case.

I think maybe a part of me knew there was no way that this was right. Part of me knew that these symbols etched up there in red ink at the top of my term papers were worth about as much as the ink they were written in. But at the same time I so desperately wanted this to be the case. It was only sheer exhaustion with the entire process that caused me to discard academia, even if only temporarily. I got my B.A., essentially a confirmation that I’ve earned enough of the good letters to qualify for it. Magna cum laude simply meant these letters were skewed somewhat towards the top. Ultimately, my degree is worth only as much as an employer is willing to honor the venerable idea that my grades are worth something in terms of employment. Considering that I went, like so many of my contemporaries, to a liberal arts college, I will actually go so far as to claim that high grades limit my employability? Why?

Because it firmly plants in your head the unshakable belief that your ideas and opinions matter. And no matter what other people say to you, you will never lose that basic tenet of your life. As such, a job or “career” that lacks an environment that includes an open forum for you to discuss your ideas and even to make use of them (as you ostensibly do writing a paper) is always going to be a poor fit. The exceptional malaise I get from office jobs stems mostly from this fact, and partially from the related fact that I believe I’m worth more than they’re paying me, which is actually irrelevant because even if that’s true (it is) I’m not doing the job I’m worth so they won’t pay me for that job, whatever the hell it is.

To be blunt, this is a liability I’m willing to accept, however much it pains me to do so. What it comes down to is that a degree is useless for getting a job that I never wanted to get in the first place, so in a certain sense it’s a simple dodging of the issue. It’s quite probable that I don’t want over 95% of existing jobs.

Because I am really not motivated by money. The academic is sustained by ideas and not cash. This is not meant to sound noble or special. This is simply a fact. I know so many people just like me, people whose devotion first is to their ideas and secondarily to their bank account. Were this the other way around, surely I would have thought first about my financial well-being in college, nabbed a degree that might actually have helped earn me some bank, and even now I would be climbing up the corporate ladder at some business firm or something, securing a steady future for myself. Some days I wish that that were my primary concern. Life would just be a whole lot simpler.

But as I said, this is not in my nature. “To thine own self be true.” Genuine advice given to me before leaving for Chicago. So perhaps I am fighting a losing battle against myself. I ran away from academia because I saw that it was morass of illusions but only now do I realize that functionally academia exists because there are so many people like me, people who are sustained by the currency of ideas and not money. This is a collective lie that is so important to so many people that it has become reality.

There was a time, I’ve been assured by several people a generation ahead of me, when a college degree necessarily led to gainful employment and a reasonable sum of money even from the get-go. This singular fact was an important part of getting academics into the real world because it supported the idea that a college degree was applicable in the real world, that what everyone told you was true: that if you studied hard and did well you would be assured a secure future. These jobs were almost a cathartic release for these people, who’d been hitting the books for so long they could hardly be relied to adapt to the cruel conditions outside their alma maters.

But, like everything else, education suffers from inflation, and what used to be a mark of higher education is now required in jobs that frankly do not require it. I have seen more “administrative assistant” jobs that require a B.A. or higher than I can count. This is stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

There is no job of that caliber where your degree is not going to waste, no matter what you majored in. And as for the idea that college hones your ability or learn or adaptability? Please. We all knew people who graduated that were no more mature or truly educated than they were four years ago. Still, these people ask for these absurd requirements because they know they can get them. With the economy going south, why not get the desperate academic with a useless liberal arts degree for the same price as the high school dropout?

I’ll tell you why. Because they are never going to be satisfied pushing papers around! A high school dropout would probably be simply glad to have steady work, and would not sit around all day fuming and scheming and dreaming about better jobs that he can’t seem to find, or even identify. There are tens of thousands of people like me, who have to force themselves daily to give their “all” in any job simply because they consider it beneath them, the irony of it being that it doesn’t even require close to all of your true effort, which is part of what makes it so hard; academics thrive on challenge. And a job that doesn’t deliver challenge and reward you for meeting those challenges head-on is not going to deliver the intellectual thrill you’ve become accustomed to all your life.

This is not just my problem in this day and age. So many others sit around wondering what went wrong. Where did they take a misstep? What could they have done differently to avoid this suffocating state of affairs? My time is more valuable to me than anyone has been willing to pay me for it so far; and yet many people make so much more money than even I concede that I need to have a perfectly great life. I can’t even conceive of what I would do with over 45 grand a year. But where is the job that will pay me that that that doesn’t trade in my aspirations to have my ideas matter?

Of course, there is one place. Back where it all began. Academia. Grab my Ph.D. in whatever-the-fuck and head right back into the belly of the beast. Shut the door on the real world, or at least leave it open only a crack; enough to comment idly on its passing while never exposing myself to the harsh capitalism that pecks away at my sense of self on a daily basis.

But I can never shake the feeling that this would be running away. It sure sounds like it to me. For the sake of clarification, the “real world” is truly as arbitrary as the academic one, but as it is the one that most people subscribe to it is the one that we all must deal with at one point or another.

Because, ultimately, by staying in the real world, I am not turning my back on academia. The battle I am fighting is to make this degree have meaning in the real world, to prove that ideas are not so far removed from the world of hard currency that I can’t justify this degree out here. I’m fighting to validate the illusion that I have been subscribing to for my entire life up to this point, because if I can do it; if I can make it happen, then the illusion becomes real. It was all worth it.

I often fantasize about turning back to academia eventually. All of my friends also sort of assume we’ll drift back there in the autumn years after grabbing a Ph.D somewhere along the line, but only after flexing our academic muscles in the real world and bringing back something to show for it. As far as I’m concerned, if you go through college and immediately set your sights on being a professor, you’ve already given up on the idea that your degree can be applied in the real world. For some people, like philosophy majors this an understandable (and regrettable) state of affairs.

Or perhaps you’re just a born professor. Sometimes I think I am, and I’m fending it off with forced tenacity. Considering that practically all of my mentors have been teachers, I probably internalized that along with everything I learned from them. And of course, I always say that I only want to teach at the college level. But part of the reason this is true is how horrible the public education system has gotten in this country. Teachers are underpaid and overworked, and the government responds to the crisis by issuing more standardized tests. Ugh.

For a country that touts education as the road to a better future, we sure could stand to cut away the hypocrisy and focus on the next generation’s education, instead of this quarter’s profits. I have been extremely fortunate to receive a ridiculously high-quality education, and even if the internal struggle I am having is typical, I would not trade my education for anything else in the world.

“Ideas are my currency and challenges my sustenance. I thrive on the exchange of information, not commodities. I have an acute sense of my own capabilities and the unshakable belief that my opinions matter. Who am I?”

The academic.

Today’s Rant: Compartmentalization, or the Unexamined Life

I mentioned my issues with compartmentalization a few posts ago. I thought I would look at this topic in more depth. Generally, I think we can acknowledge that compartmentalization is a useful tool, keeping a chaotic life organized by chopping it into manageable areas that don’t overlap. Indeed, professionally the ability to compartmentalize can be a prerequisite to employment; for example, a pharmacist who does not believe in the use of birth control must still be willing to fill prescriptions for morning-after pills. Also, they should probably keep their disdain to a minimum as well. A pharmacist who is unable to do what is required professionally due to personal beliefs should look for a new line of work, since they can’t actually do their job.

On the flip side, though, some people would admire that person and actually say “That person has principles, and is standing up for them.” That may be a valid argument from a social point of view, but as it stands it’s not up to the pharmacist to dispense drugs as he or she sees fit, their job is simply to fill prescriptions. Their principles cannot trump their professional responsibility or they are de facto incompetent pharmacists. However, if someone at a big company refuses to lie to shareholders or something, that is a more commendable lack of compartmentalization, since it is not in your job description to do unethical things (or if it is, well, then once again you’re in the wrong line of work).

As you can see, this is a double-edged sword. And one could even take it too far, for example a serial killer being able to have a completely normal family life. I’ve read stranger stuff. But really the core of the argument here is whether compartmentalization gives you a “better life.” We’re getting philosophical here, so bear with me.

Many people, and I myself lean in this direction, believe that the less compartmentalization you have, the more “authentic” your life can be. Technically if you are going to “be yourself” there should be in essence a single unified personality that does not get cut into pieces to fit your job, relationships, or what have you. In essence with compartmentalization you are at best utilizing different facets of your personality at the different times. You may also add on baggage that is not truly part of your personality. I’m generally a pretty friendly person, but I have zero obsequiousness. However, I usually have to fake it a bit for a receptionist job. I am not genuinely interested in making sure person x has coffee, but since it’s my job, I do it. I do it with a smile. That’s compartmentalization with added “false” bits of personality.

You might argue that this doesn’t do any real harm, either to me or the people who genuinely appreciate my facade of helpfulness. And I would for the most part agree with you. The “authentic life” is unfortunately more of a philosophical construct than something that can be actually applied to living. FYI Taoism is in many ways the philosophy of de-compartmentalization. Taoism is essentially about living life in one mode rather than several. And in this day and age, this might seem all but impossible.

The source of compartmentalization often comes from either your obligations or situation. I’m forced to take jobs that don’t really fit with my personality or interests because I have to make money. If this was not an issue, then at least one source of compartmentalization would be removed. So perhaps old-fashioned aristocratic types are much more capable of leading “authentic lives,” but then aristocrats also have elaborate rules for decorum and so forth, so it’s probably unavoidable unless you’re a hermit or something.

Arguably, the best job for anyone ought to be the one in which they have compartmentalize the least. It will seem a lot more natural and there will not be any cognitive dissonance which severely adds to stress. If I had a job that fit me perfectly, I wouldn’t have to get into “work mode.” I would just go and do it. This is, perhaps, a pipe dream. Nothing is ever totally perfect.

So I guess I wistfully hope for the elimination of compartmentalization while tacitly acknowledging that most people, including me, would be unable to get anything done without it. Philosophy makes ideals so obvious, and they have so little practical value. Ah well.