Narrative Falsifiability

In a classroom demonstration, the answer arrives before the chemicals. Drop sodium into water and the hiss and motion merely make a known principle visible. The spectacle may be memorable, even beautiful, but it is not an experiment. Nothing in the room is permitted to answer otherwise.

Metacogs

From The Atlantic:

We cling to myths like “the 10 percent brain”—which holds that the vast majority of our thinking power remains untapped—in part because we hope the minds of the future will be stronger than those of today. It’s as much a personal hope as a hope for civilization: If we’re already running at full capacity, we’re stuck, but what if we’re using only a small fraction of our potential? Well, then the sky’s the limit.

But this dream has a dark side: The possibility of a dystopia where an individual’s fate is determined wholly by his or her access to cognition-enhancing technology. Where some ultra-elites are allowed to push the limits of human intelligence, while the less fortunate lose any chance of upward mobility. Where some Big Brother–like figure could gain control of our minds and decide how well we function.

Or we could integrate into AI, becoming the closest thing to God that will ever exist.

Enchantment

A little nugget from David Brooks today:

Basically, they have to take the enchantment leap. This is when something dry and utilitarian erupts into something passionate, inescapable and devotional. Sometimes a student becomes enraptured by the beauty of math, and becomes a mathematician. Soldiers doing the drudgery of boot camp are gradually bonded into a passionate unit, for which they will risk their lives. Anybody who has started a mere job and found in it a vocation has taken the enchantment leap.

In love, of course, the shift starts with vulnerability, not calculation. The people involved move from selfishness to service, from prudent thinking to poetic thinking, from a state of selection to a state of need, from relying on conscious thinking to relying on their own brilliant emotions.

When you look at all the people looking for love and vocation today, you realize we live in a culture and an online world that encourages a very different mind-set; in a technical culture in which humanism, religion and the humanities, which are the great instructors of enchantment, are not automatically central to life.

I have to guess some cultures are more fertile for enchantment — that some activities, like novel-reading or music-making, cultivate a skill for it, and that building a capacity for enchantment is, these days, a countercultural act and a practical and fervent need.

Something to reflect on -- do the arts cultivate the capacity for enchantment? Does science?

Tell me what you think about your motivation

The secret of effective motivation? Steer away from instrumental (external) consequences and incentives. Focus on cultivating the internal drive. Sounds good and all...but how easy / practical is that?

Fear the robots

Will automation accelerate the concentration of capital, skewing inequality further and destablizing democracy? Probably.

Krugman also thinks so. (also: here, here, here, here, here, here)

An aside: When the best conservative minds at Forbes decry this assessment by pleading,

"If we’ve pretty much abolished material scarcity then of course real wages have just soared. Real wages being, really, a measure of how much consumption is possible rather than the nominal value of earnings. If you are of a Marxist persuasion you might think that all of the money from those androids will just go to capital, leaving the workers starving and destitute without any jobs and thus not earning at all. But to do that you would have to believe in Monopoly Capitalism, this idea that the capitalists as a class will gang up on everyone else and keep all the good stuff for themselves. But note that this does depend upon that monopoly."

... then you should worry. Or should we not fear the robots? Steven Rattner says so.

Fear of change, especially technologically-driven change, conjures images of the Luddites and Amish. It goes back. Life Magazine from July 19, 1963: article by Keith Wheeler on automation screams, "Impact of Automation: Its Accelerating Effects have Pushed Our Society to the Point of No Return"

I lean towards Krugman and Life, although I am hopeful that humanity will surprise me.

Writing resources

This post exists mostly as a resource for me later on.

Comment from Amazon reviewer concerning On Writing Well:

1) The things that come to the writer easiest -- cliché, excessive detail, syrupy and vague language -- are the things that keep the reader bored/detached/passive.
2) Your main task as a writer is to distill the essence of whatever you're writing about--to find its central idea, to describe its distinctive qualities using precise images. In other words, your main task is to work excruciatingly hard.

Atlantic article distinguishing two approaches to the craft of writing: pre-determination of a novel versus letting "a character show the way" through the story.

New Yorker article describing the structure of writing:

The approach to structure in factual writing is like returning from a grocery store with materials you intend to cook for dinner. You set them out on the kitchen counter, and what’s there is what you deal with, and all you deal with. If something is red and globular, you don’t call it a tomato if it’s a bell pepper. To some extent, the structure of a composition dictates itself, and to some extent it does not. Where you have a free hand, you can make interesting choices.

And the nature of those choices determines your quality and style.

Execution is everything

I think my football coach friends can related to this concept very well:

Ideas, in a sense, are overrated. Of course, you need good ones, but at this point in our supersaturated culture, precious few are so novel that nobody else has ever thought of them before. It’s really about where you take the idea, and how committed you are to solving the endless problems that come up in the execution. The more I experienced this frustration firsthand, the more I came to appreciate how naturally suited I am to the job I used to think I never wanted to have when I grew up.

It may seem counterintuitive, but I would claim this really applies to scientific research as well, despite that Holy Grail/Eureka mentality of science (e.g., string theory, cancer cures...). It's not that people haven't come up with a number of novel approaches to solving a problem much like your own. It's that they either gave up on them or started working on them to run into a problem that technology has since changed or solved.

Reason for blogging

It's good for your health!

Or wait...is it? (yes, the article in the NYT is all about people who write for a living and get very little sleep and inadequate rest/exercise, plus it provides anecdotal evidence, no studies)

My blog writing reasons are...complex and change from time to time.

Thoughts on writing

Wow. 800 posts. Two and a half years of blogging (since 11/05). That's a lot of writing.

Lots of quantity, but as for quality, I must suck. I've submitted entries to three contests, but won none (from oldest to newest):

1. FFRF 7/1/06 -- here was the entry
2. AA 1/23/07 -- here was the entry
3. Seed Magazine 6/25/07 -- here was the entry

Perhaps of more importance to me than the contests themselves is the act of writing, even if I'm not sure why I do it. I have tried and failed to stop blogging here, although I was successful at extricating myself from a site where I previously blogged. I've been blogging less since taking my new job, but I still write a lot on the weekends and in the mornings (sometimes saving drafts to be finished later). I've felt one way or another about blog privacy, but for now, it's staying private. I can't afford to lose my job, not with a kid on the way.

In the meanwhile, it seems clear that from my contest failures I'm not a spectacular writer. But it's something I enjoy. And it's something I see myself doing for the rest of my life. I love documenting my thoughts and seeing how I've evolved as a person over the last few years. It's almost like something you can pass down to your kids -- to show them how you grew and changed over the years.

To everyone who does actually read my ramblings from time to time, thanks for letting me share my thoughts and my life with you.

"Intelligent Design not a true science"

As I recently mentioned, the Alligator's archives are screwed up and a great many links are broken from publications that I or Gator Freethought have gotten in the newspaper. As a result, I'm reposting as many of these as I have the time and ability to, just to preserve and provide an electronic copy of the documents. Below is the first thing I ever submitted to a newspaper in my life, and it got in. After that, I guess it got a little addictive.

Intelligent Design not a true science
by nsfl
http://www.alligator.org/pt2/050826column2.php
published 8/26/2005

In response to Eric Wang's well-written, but somewhat shortsighted column, he cries foul that, "...there is not a marketplace of competing ideas in our public schools today, but only a monopoly of evolutionary theory." Today is the result of 2000+ years of competing ideas. Aristotle and Plato argued that nature, especially living things, showed "final causes" in their apparent design. Today, ID activists claim the same—that nature shows “the evidence of design”. Empedocles, among others, argued that change could occur in organisms to allow adaptation, giving the appearance of design. Darwin argued 150 years ago the same.

The crux of the issue is whether or not a force or "Designer" moves us towards a presumed goal, teleologically. The error in Wang's thinking is that science has, or can, reject or accept this philosophical notion. How? It can, and does, subject the premise of change and adaptation, both of which are natural phenomena, to its method of inquiry. Science is by definition methodological naturalism, and as such posits, tests, and questions only physical and natural phenomena. Science is limited in scope (and "on purpose") to questions of natural philosophy, not whether or not a "Designer" had it all in mind, or whether or not this "Designer" exists. It ignores the question because science is constrained to natural explanation of natural phenomena.

So now the question remains—can science empirically detect God’s fingerprints? Is it possible, without arguing from incredulity, to know scientifically, rather than “by faith” if “designed”? What is the a priori, natural evidence of supernatural creation/design? How does one distinguish ignorance of natural phenomena from knowledge of supernatural phenomena? Is it possible to scientifically argue for Design without arguing from incredulity? For hundreds of years, gaps in knowledge were filled with “God did it”. Now they are being filled with “Designer did it”. Has science proven either one philosophically wrong, or simply shown us that the mechanism by which posited Designers work is inextricable from the natural universe, and that the this universe and its natural laws is all that science can and will comment upon?

So in short, science describes a natural process, known as "descent with modification". If we want to teach science, we teach natural mechanisms and processes, without invoking supernatural causes. If we want to teach anything else, Wang and others had better realize we may no longer honestly call it “science”, but must admit we have moved into metaphysics, philosophy, or theology. Is there a “monopoly” of thought, or is science the one way of rationally, and objectively, viewing our natural universe? Why did the Kansas board consider redefining science itself into one of these latter three? Is it the job of our state, or of families, to lay the foundation for those?

If I get a new link for the Alligator's archive of this, I'll update it.

Seed Magazine: You Stink

Well, I didn't win, but check out the winners of the writing contest. I think mine was better...ok, fine, no it wasn't.

A new way of stating the PoE

I was browsing an old e-buddy's blog a few moments ago (one who promised he was going to stop blogging, but like so many of us, failed to do so) and found an interesting way to approach the problem of evil:

1) Events have happened in the world that are such that any person able to prevent them would be morally obligated to do so.
2) Premise (1) is logically incompatible with God defined as an all-powerful, morally perfect being.
3) Therefore, God does not exist.

Premise (2) I take it, is simply a fact of logic: to be all-powerful is to be able to prevent the sort of events described in (1), and to be morally perfect is to fulfill all of one's moral obligations, so if there were a God so defined, there would be no such events as described in (1).

As for (1), it appears to be almost universally agreed upon. A few decades ago it was reported that a woman named Kitty Genovese had been murdered and no one had done anything to stop it even though dozens of people had heard her screams. The story provoked some deep-soul searching and discussions about human psychology, all of which took for granted that the right thing to do had been to stop the murder. The international community has been harshly criticized for failing to do more to stop the Rwanda genocide. The current administration had been harshly criticized for failing to do more to rescue people from Hurricane Katrina.

Chris has emphasized here the concept of moral duties or moral obligations; I think this approach to the PoE is very important, and highlights a basic starting presupposition that some Christians may subconsciously hold: that God has no obligations or duties towards its creation(s). Kant's formulation of the categorical imperative was focused here, on what we are obligated to bring about by the nature of moral normativity. He argued that we must always act in such a way that our behavior is compatible with a sort of absolutism; or, that we can only justify our moral behaviors if they are universally true and correct.

This is where the disconnect occurs for believers in God.

While they will heartily agree that they are morally obligated to care for and protect their children from harm, they hold no such absolutism about this moral issue towards God. God can do whatever it feels like doing -- arbitrarily deciding to protect this or that prophet while at the same time neglecting a massive proportion of the earth's population. When they claim that God has to give us free will, they commit petitio principii: they are claiming that God's first obligation is to allow its creation to be free, rather than acting on behalf of the creation's best interests.

This logic certainly would not apply to the parent-child relationship, and most believers would agree to this. They would almost certainly agree that any parent who allowed his toddler to run through the house with scissors was not a moral, good parent, despite the justification offered by said parent that, "I just wanted to maximize little Johnny's freedom!"

We've trodden this ground before, of course. But it is helpful to frame the argument in terms of moral duties, because the immediate presupposition of God's lack of moral obligations, on the part of many theists, renders this God's "goodness" fatally flawed and illogical.

My submission to Seed Magazine's writing contest

I just submitted my entry to the Seed writing contest.

Read it here.

(or, R-click and "Save As" [Word 97-03 document (.doc, 1.3MB)])

"Analyzing Scientific Literacy in the 21st Century: Approaches and Considerations"

You'll need the password to open it: 0opeyx88888

Again: You have to open it read-only. I will put up a .PDF if and when it gets published.

Contest details:

Seed is pleased to announce the Second Annual Seed Science Writing Contest, presented by Honeywell.

Throughout the 20th century, science changed our perspective on the world. It altered our sense of individual identity, compelled us to environmental consciousness, and shaped our view of the cosmos. Its legacy is apparent in what we learned: the three Rs, our As, Ts, Cs, and Gs, the consequences of splitting the atom, that the solar system is 4.6 billion years old...

Today, the mantra of competitiveness has gained new momentum in the US, reinvigorating a discussion about education and the public's understanding of science. Science is high on the agenda of the European Union. And China and Africa have identified science literacy as a cornerstone of their respective development strategies. This begs the question:

What does it mean to be scientifically literate in the 21st century?

How do we measure the scientific literacy of a society? How do we boost it? What is the value of this literacy? Who is responsible for fostering it?

Essay submissions will be judged by a panel of Seed editors and special guests. Winning entries will be published in Seed magazine.

________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy

American Atheists Scholarship Runner-up

I didn't win, but I got runner-up...I guess I don't get $2000, but I should still be happy about having some recognition, right? I'm going to go drink a few beers and mope.

You can view the essay and materials I sent in for the contest here.

This was the 2nd atheist org I've tried to win a prize from, and failed.
________________
Technorati tags: Atheism

My Posts at Debunking Christianity

The following are all of my contributions to Debunking Christianity thus far. Last rev. 4-23-08

[oldest to newest]

1. My Story (Sat, 3-18-06) -- introductory post, includes testimony and explanation for deconversion


2. "This is Your Brain...on God" (Wed, 4-12-06) -- reflection on studies in neuroscience that posit [and evidence] a physical basis for religious experiences


3. Atheism and Evangelism (Fri, 4-14-06) -- juxtaposes the "right" of theists to evangelize, based on their motives, against our right as atheists to "deconvert" and advocate the abandonment of faith


4. Question: Does Religiosity Correlate Strongly to Charity? (Sun, 4-23-06) -- response to question #1 posed by Kaffinator


5. Question: Does Faith or Religious Activity Improve Health? (Sun, 4-23-06) -- response to question #2 posed by Kaffinator


6. Probability of Cognitive Dissonance = 1/0 (Sun, 4-30-06) -- comment on Swinburne, and his calculation of the probability of God’s existence, incarnation, resurrection as Jesus, etc.


7. The Sad State of Science (Wed, 5-3-06) -- comment on the 2006 Science and Engineering Indicators, especially reflects the correlation between poor science education and superstitious thought/belief


8. There is no Jehovah-Rophi, no Covenant (Wed, 5-3-06) -- investigates the promises of the old and new covenants, particularly with respect to health/healing, and concludes that either God is a liar, or there is no Covenant (and never was)
   


9. Swine and Science (Thur, 5-11-06) -- A response to Steve at the Triablogue regarding ex nihilo creation and my relative silliness at attempting to "talk science" with those who incur miracles at any needed opportunity


10. Do the Ends Justify the Means? (Tue, 5-16-06) -- throws out two instances where Paul appears to imply that they ends justify the means, if the means include subtle deception. The major crux of this post was encountered in the comments section, as we discussed where Paul blurred ethics as he had Timothy circumcised and participated in a Nazarite vow


11. America and Christian Nationalism (Wed, 5-24-06) -- links to some recent articles on theonomy/theocracy and related topics, basically an open thread for comments and arguments


12. Paul Kurtz, "Why I Am A Skeptic About Religious Claims" (Thur, 5-25-06) -- Paul Kurtz, editor in chief of Free Inquiry, professor emeritus of philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, and the chair of the Center for Inquiry, has a featured article in this month's issue, "Why I Am A Skeptic About Religious Claims". One of Paul's aims is to examine the reasons for skepticism, but another is to provide us with a new working label to use to avoid the stigma of "atheist" without falling into the overly-general "skeptic".


13. I Feel Jeebus (Tue, 6-27-06) A bunch of drama involving the Triablogue's defense of Frank Walton. Not worth your read, no atheological material here.


14. Ashamed of Their Ancestry (Wed, 7-05-06) Examining the oft-repeated claim [not much of an argument] that the process of evolution intrinsically undermines reason.


15. The Antithesis of Our Values (Tue, 7-18-06), A response to Steve Hays' post "Answer a Fool According to His Folly", in which he attempts to Biblically justify and defend his acerbic manner of dealing with unbelievers. Written while I was in Buffalo, NY.


16. Not "Answering A Fool According to His Folly" (Tue, 7-18-06) Steve tries to falsify my last post about mutual respect by quoting anonymous unbelievers on a public forum who insult Christians -- a pretty silly endeavor. Written while I was in Buffalo, NY.


17. More Chain Pulling for the Anti-Intellectualist Right (Fri, 8-18-06) My thoughts on an article in the American Family Association Journal, "Colleges Turn Left, Students Think That's Right," which concludes: "what students and parents don’t realize is that today’s campuses are functioning as an indoctrination into the realm of liberalism."


18. Oh My Sweet...Lord! (Tue, 8-22-06) Humor. Highlighting the "Armor of God PJs".


19. There IS Reason to Hope (Mon, 8-28-06) A response to recent studies that show trends in secularism among youths in Australia and Spain.


20. Godlessness Rare Behind Bars (Sat, 9-2-06) I saw two articles on the relative proportion of atheists in prisons versus religious groups, and I thought the results worth sharing.


21. A Little Levity (Wed, 10-4-06) Top Ten Reasons Religion is Like Pornography [humor]


22. Journal Article Researching Deconversion (Wed, 10-11-06) I briefly review a journal article by Heinz Streib studying deconversion experiences.


23. Christian Presuppositionalism, a General Response (Wed, 10-11-06) On Sept. 26, I asked Prof. Witmer if he would talk to our group, and we discussed possible topics a bit before he decided to talk about CPS at our meeting 9. I have now made the abstract of the talk, and the full-text (.pdf) of his presentation available online. Please download and feel free to comment on his arguments and major points. I especially enjoyed his presentation of a "conditional PoE", wherein he argues that either there are moral facts or there aren't, but either way, the PoE shows that God does not exist.


24. Richard Dawkins Interviewed on the Colbert Report (Wed, 10-18-06)Best opening line, ever: "My guest tonight is a scientist who argues there is no God...and you know what? He'll have an eternity in hell to prove it!" Get the QuickTime .mov video from the RichardDawkins.net site or see the interview at YouTube.


25. Nice Resource on Debate re God's Existence (Sun, 10-22-06) Philoso?hy Talk has a nice episode centered on the God debate. They interview Prof. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (Phil) of Dartmouth, then go out on the streets of Berkeley to talk to people about their beliefs. Here is the audio file (Real Player). [HT: Uberkuh]


26. Steve Hays Responds to Prof. Witmer re Presuppositionalism (Sat, 10-28-06) Steve Hays has weighed in on Prof. Witmer's response to PS. In a recent post entitled Machiavellian Atheology, Steve spends a great deal of time complaining that Prof. Witmer chooses to take a tactical perspective, focusing on debate, rather than addressing more of the substantive philosophical issues (in Steve's opinion).


27. Haggard Resigns Amidst Allegations of Gay Sex (Fri, 11-3-06) Following the story as it broke


28. Responding to ID -- A Review of Their Positive Arguments with Rebuttals (Fri, 11-17-06) I want to lay out a fair representation of the positive case for intelligent design (ID) in this article, and examine why the case has been ruled a failure by the greater scientific community.


29. Carnival of the Godless 53 (Fri, 11-17-06) I compiled 34 submissions and showcased 10 posts here at DC for the COTG.

Last rev. 4-23-08

Shawshank Sunday VI: Identity

The post will examine Aristotle's Law of Identity, Rand's extrapolation to her heroes, and Andy's redemption.

Identity encapsulates characteristics. Every man, we know, has a beating heart and thinking brain. The details, or quality, of these characteristics is specific to individual representations of an identity. All men have brains, but the brains of all men are not identical. Thus, all men have character, but the character of all men is individual.

Heraclitus once penned the famous, "Character is destiny". I will take this as a presupposition which simply predicts that cause-effect relationships determine "destiny," or at least those things which happen to an individual, the combination of things they can control and things they cannot. I will also take character to be a combination of virtues, contextualized to each individual. I will take identity to thus relate to the form of character--virtuous, unvirtuous, these will constitute the identity of the individual for my purpose here.

Ayn Rand used Aristotle's Law of Identity to build a foundation for rational self-interest. Her minor heroes (Francisco, Rearden, Dagny) exemplify this trait, but only her major heroes (Roark, Galt) display a near perfection of her Objectivism. While the former characters were at times plagued with personal flaws, doubts, emotions, fears...the latter were Rand's "Romantic Realism"--ideal characters projected onto real life situations. Rand's work has received criticism for its attempt to purvey her philosophy due to her inability to make her major heroes human, in many respects. Much like the Vulcan Spock, Galt and Roark are perfect Stoics, with Reason as their only driving force and guiding principle. These never display humanity--self-doubt, self-image issues, the need for outside approval, largely emotion in general. Although in Rand's work, the minor hero characters redeemed themselves, with the assistance of the major characters, who needed no redemption, Andy Dufresne is not depicted as a robot. He is also not perfect, or else there would be no Shawshank Redemption.

Andy was redeemed. Andy's redemption was not being freed from wrongful conviction, after all, he escaped and his name was never cleared.

In the vein of my earlier post on Andy's Stoicism, I want to argue that Andy was redeemed from the loss of his integrity. As he admitted, it took coming to prison to make him a dishonest man. He had never engaged in fraud or falsehood as a banker, but after wrongful imprisonment willingly participated in the Warden's corruption. Read the post for more detail.

The interesting thing is that Andy redeemed himself. No one else could. No one else would. Unlike Rand's minor heroes, who needed Galt/Roark (an archetype of a Savior), and unlike the uncorrupted Savior-figures of Roark and Galt, Andy both was corrupted and redeemed himself.

This is a beautiful component of the story, something that runs deep and deserves serious contemplation. King takes the unrealistic Randian hero, corrupts it, and gives it the power to redeem itself. Andy, like Spock, shows emotion and feels pain, but by the force of his will follows virtue to its logical conclusion. While Galt's identity is "The Guiltless Man", Andy's is not.

Andy feels guilt, but is compelled, of his own accord, to acheive the destiny his character has determined: redemption. Andy is "The Self-Redeeming Man". This is his character, his identity, and his destiny.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Andy Dufresne, Shawshank, Identity

Shawshank Sunday V: Stoicism

The character of Andy Dufresne is depicted throughout as a Stoic. Not stoic in the colloquial (and often pejorative) sense of "unemotional, apathetic, cold", although it is reported that Andy is often perceived that way. For instance, it is implied in the story that Andy is found guilty largely due to the mechanical way which he related his testimony and reflected upon his wife's murder.

Aristotle observed that passions are a part of the human psyche, but insisted that reason rule the passions. Stoics simply put this observation as one of the highest priorities of their lives. One of the more interesting notes about Stoics was their relatively low regard for their own lives. That is, Stoics sought ataraxia, or inner peace, with the same interest, but not in the same way that Epicureans did: Stoics accepted reality as grim fatalists, while Epicureans sought pleasure and withdrew from society. Seneca committed suicide, and Stoics were not averse to the practice. The life of the self is held as but a speck of dust in the wind, an ember that burns in a breeze and slowly extinguishes and grows cold. The size of the universe gave Stoics a quite humble perspective upon the importance of their own lives. Most important out of these principles, whether you were consigned to live a life of slavery, as Epictetus was, or as an emperor, as Marcus Aurellius was...your life's value depended only upon your pursuit of virtue and inner peace.

Thus we come to Andy. Andy refuses to give in to the passions on many occasions. He is not a total ascetic, but we see when he wins the beers in his contest on the roof with Hadley, he chooses not to partake of them. Andy chooses, with a beatific smile, to reflect upon the ability he maintains to bring happiness to his friends, and the freedom that one can still feel despite prison walls. This same theme resurfaces with the playing of the Marriage of Figaro (Mozart)--the cost Andy will face in terms of punishment is more than compensated for by his own hope and freedom.

In retrospect, it is tempting to claim that Andy only was able to do these things because he was tunneling out of the prison. This claim is not supported by all the facts. In the book, more so than in the movie, Andy's vindication plays a huge role in his final desperate breakout. This comes much later in the story. The idea that his innocence, believed by no one, will finally be demonstrated, is enough to drive Andy to the brink of his sanity. We see his passions surface for the first real time, here. And we see that Andy values what he identifies as "my life" enough to elicit a passionate plea to the warden to help him get a new case. The warden, with much to risk, feels much safer with Andy behind bars.

Andy's life, he has shown us over and over, was never taken from him. He never lost his hope. He never lost his reason. He was still a man, albeit one who had been deeply scarred. So what life did he fear losing? Was Andy afraid? Was he angry? Both?

What was this passion elicited for? The hope that he maintained for his integrity to be vindicated. Andy was angry at injustice. It was not his own personal misfortune, no. He could not have held the hope, the freedom, that he held if he had not let go of the pathetic embrace of bitterness long ago over his misfortune, in true Stoic style.

Andy still maintained such a degree of character that he became enraged at the depth of the injustice and lack of moral fiber within the warden. The absolute lack of integrity within the icon of authority filled Andy with righteous indignation. Some would call it pride for an innocent man to hold so deeply to his own virtue, to not let it go, despite the perception of all those around him that he already had. I call it a noble philosophy--a love of wisdom.

Everything happens for the best, and you can usually expect the worst.

This is a Stoic ideal. The Stoics learned to roll with the punches of life, and Andy embodies this principle. Andy exemplifies redemption. He tells us that he was always "straight on the outside", before he came to prison. He tells us that he was a moral man. He implies that prison may have made him an immoral man, because he assisted the warden in his corrupt practices. But Andy took these lemons, drank their bitter nectar, pissed it out back into the pitcher, and saved it for a rainy day. It was raining on the day that Andy escaped from his prison--a place he was sent to for a crime he never committed. He threw that pitcher right in the face of the warden, and Hadley, on that rainy day.

Andy's love for justice, love of good for goodness' sake...they were redeemed.

He did not release wrath. He did not do what he did out of revenge. Andy Dufresne did so as his redemption. Andy was redeemed by exposing the corruption that he never allowed into himself. Andy was redeemed because he knew his virtue was never changed, and his innocence was never taken. The only way for Andy to purge himself of Shawshank entirely was to allow the light to mercilessly uncover darkness.

Andy's condemnation came from Shawshank, and his escape was a just redemption. Illegally escaping from a wrongful imprisonment is morally virtuous--to not do so is to abandon the will to live.

Andy Dufresne was a Stoic who redeemed himself. No one else would. No one else could.
________________
Technorati tags:
Stoicism, Shawshank, Philosophy

Shawshank Sunday IV: Jake's Anthro

Brooks Hatlen was an important part of the redemption story of Andy Dufresne. Brooks was, in many ways, Andy's antithesis. Brooks provided for us the contrast of what is was like to lose hope. It has been said that Brooks' crow, Jake, was meant to provide symbolism and possibly even link Hatlen to "the Birdman of Alcatraz." If one only watched the movie, and did not read the book, a deeper sort of symbolism would largely be lost on them.

When Brooks receives his parole, and tries to find a way to stay at Shawshank by threatening to kill Heywood, readers of Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption will have noted the departure from the King novella. A further departure from the source is found in the part that Jake plays in this movie.

While in the novella, Brooks finds the baby crow, nurses it back to health, releases it, and we find out what happened to Jake...this does not happen in the movie.

In both movie and novella, Jake could serve as an obvious symbol of freedom after captivity. But the consequence of captivity upon Jake can only be inferred from the book form of the story. In the book, Jake is found within the prison yard after his release...dead.

This is a realistic depiction of what would likely happen to a bird which was hand-fed and raised with no knowledge of predators or how to find food. It is also a realistic depiction of what happens to men who are institutionalized to the point that they do not know how to handle freedom. Prison can take away the ability to make a decision, to independently choose action without supervision or assistance.

The role that Brooks plays, as Andy's antithesis, is to show a man who lost his hope. Brooks does not believe that it can get better for him, and is "tired of being afraid".

Where Andy is the hero and Brooks his antithesis, Red's part falls between these two characters. Red will choose whether or not to hope, whether or not to go on after his institutionalization. But his choice is inextricably linked to our hero and to Brooks. The impact of both men is apparent in Red. Those familiar with the story know that Red chooses to hope largely due to a promise made to Andy--to go find the rock that he promised Andy he would find.

Red is almost the personification of Jake, but he "belongs to" Andy while Jake belonged to Brooks. While Brooks failed to instill the values Jake needed to survive before releasing him, Andy infused his own strength, character, and hope into Red. Just as what we nurture becomes dependent on us, Red came to a place where he realized the truth of Andy's words, and he needed to see his friend:

Red: I don't think you ought to be doing this to yourself, Andy. This is just shitty pipedreams. I mean, Mexico is way the hell down there and you're in here, and that's the way it is.

Andy: Yeah, right. That's the way it is. It's down there and I'm in here. I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'...Promise me, Red. If you ever get out, find that spot. In the base of that wall, you'll find a rock that has no earthly business in a Maine hayfield. A piece of black, volcanic glass. There's something buried under it I want you to have.

Red: [after Andy's escape and his own parole] All I do anymore is think of ways to break my parole so maybe they'd send me back. Terrible thing to live in fear. Brooks Hatlen knew it. Knew it all too well. All I want is to be back where things make sense. Where I won't have to be afraid all the time. Only one thing stops me. A promise I made to Andy...
Get busy livin', or get busy dyin'. That's god-damn right.

Red was able to choose to live because Andy gave him something that allowed it--hope.

Jake died because Brooks, codependent, made Jake just like himself--without the ability to make it on his own.

In that way, Red is like Andy's Jake. And when Andy released Red, he flew away free and lived.
________________
Technorati tags:
Hope, Faith, Shawshank

Shawshank Sunday III: Psychogeolothermodynamics

Andy is depicted as an isotherm. I am usually an adiabat. Let me explain...

Long before Andy received his rock pick to shape the rocks that he was collecting from the ground of the Shawshank yard, he was an isotherm. Red commented on how Andy appeared to the others as he collected his rocks:

He had a quiet way about him, a walk and a talk that just wasn't normal around here. He strolled. like a man in a park without a care or worry. Like he had on an invisible coat that would shield him from this place.

Red narrated, after the escape:

In 1966, Andy Dufresne escaped from Shawshank prison. All they found of him was a muddy set of prison clothes, a bar of soap, and an old rock hammer, damn near worn down to the nub. I used to think it would take six-hundred years to tunnel under the wall with it. Old Andy did it in less than twenty. Oh, Andy loved Geology, I guess it appealed to his meticulous nature. An ice age here, million years of mountain building there. Geology is the study of pressure and time. That's all it takes really, pressure, and time. That, and a big god-damned poster.

Prison is like a pressure cooker. And from the ideal gas law, pV = nRT, we know that when pressure is increased, if the volume of the container does not change, and if the amount of substance inside the container does not change (n), the temperature must increase.

Under pressure, I suppose we can all learn to expand our minds a bit, or give our souls room to grow. That takes some of the pressure off. Some containers expand more easily than others. But inside a prison for a crime you didn't commit, being raped by grown men, abused by officials...those things cause the mind and soul to atrophy.

So how did poor Andy not just break, like the other men? How is it he didn't meltdown? How is it he retained hope? Well, it is evident from his "invisible coat," and his insistence upon retaining hope (see Shawshank Sunday I or II), and identifying with his previous life through chess and teaching others...that Andy did not melt down. Further, the "invisible coat" he had on long before he knew he planned to escape the pressure cooker. He wanted the rock hammer to make chess pieces with, and it was fortuitous for him that the walls of his prison were old and cheap, and fortuitous for him that he was on an end unit of a cell block, and that he was a "pet prisoner" who avoided surprise inspections, and got to keep his poster up to cover his escape. He wanted the rock hammer just to keep his mind sane, in other words, but he got a lot more, and a lot of luck.

Take an airtight container with some fixed moles of gas at a given pressure, volume, and temperature. Put this container in a hydraulic press. Push the button to begin increasing pressure. Put your hand on the side of the container. It is warmer than it was before. If the container is an adiabat, it will exchange no heat with the surroundings. If the container is an isotherm, it will exchange the maximum heat with the surroundings, and reachieve the pre-work temperature.

Andy is depicted as an isotherm. I am usually an adiabat. Put us both under pressure, and we both feel the heat immediately. It is whether or not the heat dissipates that determines whether we have isotherms or adiabats.

Andy is like a scuba tank, placed into the water beside the boat, to be refilled with gas. If you don't put scuba tanks in the water to refill them, they will not exchange as much heat with the air as they would with the water. If you don't allow a container to exchange heat with the surroundings, it will be limited by the pressure it can withstand, (like a scuba tank, which has a given psi rating and gauge) and will not be able to hold as much substance as a container under the same pressure which is losing heat to the surroundings. So, tanks filled while immersed in water end up giving divers more air, and more time to dive.

Andy was put under great stress at Shawshank. He never lost hope. He never lost his identity. They never broke him.

Andy is just as susceptible to the pressure as all the other men. He is supposed to be human, as they are. The human container is of a universal material, and its contents may change in quality, but not in quantity.

Andy was able to release the heat generated from the pressure of prison. Red surmised, later on, that if things had continued as they started for Andy, working in the laundry and fighting off "The Sisters" all the time, that Andy would have eventually broken. But the warden learned of Andy's prior occupation, and put him in the library to put his gifts to use. Andy then had some lucky things going for him. But if his state of mind was not one which was open, and willing to hope, and bold, he would never have escaped. It is not enough that the luck happened. He was already an isotherm.

We are all adiabats at times, and isotherms at others. A container which is covered in Styrofoam is naturally adiabatic. A thin-walled container (or a container with a low heat capacity) immersed in a fluid is isothermal. Andy is fictional. We are not. In reality, no isothermal system can be thought of that is both well-insulated and able to exchange maximum heat. At times we need our insulation to protect us from the influences of our environment. Containers put under pressure, and with a simultaneously-raised surroundings temperature, do not last very long at all. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that heat exchange always proceeds downhill--if the container is not warmer than its environment, it needs to be insulated when put under pressure, or it will likely explode.

An interesting property of adiabats and isotherms can be seen in the density state plot versus temperature (see here)--it is the actualization of what Nernst said about the 3rd Law in 1906:

The entropy change of a system during a reversible isothermal process tends towards zero when the thermodynamic temperature of the system tends towards zero [Nernst 'principle'].

The ability to perform an adiabatic, gas compression-type process approaches zero as temperature approaches absolute zero. All processes become isothermal near 0K. Why? The 2nd Law. Heat will flow from the system outward to the surroundings when the surroundings are near 0K. It is impossible to do work upon a cylinder of gas (compress it) without raising the surroundings temperature near 0K.

Sometimes we need to prevent the surroundings from cracking us. Times of solitude and quiet, meditation and rest. Sometimes we need to get away from the high temperature of the surroundings, and insulation is the only way to protect ourselves.

Sometimes we need to remove this insulation, remove the thick walls that separate us from one another, immerse ourselves in others, and allow energy to freely exchange. If the surroundings are so damn cold, without energy, and we have some to spare...let Nernst's principle rule.
________________
Technorati tags:
Hope, Faith, Shawshank, Philosophy

Angels and Flakes (On My Shoulder)

Inspiration sometimes comes from the most unlikely of places. Those people we all know who seem to bounce from one religious persuasion to another, seemingly week to week, happened to serve as today’s inspiration. That’s right, religious flakes…they inspired me today.

The thought that hit me was this: those people are genuinely seeking something. Sure, my ultra-conservative friends might claim that what those people are seeking is really just a religion that suits them, that they are in some way running from the “absolute truth”, but when all is said and done, it cannot be denied that these people are seeking some way to worship and/or understand God. So why is this worth mentioning? Well, the premise that a God exists who genuinely wants to be found requires a bit of inspection in the face of the fact of these people’s existence.

Reading the Bible, there were a whole lot of people that really weren’t in the process of “seeking” God who were nonetheless apprehended by Him. I think of Moses, of Saul of Tarsus, of Peter fishing and Matthew collecting taxes. I think of so many people portrayed in the Bible as just going about their daily business, people interrupted by God. I won’t delve into how the God’s presence and revelation in the lives of people who didn’t seem to be inviting it seems to contradict the tenets of free will. What I want to focus on, though, is that this same appearance doesn’t seem to occur for so many “God chasers”.

My dad kept Tommy Tenney’s famous, “The God Chasers” in a little basket in the WC for convenient reading times. In it, the author’s major premise is that there are certain people who love to chase after God Himself, who turns around and allows Himself to be “caught” at times just as a dad playing with his child would. The picture Pastor Tenney paints is one of a loving God who loves to interact with His children.

This whole picture bothers me, as I think of the flakes in the world. I see so many of them praying with passion to their crystal, or through hands clasped on some icon/relic, and I see in them an authentic desperation to hear back from the One to whom they pray. They aren’t asking for a new Lexus, or for a miracle healing…they just want some validation that they are finally using the right method to talk to Him. But by the very fact that they bounce from place to place, and from the fact that such people exist at all, we can ascertain that God is not easily “caught”.

Ask for a little interaction from the Big Guy, and you’ll be told you are “tempting” (testing) God. Forget that God let Himself be tested by Gideon and Elijah and a bunch of other folks…those were the days “before the Holy Spirit”. Quite odd, isn’t it, that the HS doesn’t seem to suffice like a nice clear sign from the heavens for most folks?

Why is it that God freely offered Himself to people who were going along their daily lives without Him, but supposedly people who are asking God just to talk to them don’t get an answer because they are “tempting the Lord [thy] God”…? Does that make sense to anyone else?

Sooo…that is the angel speaking from my shoulder today, a little flake with a lot to say.

[Originally posted 10-13-2005 on my website.]
________________
Technorati tags: Faith, God