The Clash of Objects, Sounds, and Theories - All in the Imagination

Two weeks back I went to the CUNY Philosophy Colloquium. I have been habitually checking them out on Wednesday afternoons this fall. Now two weeks ago the speaker was Umrao Sethi, an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Lehman College at the City University of New York. She was presenting a paper / talk titled “Varieties of Instantiation”.

What follows is a tale of my thoughts and reflections on that talk in the past two weeks. In my wanderings I touch on Aristotle, Locke, nominalism, contemporary philosophy of science and so on. Ultimately I end with the inclusion of a contemporary musician, whose new music has been playing in the background as I dealt with these topics and now seems somehow apropos. Again these are my wanderings over the past two weeks. It starts with Professor Sethi's talk, but it is not really an analysis or critique of that talk. It is more an exploration of where that talk led me.

Basically, Professor Sethi’s talk focused on metaphysics, what was and to some degree still is a core component of western philosophy. In short, she focused on understanding what it is that we are observing when we see an an object. I say that such topics are or were the core of western philosophy as we are talking of a project that has a history of over 2000 or perhaps more like 3000 years old. The question(s) have of course evolved over the years. At the start it was more about the object. Today, in philosophy, it is more about how we come to know the object. We have gone from metaphysics to epistemology, the understanding or study of knowledge, as opposed to an understanding or study of being. So yes, an hour talk pretty much covered it. . .

Honestly, I got stuck right at the beginning of her talk. That getting stuck however, does lead me down the path of the tale I am offering up here. In a nutshell, a very quick run through some of the history and thought of the project I reference above and finally dovetail it to the work of a contemporary musician that I am once again enthralled with.

As I said, I got stuck very early on in her talk. At the outset, Professor Sethi introduced both Aristotle and John Locke. Aristotle is of course the ancient philosopher. John Locke is an English  philosopher from the early modern period. It was just an interesting combination.

Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher, lived in the 4th century BC. He is known as a student of Plato who went on to form his own school of thought, and his own school also. He challenged Plato's idealism offering up what today is described as a type of realism. His approach routinely involves an exhaustive review of the subject matter, the examples or objects at hand, whether it be the detailing of biological species or the defining of the good. In both of these he would look at and examine concrete instances or examples of the topic at hand.

Legend has it that when Alexander the Great, a former student of Aristotle, conquered Africa and other locales, he would ship home to his former teacher exotic and interesting animals-specimens. Aristotle would examine these creatures he had never seen before, detailing and classifying each of them in his notes and studies. To this day you still hear reference to the term "genus-species" in biology. Knowledge for Aristotle was largely the classification of things. Perhaps?

Going back to the talk, however, Professor Sethi focused on substance. Substance. It is a neglected term today. We might hear someone say that, "He or she is a man of substance." Rarely. Typically, to have substance is to not be superficial. Going back to the genus-species reference, substance perhaps focuses on that which unites the instances, or individuals - the genus. Substance is that which is greater than what is merely seen.

I struggle here as I am not going to a text. I am not quoting Professor Sethi, nor Aristotle. A quick disclaimer - this is not an academic work, but rather a personal tale - a recollection not of the talk but of my own wanderings in thought and my responses to those thoughts. It perhaps illustrates one path away from the talk, one direction, one option. Any substantial work on this topic would require a serious fleshing out of various points! Rather, what I offer here is a simply a daydream, several random snapshots of my musings regarding the subject over the last two or three weeks.

The tale continues. Let us look at a few other items relating to substance. Aristotle as I said challenges Plato, who is an idealist. Plato believes that the ideal, what he describes as the "form' is what is real. Aristotle largely challenges that. Is he saying that only the material, the object, is real? Not sure. Again we arrive at a question. Is Aristotle what today we would describe as a materialist?

The story continues. or at least our thoughts regarding Aristotle. Historically, the Catholic Church latches onto him or his thought. Most famously, St Thomas Aquinas. It is Aquinas who equates God to Aristotle's unmoved mover. At least that is the story I recall. Substance here, I am sure is god. Matter is nothing, but again this is in fact several steps away from Aristotle now. It is still in some way Aristotle's thought, perhaps stretched and yes manipulated. So now we have two theories of substance - that it is matter and that it is God.

And do not fret. . . we have not forgotten Locke, nor our musician.

Regarding John Locke. I really know little about the man. He is a seventeenth century English Philosopher. I barely read him in either my political science nor in early modern philosophy classes. He is early enlightenment figure, and politically a defender of natural law. He is known as an early empiricist, basically valuing the senses and coming to know the world through them. His thought was inspired by and in turn supported the beginnings of modern science. Unlike Aristotle, his world was not a system of classification but rather, much more involving what we would call the scientific method: hypothesize, observe, confirm, and repeat. So though there were similarities, Locke's substance was poked and tested, as opposed to Aristotle's, which was much more static, observed, and classified.

If you go with the Church view of Aristotle, however, they, Aristotle and Locke's view of substance, are two entirely different things. The church view is that substance is God, and it is through God that we have these various classifications that Aristotle made. Locke on the other hand is offering up the beginnings of what will be the scientific method. He is suggesting that you can discover substance through such a process. And at my CUNY event, as Professor Sethi spoke, I was much more thinking about these, about Aristotle as per the church versus Locke, the proto-scientist. And it was with these two ideas in mind that I wondered where she is she going?

Professor Sethi continued her talk and ultimately went to question and answers, where she talked of a "naive realism". This essay, as I have said above, is not her story. For me to really engage her ideas will require me finding the text and doing some reading. Her role here is largely done, but I thank her. Again, this is a tale of my meanderings over the past two weeks, the starting point again being her talk.

So I left that event pondering how she combined these two, Aristotle and Locke. I am holding these two up as I think of a third concept or idea, what I call nominalism. It is something I have been intrigued with since reading Richard Rorty, who in one passage alluded to being, like many of us, a good nominalist. I was intrigued. If Rorty was a good nominalist, maybe I want to join this club. . . maybe not. Well, that was twenty years ago that I was pondering such, and it has haunted me since. And I have since explored nominalism a bit more.

Nominalism starts with the idea that universals or general ideas are mere names without any corresponding reality. It could be argued that to be a nominalist is to suggest that there is no such thing as substance. The idea of nominalism began with a challenge to the church, basically of its theology and metaphysics. This was circa the 14th century. And the metaphysics and theology being challenged did owe a debt to Aristotle. Again, the church was claiming in essence that the world was created by God, it is of God. We can look at it down to its minutest details, but in the end it points back to God.

Nominalism challenges that. It questions the nature of God based upon the events of the day. Considering items such earthquakes, plagues, famines, even mini-ice ages if I recall correctly. William of Ockham and others simply had their concerns regarding the benevolence of God. They asked what type of God was this? Was he in fact knowable? The categories that Aristotle offered were not so obvious to these men in the fourteenth century. Such classifications seemed less than useful to them. Keep in mind that the categories they pointed to were not classifications of flora and fauna. Rather they were looking for ways to know what would and would not happen to themselves.

They were more interested in God's relation to man, his treatment of man. Further, you have at this point the chaos of the church itself. The Pope at this time was in Avignon in France, and protected by a French King. The nominalist were uncertain of the world they lived in and of the God who was responsible for it. And from this uncertainty empirical science sprouted, basically embracing the evidence of the senses and building upon it. What they were certain of was what they observed, what they gained from their senses. And John Locke followed this trend. I do not know Locke's empiricism but generally, empiricists held that theories are confirmed by the observations - what one sees.

So to sum up where we are so far. Starting with Aristotle and Locke, I questioned how these two were coupled together as sharing a belief in substance, The differences to me just seem too great. We just have this gulf between the ancient and the early modern, the church and nominalism,  So I was and still am skeptical of the idea that they can share a common notion of what substance is in relation to perception or elsewhere.

This internal debate or soliloquy continues. Over the next few days I dig out several books I have from Paul Churchland. That is the closest I have to the subject. Much of his writing is focused on what he terms "scientific realism", but is this metaphysics? He seems to basically grant that there is a  mind-independent existence. His focus, however, is on philosophy of mind and philosophy of science. He is also interested, like Professor Sethi in observation, in what is seen, what is confirmed. I start to wonder. Is it the case that both Aristotle and Locke would grant the same? That there is a mind-independent existence. The individual object being observed is mind-independent. Is this much conceded by all? Perhaps the dispute is over not the observed but the unobserved, the category or class. Doubts start to appear in my speculations.

I now dig out my Complete Works of Aristotle, a heavy volume with fine print. It is in some ways too nice a volume to work over. I wish I had smaller and lighter editions of Aristotle's Metaphysics and De Anima. Locke is simply missing from my collection. So I end up perusing the Churchland books.

And in my review of the various essays I come across one,"To Transform the Phenomena, Feyerabend, Proliferation, and Recurrent Neural Networks" from On the Contrary, Critical Essays, 1987-1997. An essay again talking of observations, and the fact that often the same observation can confirm multiple theories. Is it the case that we have some of that here? That is exactly what we have here. Did Aristotle and Locke see the same object before them despite their various beliefs. Churchland would probably offer a conclusion of perhaps.

The answer would really be contingent upon what the physical object was and how it was perceived, how it was engaged and how accessible it would be to both men. A glass of wine would be recognized by both perhaps. A firearm would only be recognized by Locke, and really only a musket or cannon. Both would most likely swat at a fly or a mosquito.

Now Churchland in his essay is looking not only at competing theories, but also exploring how we can flip from one to another. He sites an example in the  history of physics, and likewise offers up the classic old hag / young woman picture seen above. He offers up the ability and the benefits of multiple theories and what can be gained with such. Without such theories, chunks of data would be missed.  So part of me is of the mind that you do not mix up modern with ancient philosophy. The historical context of the thought must be considered. Yet another part of me arrives at an essay such as I offer here.

I do not know, it is too scattered at this point. I put my books down and I listen to the music that I have playing in the background. It is a new album from an artists I have had an affair with for many years. I like his music. The artist is a guitarist by the name of Bernie Torme. For those familiar with heavy metal and hard rock he might perhaps be known. He has been making a racket, as he says, for the past forty years.

I just take it all in as I reflect again on the above. The song playing is one of the last on Torme's new album, Shadowland - "Innovation Jam / Chaos Theory". I have been listening to this album and this tune for the past two or three weeks. The song is a 14 minute plus opus of guitar playing. Its title is interesting. At first I just took it that he meant that this was an innovative piece of music, which does involve a lot of jamming, and there is a bit of chaos. That is just part of the musical genre of which he is part. That is one interpretation, one view of the object, the title, or song.


The title, however, is not Innovation Jam / Chaos. It is Innovation Jam / Chaos Theory. Add to this the first note of the song. It is a lone harmonic followed by a pause, allowing for the strings to resonate. Specifically, it is the harmonic used by Steve Howe in the opening to the classic Yes song "Roundabout". Consider that this was perhaps one of the first things Torme was learning to play as a young student of the guitar. Consider that this is perhaps one of the last albums he will make in his career. He has advertised the tour as one of his last. Consider that this song features not only him but fans and disciples joining him in the jam.

You realize that in fact you have both innovation and an instance of the mathematical 'chaos theory'. Steve Howe's harmonic becomes the almost silent trembling wings of that butterfly that leads to the ensuing storm. The storm in Torme's case being forty years of music and now this jam featuring him and a group of devoted fans and inspired guitarists who join him in the recording. Why else start with that note?

Somehow, I have flipped from a query regarding Aristotle and Locke to an amazing piece of music; the title of which plays with a dash of mathematics, maybe more.

The Subtle Art of Self-Deception. . .

Recently, I have pondered going back to school. I am in my fifties and ponder what my next act is. Part of me would like to teach philosophy at a local community college. Westchester Community College is two miles away, but as I do not at this time have my Masters it is not doable. A Master degree is required. So my thought started with ideas of pursing such. Once you start exploring the options, however, you realize you are probably doing such a degree online and further there is cost.

So I arrived ultimately at the question of why is it that a person pursuing a masters degree must pay? It is a valid question in New York. Today, in the state of New York one can pursue a bachelors degree at no cost. No doubt there are conditions that must be met, but again, one can earn a bachelors degree in the State of New York tuition free.

Further, it is the case and was the case that most or many students pursing a PhD in philosophy do not pay for their tuition. Not only do they not pay tuition, but they are often provided with a dorm and even a stipend. So for those pursuing a PhD you can have your tuition covered and likewise be provided with room and board. Not everyone has such but many, and I acknowledge that this is based on my history and various conversations. I have not gone and researched this so I might be dead wrong today.

So both bachelor degrees and PhDs are being issued with little or no cost to students. Students pursuing master degrees, however, are looking at a cost of something like $20,000 to $50,000. These numbers are generous. The bottom line is that in the former two the degrees are largely free, and the later is not.

So I started to think that I should pursue a PhD. Why not? I am looking only for my tuition to be covered. I do not need the room and board. Nor do I need the stipend. Of course, I am looking for my studies to be part-time. Why not? Lol

Why not? Well maybe because typically a student who does pursue a PhD is coming recently from their undergraduate studies, they are younger, and they are pursuing it full-time. Their intent is to make a career of it. They are giving their life to the vocation.

I am, however, more than 50, so why would they invest their time and energy on myself, The return on their investment is limited. That said, I would not need their support. I can pursue such a program and live independently. Again I am just looking just for the tuition.

It is not, however, just the tuition. It is not the money, it is more the time. The amount of time spent with me in class,  and in a PhD program, out of class must be considered. Lastly, the amount of time I am ready to commit just does not work.

I finally spoke to a Professor at a CUNY Colloquium that I attend, and his first question was whether I have the time required for the reading. He was looking at it practically. Do I have the time required to tend to such studies? The time invested by the individual embracing such a project is appreciated and in fact demanded by institutions. I found myself reflecting that in this commitment, you can see the continuation of the monastic tradition, from which the modern day University is derived.

As you can see, I have been going back and forth at this from various angles. I would like to get a higher degree so as to teach, and perhaps publish. the later may not even require a higher degree depending on where one publishes. A peer-reviewed journal, however, I am sure requires a higher degree and a sharing of that experience acquired only at a University.

Regardless, for several weeks or for even two or three months I indulged in the idea that a PhD could be pursued part-time and paid for. It still has an allure to me, despite the challenges of such. It basically gave me peace for that time. It allowed me a way of coping with the world around me and offered a goal or a path that could in some way be pursued, even if not a realistic one. It could at least be pursued, though in the end most likely not attainable.

Today, I have kind of accepted it is unworkable, but am still not able or willing to let it go in its entirely. Perhaps with some persistence, some politics, some changing of the views on education in today's culture, maybe it is possible. Maybe. Never say die.

So with that I point to the subtle art of self-deception. I point to the above as one of the stories I was using to get through the days and weeks of recent months. It is no doubt one of the larger ones I have told myself. Considering it as such I realize that self-deception is engaged in routinely. Self-deception is perhaps necessary or useful.

What of the attorney who represents a client who is obviously guilty or has no case? How does an attorney defend such a person or case? Obviously, if the attorney can find some way to buy into the accused's innocence or to at least see some way of winning the case, it makes the case easier to defend and proceed with. It is almost required that an attorney have some type of buy-in so as to mount a vigorous defense.

Is it even possible that one mount a vigorous defense of someone that they believe is in fact guilty of the crime their client is being charged with? To engage in such requires that you suspend your doubts and even rationalize various contingencies. Such cases require that you aggressively provide an alternative narrative, not only to the court and jury but to yourself. If you cannot convince yourself of such, what chance do you have with the jury?

In any venture or project, it is a whole lot easier to proceed if one believes that the goal is attainable. If you do not see it as possible why proceed? Further, the uncertainly of the various options. In my pursuit of a PhD is unlikely but considering that today a bachelors can be pursued at no or limited cost to a student does make one pause. Likewise, the attorney who defends the accused of murder sees a quiet peaceful man who he could not imagine murdering someone, despite the evidence that the state has, or whatever the case may be. Something, has to at the least make one pause. there has to be something believable, something interesting that allows for one to challenge the obvious.

There is the case, however, that is too far. I witnessed that at the same philosophy colloquium this past Wednesday. The person presenting was detailing the types of models constructed to explain global warming to the public. After the talk she was asked how she responds to those who deny global warming and the science it is based upon. She responded that she basically does not. They, those who deny global warming, are so far removed from her view, her positions, that they will just never agree. The possible worlds separating her world and their own are just to far apart.

What I describe above is not self-deception but one can see such a case happening in an individual. Someone deceives themselves to the point where they cannot see the obvious, where what they see is simply not there. They are truly delusional. Such a case is where you pay dearly for the luxury of that belief. Your deception, and really any belief, does have consequences. A sales-person working on commission may not be committed to the product he or she is selling, but the consequent of self-deception here might very well be a sale. And that is good thing, until that person considers that the same sale in fact led to their arrest as they were selling heroin. They convinced themselves that it is OK to do such.

William James offered up the idea of the will to believe. Regardless of what the belief is, we have to be willing to believe it, buy into it, bet on it. Somethings and some people should not be believed but we still do. We sometimes have to convince ourselves, we sometimes choose to ignore facts or evidence. When we do so, we have our reasons, whether they be laziness, love of someone or devotion to an ideal. So self-deception is always there, and no doubt requires a self and a set of beliefs, but without it, we would probably not get as far as we do. Few of us are simply without our doubts.

Okay..we just see it differently. . .

"okay..we just see it differently from our perspectives.." Someone said that in a discussion today and it just has haunted me through the day. 

One's line of sight changes with ones perspective. In short, look at a landscape from one perspective and move 100 feet closer or farther away from what it is you are looking at, and the perspective will change. Too close and you cannot see it, too far and you again cannot see it. All of that is pretty much accepted. 

All of that information, however, can be shared. I mean you can describe what you see up close, in the middle and far away. and assuming your vision is good or at least functioning, most will agree with you. Occasionally, you might get a report that is unique. Someone might know the history of that landscape, or have some interesting insights on the trees or flowers being viewed, or the architecture. Someone might come at night and put on a pair of night-vision goggles. Even in reports involving such, they start with what is seen. Unique reports typically inform the viewer(s) on what they are seeing, what they are looking at. 

Art, it is said, is subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Is that really true? Perhaps in regard to people. You view someone for the first time and fall in love. It happens. Jaap van Zweden, the new Musical Director of the New York Philharmonic explained to Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes tonight that that is exactly what happened with him and his wife. So it does happen.

Going back to art, however, most people typically will have a response to art. They will like it, sometimes love it, sometimes not. On occasion, it might happen that those who are not familiar with art may not be engaged, or they just do not see something as art. One can imagine that happening with a work done by Jackson Pollock perhaps, or with Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain".

So there are pieces people do not get. There are likewise pieces that people get immediately. People are engaged by certain pieces of art. We could call this the 'aesthetics of selection'. There are pieces of art that provoke us and others that leave us unaffected.

It is at this point that we can appeal to our original quote, "okay..we just see it differently from our perspectives.." Two viewers picking out two pieces of art that most impress them, it happens routinely. I like Vincent van Gogh and you like Michelangelo. Now perspective is to where you are viewing, I might see why you arrive at that conclusion. It could be as simple as the van Gogh I am looking at is in fact behind you and likewise the Michelangelo is behind me.  We are looking at opposite walls of the same room. Or it could be that you have studied Renaissance art, focusing on Florence. And myself, I just like the yellows and blues van Gogh often used. 

We have gone from where one stands to one's personal history. A few items regarding where one is coming from is often times informative and explains one's decisions, even in art. Now what of the person who just likes a certain painting, such as van Gogh's Starry Night. Imagine I bring my brother over to check out this painting by van Gogh, and he knows nothing of the piece nor the artist. Yet he is just in awe of it. The color just grabs him. Yet, he is unable to tell me what he likes about it. He is just struck by it. 

Is it the case that we often do not know why we like something? Do we routinely not know why we respond to something. Is that true? Do we really not know why we like stuff? It is commonly accepted that one's taste regarding the arts is subjective. Is subjectivity the same as our "perspective" above? Is the subjective the same as simply not knowing why one likes something? I would argue that the answer to each of these is yes. 

Let us switch to pizza for a moment. I love pepperoni pizza. Do I really know why? You or I might have an answer but we probably have never sat down and formulated it. Perhaps those who make a good pepperoni pizza have but those consuming it. . . probably not. The same is true for many of us regarding art. We have not analyzed our responses. We have not studied the paintings and the traditions, the artists who make up those traditions, their methods, and so forth. So what we attribute to different perspectives and what we often claim is subjective, what is often unique to our individual taste, is just unknown. We might have a certain taste for art, but how we arrived there is often unknown.

The next question is whether such unknown items are unknowable? Is the reason for our selection of a certain piece of art unknowable? Traditionally, with the idea of art being subjective, there is a suggestion that it is unknowable. The thought is that it is just not possible for one to climb into another's head and see through their eyes what they are seeing. Obviously, one can't know what another is seeing. Your experience of red or blue or a painting could very well be different from mine. 

We are entering into theories of perception now, discussions of qualia. Let's keep this at the level of art and aesthetics, taste. Let us go back to the pizza. There are people who can share and discuss the dynamics of a good pepperoni pie. The guy next to the oven at the pizza shop, making them, might have some idea. You just need to get him talking. Perhaps the owner of the shop can assist. And then you have yourself and your sister who is much more interested in the mushroom pie and loves to cook.

Through such a process, we start to understand the dynamics of what is so good there. Perhaps the same can be said of art and painting. Perhaps, we can understand what the expressionists were exploring in their paintings versus the realists before them. Perhaps we can see what van Gogh was exploring in his use of the blue and yellow. All of this informing our view of his art and others. Ultimately, all of this might allow us to qualify what we do and do not like, and acknowledge and share what it is we see differently. Such things I suggest are not unknowable nor beyond expression. 

Granted, this essay might. . .

What Is So Good About Privacy?

Another Facebook discussion. This one starting over Lindsey Graham and Chelsea Handler's suggestion that he is gay. The common answer is that we do not care what his sexual preferences are. Such things have no relation to his public life. What he does behind closed doors in the privacy of his own residence and the like really does not matter.

I disagree. There are several reasons for this position that I will will try to tease apart here.

The first idea is in regard to privacy.  I wonder if privacy is nice but not to be as celebrated as it is. It is necessary. The idea out there is that there are public and private spaces, spheres, and the two are kept separate. The public is your professional life, your engagement in the neighborhood, your involvement with the world. Your private sphere is that which is most intimate, most personal. These are to be kept in the confines of your home, away from the masses, away from others.

First off, in a nation of 330 million people that is a lot of private spheres.

If each has their own private life, which they do not share, do you actually know anyone? I wonder what it is I do not know. Typically, the things most important to people are not shared?  Things they most care about they cannot or will not share? Is that a good thing?

Most good things we are willing to share. Becoming a parent, gaining a promotion, announcing an engagement. These are all things we share in various ways. So what good things do we not share? Sexual satisfaction. Aside from those most intimate we typically do not share such things. This is probably the biggest item in that we do not share. And even this is shared in taking of marriage vowels, or even just acknowledging that someone is special to us. We do not acknowledge the act but the person.

Much of what we want in our private life but not our public life are things that we are not proud of. Things that could embarrass or humiliate us. So we may not want to share our absolute fascination for oral sex, but we might acknowledge the person we share such with, just omitting some of the details regarding why. For those of you who remember the Sopranos, this was the case with Uncle Junior and his trip to Boca with a younger attractive girlfriend he had at the time. Despite his embarrassment though, I doubt this really hurt him. Tony tried to make fun of it, but he wanted to diminish his Uncle Junior.  Tony was routinely competing against him, but I would want to say this tale probably in fact gained Junior standing or respect of the rank and file at the end of the day.

The whole premise of that show early on was that Tony, a NJ mob capo, was going to a shrink, a psychiatrist. They played with that for a season or two until it finally came out and no one really cared. Of course later on in the show you had Vito who was one of Tony's underlings, a mid-level manager, who was an "earner". He knew how to make a buck, and Tony respected that to the point where he was willing to look the other way regarding his being gay. Of course others in the organization did not agree on that.

All of the above are tales of the personal and private life versus the public. And the Sopranos may not be the ideal place to look for insight, but it is a start. Politics is not to far afield from the Sopranos, and the workplace is still a challenge regarding various personal secrets, regardless of the numerous EEOC laws and the like. Even in marriage there are things not shared.

This goes to one's authenticity. We want to be able to trust someone as we believe we know them. I know your values and history, and based upon that I can share this with you or be with you. With the challenge of public and private personas, however, we really do not know anyone. To trust someone always is to some degree a leap of faith. If we factor this in, that there is an unknowable part that will not or cannot be shared, then that leap just became that much bigger.

Families and relationships aside, politics require we see the person we are voting for as like ourselves, with similar views or at least acceptable views. If parts are hidden from view we are left trusting what they say. This is true often times in numerous situations, but it is certainly not the desired. We want to see who and what they are, what they do. We want this to be in concordance with what they say. It should not be a case of do as I say, not as I do. With the idea of privacy, of what one does behind closed doors, being truly your own, we will never know.

So the first point is that this is problematic for the voter or constituent, for the person who is asked to believe and trust this person who is in office, who is leading the city, state, or country. Nor does it help the the person in the position of mayor, of senator, house member. . . President. What is done in privacy, what is concealed from public view, is an albatross around their neck waiting to constrict. It is a burden they must constantly attend to and be conscious of. And it becomes heavier over time. it becomes a sticking point with unknown consequences.

A partly Freudian point here but an obvious one. A man who hides something will go out of his way to insure it stays hidden, contingent upon the value he places on the secret, on the thing he wants concealed - the thing he wants maintained as private. This can be seen in policy discussions and more importantly decisions where he or she wants to convey that they have no involvement, no interest. and with that will act exactly opposite their private lives, what they do in their homes and so forth so as to disassociate themselves from it. Again the issue of embarrassment and shame, humiliation. How does such actions effect them? How does it effect both their public and private lives? We all have such lives, but I am suggesting that the lesser the distinction the better.

Circle back to the initial point of 330 million people, each with a private life or lives. We can only get along if we trust. It is hard to trust in general. The existence of the private and making it so secured, so vested, further complicates an already challenging goal of 330 million people agreeing on something. So no doubt each of us has personal feelings and history, it should make up a small part of us. The smaller the better.

What is it about ourselves that causes such embarrassment and humiliation? Is it something that only this person endures? We need to ask, or the person needs to ask, ultimately is it better to share or not? Is the price of sharing such details with people, with voters, with constitutes, too costly? Or is it the case that keeping these things private is actually more costly? I suggest it is often the later, just as I did regarding Uncle Junior. That embarrassment, that shame I suggest is often not real. Perhaps, as in the case of Junior, it is real only because we gave it credence.

Facts versus Questions - another tale from Facebook

Recently on Facebook, (and I know my primary source for material is sadly Facebook. . . .), but again on Facebook after going back and forth with two people on the topic of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats "behaving like a pack of wild animals attacking the civil society". I look at the topic and I ask myself, why did I bother responding at all, but I did.

I basically answered the post with frustration and disappointment. One of my first responses was that if this is how the American republic engages - by yelling at each other on Facebook and a series of minor brawls on the street, if these are the best we got then perhaps it is best we just go away. As I suggested, let Kim Jong-il just blow us up. We have nothing much left to offer anyway it seems. The other discoursers were not impressed.

The other tact that I followed with was to just point out the anger, the rage of their own words against the other side, against in this case the Democrats, the Clintons, and liberals in general. This got mixed results. Largely, the other two discoursers argued that they were angry and rightfully so. The other side they claim clogs the streets with protests, run around in bizarre vagina costumes, won't let people eat in restaurants, won't let people speak at universities, routinely infest the capital buildings and just behave poorly. They shared a picture of Kathy Griffin and her head. My response to all of that is to ask what is the problem? If that is the best the liberals and Democrats have to offer, that explains why the republicans have largely dominated in governor races, state elections, house and senate races and of course the 2016 Presidential elections. Why would one complain about your opponent's incompetence?

More importantly though is why do both sides hate so much? Why did Kathy Griffin need the head? That was the original question I was trying to get to. Both sides are blinded by hate and unable to deal with actual problems. Let's NOT focus on the evils of the Clintons' and their history, nor a fading comedienne. Your posts just help her sell books. There must be something more productive we can do?

At the end of the back and forth I conceded defeat and offered up a Tommy Bolin song from Youtube. Who can argue with Tommy Bolin? You simply can't.

One of the other discoursers, however, hoping for another round perhaps, argued that it was I who was hateful and that I had no facts to offer up. I could not provide any conservatives who had acted badly. I had failed to play their game properly. I was I guess expected to respond with my own list of bad deeds initiated by Republicans and conservatives. That game is too easy and not very fun. We could easily start with a House Speaker and go from there.

Instead I offer up only "hateful rhetoric". I try not to but I am sure it happens. today I will offer up only a series of questions. Not sure if that is rhetoric or what. They are questions I am interested in.

Here we go:

1. What is an education? 
2. What is the value of science?
3. Should science have a seat at the table in relation to regulation and policy?
4. Is there such a thing as "privacy"
5. What is the limit of individual behavior?
6. Can you have a proper democracy in a nation of 330 million?
7. Can one infer from what you say? If yes, how far can one go in such inferences?
8. What drives an economy? 
9. Can two or three numbers provide a full picture of the US economy?
10. Does a President really have any effect on such an economy?

I stop there but these are questions and topics I am much more interested in. Further, discussion of these might help us get somewhere. . . maybe. Probably not. Best would be for me to go finish my degree or get a job. 

Playing around with Aristotle and Humor in NYC. . .

This past Wednesday, I made it over to the CUNY Philosophy Colloquium at the Graduate Center. The speaker was Pierre Destrée from the Université catholique de Louvain in Belgium. I believe he is over at Princeton this semester. He is a specialist in ancient philosophy and on this past Wednesday he presented a paper dealing with Aristotle on humor.

It has been awhile since I have read Aristotle. I was never a devotee to ancient philosophy, though I do find myself more intrigued with Aristotle than I do Plato. Both played a large roll in getting this thing rolling. So I attended with the thought that this would be something light, and in a certain respect it was. There were a few jokes shared from Aristotle's time. I believe at least one of which was from Aristotle's works. That said it was an interesting discussion.

Aristotle's ideas on humor as per the talk focus on witticism. He is interested in humor derived from the spoken. He seems not interested in slapstick or physical humor. Ultimately it goes to his ethics, of pursuing that which is higher. Happiness is not gained via amusement, but through contemplation. And with that, humor is that which is witty. It is a play of words, of ideas, it is a challenge. It requires understanding and response. Is one up to the task of responding to another's witticism?

I myself am much more a fan of such humor as opposed to slapstick, so I sympathized with the Destrée's offerings regarding Aristotle. I found it kind of worked with my recollection of Aristotle. The significance of the mean and of balance cannot be stressed enough in Aristotle's ethics. That is my memory.

Destrée went on to introduce the concept of play or playfulness to this discussion. A joke or witticism works because of the play of words, both their relations, and their tensions. Likewise, between the parties engaged, witticism requires both parties to speak and to listen, and in such there is a component of give and take, of play.

It would seem that a joke is an imbalance and the laughter that follows such balances it. Often in using one's wit, there is typically a butt of the joke. Someone is being made fun of, belittled. There are various intents here and again, balance is the sound approach. You may want to make a point but you do not want humiliate. You do not want to cause harm. There are various situations, cases, no doubt but in general, with friends, family, coworkers. . . you do not want to cause pain. In short, you moderate and watch what you say. Playfulness and balance in humor complement each other.

Yet, I look at some of my favorite comedians and they are provocative. They do not watch what they say. They let it all hang out and they are proud of it. Even there, however, it is calculated. They in most cases know they provoke. Both your playful banter with a co-worker and Chris Rock's recent act both involve what is said, what is heard, a speaker and an audience. Each involves a balance or mean. Chris Rock simply goes a little further than you do, and the result is typically a little more laughter and more. He challenges and provokes a little more than one typically does at work or at the dinner table. Both illustrate Aristotle's point.

For myself, this reference to play did perk my ears up. It reminded me of Gadamer and his text, Truth and Method. Gadamer, a German philosopher, does acknowledge an interest in ancient philosophy. It is seen in his writings, but I did not appreciate the connection of play to Aristotle. In Truth and Method, another text that I read awhile back, Gadamer starts by looking at the relation of the artist to his tradition. The artist is trained and uses a certain set of tools that originate from a tradition or school, which he is part of.

Whether it be impressionism, dadaism, or manga, an artist will start somewhere and respond to that starting point, and that process is an act of play. There is an element of the social and cultural in this process. The same can be seen here. Perhaps more so as the humorous, the witty remark, involves and even requires us to speak and listen to each other. And to do it well requires that we consider both the other person(s) and the words we use. The playfulness and the mean are present.

This step, however, leads to two interesting points. The first is that a joke, a witticism, can in fact not involve language, and number two the contemplation of ideas or at least witticism is not the ideal, it is not required for happiness.

Let me start with number one. Chris Rock is an eloquent speaker. he speaks the language of the streets, of the family, of the political. And he does enjoy mixing them up. At the height of his riffing, however, he often does not speak, he rolls his eyes, or lifts an eyebrow. He often in his stand-up uses his body to convey the point. His witticism is often with more than language and sometimes even without language. It is the eye rolling or the lift of an eyebrow that makes us laugh. We can imagine Rock physically responding to his comments, literally tripping over his own words.

If this is true, then perhaps witticism is not the ideal form of humor. Perhaps it is but a tradition, which Aristotle favored. Perhaps slapstick is just the other end of the continuum and some comedians use words, some do not, and some use a mix. Perhaps play in a certain sense is more the key to happiness. It is play that allows one to go from the serious to the not, to the significant or ideal to the absurd. Play is to recreate, which is often what we do in work.

Sadly, I am limited regarding either of these concepts tonight, and likewise regarding Gadamer and Aristotle, but it is a delicious brew.

A few steps further. . . 

With a lack of deep understanding or not, I continue to my next topic: Metaphor.

Jokes, witticism if you will, and metaphor both involve the play of words. Metaphor and humor, witticism, both involve the subtle and at times not so subtle substitution of a word or words. Aristotle does take note of this. Destrée points us to a passage in Aristotle's Poetics illustrating as much. I had pondered such things when reading Donald Davidson and Richard Rorty, who in their explorations of the concept of truth, did arrive at metaphor. In short they looked to metaphor as new or novel language. Metaphor for them was language that was used in a new or novel way.

As I said, some jokes, some witticisms, provoke. Chris Rock's material will probably provoke more than the witticism one engages in office banter. Now the question is does metaphor or witticism lead to truth? Throughout the talk I was thinking of one of the last songs on Eminem's, "The Eminem Show" album, a song titled "Say what you say". In that song is a verse that has just haunted me since hearing it. "But a lot of truth is said in jest".

And there is some truth in that assertion. If you are proposing something that you are not sure about, you introduce it often as a joke, a long shot, something that though not likely, you still had to share. Sometimes it is the option that you really do want. On that Wednesday while listening to this discussion of Aristotle, I had a particular case in mind. Specifically, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and his suggested embrace of the 25th Amendment. I could easily imagine him, with a dash of sarcasm, saying such. And I have heard that explanation. It would have allowed him to quickly rule out that option, or introduce it.

So we have a joke which is true, a joke that could could be explored or embraced as a proper solution to a problem. It has some element of truth. Sadly, Destrée was not having it. Or at least not in this discussion of Aristotle and humor. My limited knowledge and recollections of Aristotle had caught unprepared. It is a challenge to raise your hand in such a setting. When do you know something? More importantly, how do you talk of such when you do not know? Regardless, I did raise the issue, minus a knowledge of Aristotle, and likewise the attribution to Eminem.

Since Wednesday, the question has gotten me to do a few searches on Google, and pull out my The Basic Works of Aristotle. A nice bound volume but too nice to seriously start carrying around with me as I do today. I simply destroy books on my train ride to and from Manhattan.

More importantly, I have also arrived at some idea, some further thoughts on the subject. I believe I recall knowing that Aristotle did not attribute truth to metaphor. and in the last few days, I have arrived at theory. a fragile theory as to why Destrée was not having it, why Aristotle would not consider a joke or witticism to be true. The solution I believe is his metaphysics, where he focuses on substance. . . essence.

I think I heard the following joke in the course of Wednesday evening: It seems that the Academy had defined human as being a featherless biped. Shortly after arriving at such someone threw into the school's courtyard a plucked duck or chicken. Now, I know the Academy is Plato's school, perhaps it was the Lyceum. Perhaps I did not hear that joke on Wednesday night. Not sure where else I would have heard it though. Regardless, the joke is that if a man is defined as a featherless biped, than the object thrown in the courtyard is a man.

The point is that such concepts thrive in both Aristotle and Plato. What is it "to be" something? In the above case, what is it to be human? What is an object's essence? Yes, Plato is intrigued with the "forms", which Aristotle challenges. That said, Aristotle does embrace ideas about substance, and further, for him to know is to know and understand substance.

 The above joke illustrates the challenge. For Aristotle, the joke points to or brings those those who are considering ideas such as "featherless bipeds" to reconsider their position. It only points to or brings them to reexamine or reconsider. It does not determine truth or falsity. It can only point one to the court where such truths are determined, but it cannot enter that court. The joke seems to get you to the courthouse, but not to the courtroom.

For myself the joke, (which is the retelling of an act, which is interesting in itself), illustrates the falsity of the claim or the inadequate nature of the claim. The joke is sufficient to challenge the claim that man is a featherless biped, as it illustrates that this chicken devoid of its feathers is now likewise a man. The joke illustrates that the definition is too broad, and with that it moves the conversation and search for a new solution. At the very least it allows us to remove items from consideration. It is a tool that can be used in knowledge acquisition and is truth-determinant.

Things are starting to get complicated. with the introduction of knowledge, truth, and substance. and there are several thousand years of discussions involving such. each of these have evolved. My appeal to a courtroom, to a formal setting that determines what is known, what is true and what is false, is appealing. Yet, the use of a joke as a thought-experiment to determine truth is also appealing. In short, there is a tension regarding whether metaphor, and humor, witticism, are truth-determinant. Probably, such questions as I raise will be contingent upon how you define knowledge and truth, and their relation to substance.

So much for a light evening, but again this is all a playful affair!

Confirmations, Decisions, the moment we are in

What follows is a series of items based upon various writings, posts, and thoughts I have had the last few days. Together, they kind of sum up my take on the Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh:

Regarding the confirmation hearing, courts of law, and decision making:
Regardless of what the conclusion of the confirmation hearing, it will determine neither the guilt nor innocence of Judge Kavanaugh. Those are legal principles and this is not a legal proceeding. What we are witnessing is a political appointment, which no doubt does borrow some legal 'accessories' from the courts. Things such as sworn testimony and witnesses, but there is no guilt or innocence here. The question the US Senate is focused on is whether Brett Kavanaugh should be appointed to the US Supreme Court.

That decision is very different from one of him being guilty or not guilty of the crime of attempted rape or sexual assault. The requirements for guilt or innocence of that crime or any crime is simply much higher than the determination of whether someone should be appointed to the Supreme Court. The determination of the former, of guilt of a crime, entails or requires, a jury, a proper criminal investigation, and ultimately a trial. The key to such a determination is a trial where that jury will hear the evidence gathered during the course of that investigation and they would then determine if he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

To arrive at a conclusion that is beyond reasonable doubt is a very high standard. Some would say it is an unrealistic or an impossible standard, but it is the ideal that we hold up as the ideal of our justice system. In most other situations in our lives we do not use such a standard. Decisions and commitments in most normal circumstances typically have to be made much quicker than what you see in a courtroom. We do not in our day to day decisions look for something to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt." In a court of law that means with certainty. We want to be certain he is guilty of the crimes he is accused. We are accusing a man of a serious crime and to find him guilty of that crime should require that the jury be certain of his guilt. We would not be satisfied with a jury that arrives at the conclusion of "yeah, it looks like he did it. Probably, he did it." Such does not work. At the end of their determinations the jury comes out of the room and says "We find him guilty" or they say "We find him NOT guilty."

We do not look for such certainty in our everyday life. We do make a range of decisions. Things such as did I turn off the coffeemaker this morning? (I like to turn it off, as I do not trust the automatic turn-off. It is an old coffee-maker.) Will I make the 7:03 train or is it the 7:31 again? Do I be good and stick with yogurt or go with a bagel this morning? Do I buy or lease a car?  I have been invited to a concert, but I am not a fan of that group or style of music; should I go? All of these involve various types of decisions. None involving a group of my peers, sworn testimony, nor a decision that requires that I am absolutely certain.

The closest thing to such a decision making process for most people is the approval for a mortgage. And that decision is not made by the individual, but the bank. They have a structured business process, a formula, based upon a business model that will determine who will and who will not get a mortgage. And that process does not arrive at certainty, but rather just a good bet that this person or persons will be able to pay off a 20 or 30 year mortgage. With that process the bank is "fairly' certain and with that willing to provide you the funds to buy a house or condo.

I digress, but the point is that the standard in a court of law is very different from the standard that people typically use in making decisions. To be certain typically requires confirmation, which could entail research, analysis, review of both standards (rules, regulations, guidelines, laws. . . etc.), and likewise the evidence (the data or facts). Rational decision making will always entail the application of some standard and some set of facts, some data set. The point here is that contingent upon the standard and the set of facts under review, the relationship of those will vary.

Everyday decisions, though rational are often made with limited knowledge. I would not have bought this car if I had known its history, or its manufacturer's history. I would have gone to the concert if I had known that they were performing that set of songs. I picked the Greek yogurt cause it tastes so good! People try to make informed decisions but all too often that is not possible. Either, they do not have the time or the information, both the standard, and / or the data, is often not available.

Lastly, decisions function in relation to what is being decided. The standards applied to the court, that of certainty, are reasonable considering the consequences. We do not want to see innocent men found guilty of crimes. Likewise, we make decisions on the fly in our lives. We are willing to spend some time researching the car we want to buy, the major we want to study in college, neighborhood and locale we want to live in. We do not spend all that much time regarding dinner, or the clothes we wear, or the TV shows we watch. We would like to think that the process we apply to a particular decision is appropriate. How a decision is made is contingent to what it entails, what are its consequences.

Now that I have beat a dead horse, let me quickly ties this back to the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. Two things are playing out at those hearings. The senate will either confirm or not confirm Judge Kavanaugh for the US Supreme Court. The second is that the citizens of the US will also decide if he should be confirmed. One confirmation hearing and two different decision-making processes.

What does the public know and how best to gain that information?

I have engaged some who question what exactly the public knows. The suggestion I believe is that we do not know what actually happened, and as such we really cannot comment on all of this. This again goes to what is required to make such a decision, or in this case comment.

Now, I believe the allegation is that he was on top of her, holding her down, undressing her. I believe she attempted to say something, to yell out, and he covered her mouth. That is what is alleged. Meanwhile, I believe his the other young man in the room supposedly stood there and watched. This is purely my understanding and I have not gone out of my way to verify that I have it stated correctly. this is what I have pieced together via the various news reports, and commentaries that I have read and watched.

I don’t know why he stopped. I do not know how she got out of that room. I do not know if any of this is true. This is simply what is being reported. I believe much of what I claim came from the original letter. I have no certainty regarding any of it. I have no actual facts here. Yet I am more than ready to offer my opinion on the matter. Obviously, I might be totally wrong.

This brings us to questions regarding the press and whether we are willing to trust them. Do we trust the "fake news"? Do we trust the the people who report that Rod Rosenstein was seriously considering wearing a wire into the White House? Do we believe a newspaper that prints anonymous letters claiming there is a group in the White House that watch and insure that the President does not do anything too crazy?

Everyday we encounter such stories in the news. Maybe not every day, but often enough. Of course we also have to ponder if we are stopping at the supermarket tonight or if we can safely eat that Chinese from last week. Rarely, do we have sworn testimony and proper evidence. That is a luxury we are rarely willing to pay for or spend the time to acquire. we typically, for the most part, trust the press. We largely believe what they print or put up online.


We typically believe or give some credence to the weather man or woman. We probably should not but we do. We heed their warnings regarding gridlock alerts going into NYC. We do believe the TV news report regarding the election results. What of those commenting on the news - commentators? I typically do listen some of the analysis offered. Not all. I do pick and choose what I am listening to and who and what I am buying into. I do not want to dive into here how one decides such things, but it is another decision process, another item to decide.

Regarding the decisions on  how to deal with the media, there are those who claim they have no need of the news shows, or even newspapers. Perhaps a steady diet of CSPAN is sufficient. Do you, however, get an accurate representation of Washington on CSPAN? Perhaps it the case that to watch CSPAN requires a substantial prior understanding of our politics, our system, and of Washington, to make proper sense of their offerings. The claim that one does not require media outlets, their news, and analysis, that one can do it on one's own. It is a kind of rugged individualism. It reminds me of Thoreau and Walden. He was isolated in the woods, in his cabin, though not that far from town.

Again, my point here is that we have a limited data set. We know that the media is biased. We know that the information that they provide is incomplete. Sometimes it is simply wrong. That said, we work with what we have, and adjust our opinions and positions as things unfold.

Are we confirming an innocent man or a man of good character?

Most likely Kavanaugh will confirmed by Friday, although as I just saw there are now other allegations regarding his behavior! so maybe not. . . That said, if he is confirmed, he will be the Justice haunted by tales of perjury and sexual assault. We will then have one justice who has been accused of sexual harassment and one with a story sexual assault. True or not - it is the taint of such.

That is what these hearings are for to see if the nominee withers before the committee, the senate, the press, and the public.

By appointing such nominees we do no favor to the institution. Blinded by his anticipated rulings the Republicans seem to forget that at root these nominees must be indisputably good. The nominee's character must be unimpeachable. I am afraid that we are already unable to say that here. The fact that we are left with simply a "he said-she said" regarding what tonight now appears to be only an initial claim of sexual assault just makes it impossible to say with any certainty that he is a good man.

When discussing one's character, we do not want to consider a nominee that we believe is good. We do want certainty here. It is not, however, the certainty of his guilt or innocence regarding whether he sexually assaulted a young woman. We want certainty that he, the nominee, is of good moral character. And as he cannot prove this, as we now have this claim of sexual assault, granted unproven, it leaves us with doubts regarding his character. With that we cannot accept his nomination for the court. To proceed ahead and nominate such a man is to only weaken the institution of the Court. 

What of the woman who made the claim and the moment we are in?

It is routinely pointed out that the claim refers to an incident that happened over 30 years ago. That she remembers little aside from the details of the actual event. It is suggested that it perhaps a political stunt. Just look at the timing. Much of that is true, but keep in mind that rape and sexual assault are two of the most under-reported crimes out there.

Consider what has historically been done to women who have challenged men. Women who had little or no proof, no evidence, of such. How long did it take for all those women to finally catch up with Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein. Despite the various allegations, Bill Clinton still has not really been challenged. Fox News spent how much to deal with the last 20 years?

If you consider what criminologist have been saying for years regarding reports of rape statistically not happening as do other crimes. If you look at how long it took the victims who are part of the “me too” movement to come out, to share their stories.

Consider those who claimed they were assaulted by this President. Consider all those who have not been taken seriously, who in so many words were told that they were asking for such. Who were told that in light of the fact that they did not report it, they have no claim.

You consider what we know today about trauma and the recollection of such events. If you consider the challenges of human memory, it’s failings, what is and what is not remembered.

You consider her claim with these various details as a backdrop, you should pause at the very least before ruling hers a political stunt.

Again, considering the time we live in we really do not want a Justice with the stain of such accusations. We do not want a bench whose decisions can and will be challenged so easily.

Understand what I am saying. By putting such people on the bench you are providing the ammunition for why that institution is flawed, problematic.

This is why we have the FBI do such background checks, why we do these senate confirmation hearings. We want to know who it is we are putting in such a position.


It is not just a question of their positions regarding the law. It is who they are. We want to know in light of the institution they are about to become a part of. Do they merit such a place, such a pedestal.