That's Just a Mental Health Issue

So many times this year we have encountered situations that have caused us to invoke the causal claim that, instead of pointing to something external from the source, or outside of the perpetrator's consciousness, we just say (to cover ourselves) "it's a mental health issue," and thus it must be ridiculous to suggest any contrary causal claim. Individual consciousness is a fragile thing; it doesn't take very much at all to cause upheaval in what is intended to be a "normal" development pattern.

If a college outcast lashes out against a house full of party goers, because, maybe he resents the pleasure and fun that those more socially accepted, popular kids are having, instead of pointing to the social caste system that inherently develops throughout the teenage years into early adulthood (for example), we just say... "well, it's a mental health issue." It is an interesting paradigm, one in which we are expected to understand the behavior of individuals based on a normative mental health condition. Are we even equipped to understand what a concept like mental health means? We live in a world where arbitrary norms are created based on qualities that society deems acceptable at the time. At some other time in history that normative claim was probably fundamentally different. Think women's rights and civil rights in general.

Are societal norms objective or normative claims, or are they arbitrary based on the current but ever changing zeitgeist? If social norms are arbitrarily created based on perceived value, then we are, without consideration, excluding large swathes of people from this "club" because they don't perceive societal norms in the same way. Then we are shocked when something extreme happens. We are so shocked that instead of trying to understand what might have caused the "issue" we marginalize the perpetrator and reduce the problem to "mental health."

When are we going to stop and ask the hard question... WHAT IS MENTAL HEALTH? What does it mean to be mentally healthy? Once we ask that question, we are going to have to confront some of the fundamental societal claims that just might turn out to be fundamentally problematic. We expect people to adhere to norms, then we turn around and exclude them from the very systems that exude those rules as norms in the first place. Undoubtedly, we can learn a great deal about what is wrong with society when we first examine the marginalized and undervalued. Some are there because of true mental health problems, indeed. Brain chemistry is a complex paradigm. But brain chemistry isn't a paradigm that exists in a vacuum. We aren't all, in an absolute sense, responsible for our brain's chemical and neuronal development.

Mass shootings, for instance, are horrific events that consume public consciousness when public consciousness is made aware of them. Many times, the causes are reduced to "mental health." Maladjusted people lash out against society because they weren't nurtured or prepared for societal interaction. But what does it mean to be prepared for social interaction? If there is even one discontinuous thread in a person's consciousness that causes them to resent society for ANY reason, it doesn't seem farfetched that even that one thread could cause an extreme reaction when there is so much inequity and materialistic shortsightedness to react to. We live in a society where the mainstream media forces down our throats what people ought to be doing with their lives, what they ought to look like, and what they ought to believe. Millions of people spend their entire lives unhappy because they are forced to try to live up to the exceptionalism portrayed by money mongers and media groups. Public consciousness is saturated by a capitalistic media culture that deliberately marginalizes large groups of people based on perceived normative value claims. Interestingly, we are then shocked when someone who doesn't fit the criteria for exceptional humanness lashes out against society because they never saw an outcome that would yield them that kind of acceptance. If all it takes is one thread of discontinuous development to cause an extreme reaction, then why is it a surprise when someone goes off the rails and unleashes hell on some socially accepted venue?

We are so quick to invoke "mental health" as the issue without defining what mental health consists of in the first place. For example, we live in a society where marriage is considered a social norm. As a result, everyone makes it their dream of young adulthood to find a partner to marry. Indeed, there are many financial and social benefits to marriage. But isn't there something awry, when marriages by a large percentage end up dysfunctional, and end up as a result in divorce? It doesn't take much time to examine the "mental health" literature to come to the conclusion that broken homes and split parentage is large cause of psychological dysfunction in children and young adults. This is just one primary example of what might cause a discontinuity in mental health, and yet, this is a social norm that we, as a whole, stress as a good thing; indeed, an admirable thing.

What of poverty? Societal inequality is a huge issue today, because it is becoming increasingly clear that a society driven by capitalistic incentives creates unreasonable demands on such a competitive society. As a result, there are large swathes of people that are left out of this incentive structure and are forced into potentially detrimental psychological territory. Again, if all it takes is one traumatic event for a psychological complex to react unfavorably to the society, then indeed, the marginalized and disgruntled are certainly prime for such extreme reactions.

I don't want to get caught in the trap of reductionism. It's very easy to reduce causal claims to outliers and extremes. Mental health is much too complex and dynamic than that as an issue. There are, indeed, cases where individuals grow up in what appear to be perfect developmental conditions, but end up on the wrong side of the normative value divide. What explains these cases? If a single trauma can cause upheaval in mental development, then it isn't enough to reduce all extreme issues to mental health, without pointing to the problem of mental health and specifically attempting to understand the cause.

The brain is so much more complex than our ideological biases can ever imagine. If one thinks society should be a certain way at the expense of certain people, it might be time to examine more closely what one calls "normal." And if one cannot agree on what normal is, then the onus is on all of us to think more closely and clearly before we start invoking the causal claim for ANYTHING as "mental health."

Stuck in the Loop: Pragmatic Idealism

When I was a young child, my perspective on life was very limited. Like most of us, I was focused on the things that made me happy. Because I was fortunate enough to have been planted in the socioeconomic dynamic that I was, I was able to exist in both a pragmatic and an idealistic paradigm. In some cases, a child is able to do what is necessary, and that necessity is the achievement of a kind of blind happiness. Adulthood turns this paradigm into a negative feedback loop for people like myself. Necessity as dictated by society does not make me happy, and yet, I am forced to engage in the loop in order to achieve some sort of happiness.

I continue to find it unacceptable that just because society deems it so, I must engage in what I consider ridiculous "work," primarily because that which I consider "work" is distinct in a very important way from the orthodoxy. Much like my youthful self, I am eager to merge the two paradigms, for happiness would just then be around the corner. When happiness becomes the necessity by virtue of achieving both goals, that is the both the ideal and the pragmatic working in tandem. I am not content to be a man of specific talent... a robotic self serving some external agenda by becoming locked into a mechanistic function. My utmost desire is to engage in what Emerson called Man Thinking, where the dictates of my actions serve and are served by the rigor of both my intellect and my activities as a human being in society. Society does not desire this sort of thing; indeed, this antiquated vocation has been forced into the abyss of academia; back into the underground corridors beneath the ivory towers; where above, those who desired something similar as myself find themselves shuffling about in the same mechanistic fashion as everyone else in the capitalistic drudgery. Yet, I find myself leaning in that direction, in spite of the hypocrisy afoot, because there is nothing else in the society that rewards one with the necessary dollar for something akin to Man Thinking.

Conversations with MV

2/4

TH: 

Is our system a system that expedites true specialization; or do we need a system that facilitates flexibility in thinking and knowledge, due to the pace of change in society?

It’s a question of the importance of specialization/non-specialization. The current paradigm is specialization driven. Is our system one of increasing specialization? Or, and this is what I’m thinking, it’s a way to help facilitate that flexibility in thinking while still orienting students toward what they have aptitude for/what the society “needs” at the time.

Indeed, I don’t think moving away from specialization in education is counter to our “idea.” I think it might actually be the crux of our idea.

My problem with this is simple: isn't it the case that precisely because the work force is changing, specialized degrees are ultimately counter-productive; wouldn't it be beneficial for the education system to facilitate developmental foundations and increasing understanding of personal aptitude, rather than in every field offer specialized degrees? Of course were going to need specialists in medicine for example, perhaps… but my job does NOT need a specialized degree. Your job doesn't necessarily need a specialized degree, but the overall ability to manipulate abstractions and understand patterns that operate within a certain legal framework. That doesn't require a specialized degree, necessarily. 

I don’t know… this all depends upon one’s view of the current system. I definitely think that it doesn't prepare people for the job market, because there is no incentive structure built into the education system from day one; rather, when people are interested in something that doesn't necessarily “pay,” they are discouraged and sent off to do something they would rather not do. I think the system should be oriented to help children and learners be helped along their path of aptitude to give them better understanding of their options when they are forced to choose a specialized path.

But we need to define what we mean by specialized. Because an education path that caters to something very specific, as you said, could become futile with a chance technological innovation. Perhaps the primary MAJORS in our system should be the general foundational majors, and the specializations should be addendums that utilize the virtues of the general majors.

I think the system requires reform. It’s a potential paradox: specialization is a difficult problem. I’m torn on how I feel about this. In one respect, the system is effective in sculpting people into agents with specific functions; though I’m not so sure increased specialization is the answer. However, there seems to be some intuitive problem with the way the system gives people too much freedom to choose degree programs and specializations that the society either does not want or does not need. 

How do we balance? On the one extreme, we force people into specializations. On the other, people are given complete freedom. (There are many questions here, obviously). We fall in the middle, recognizing that specialization is necessary, but we are arguing for a more efficient way to train people into fitting into specializations that the market might be pulling them towards.

I still agree with our system’s structural principle. There needs to be a better way of creating an informed, effectively influential populace. The system should work to improve itself, not degrade under the weight of the burden of too much freedom. It’s an odd paradox: complete freedom is too extreme. Our early childhood education should be a process to facilitate aptitude, to lead learners through a process toward specialization that they can be passionate about. 

Yeah… after reflection, it’s a drastically more difficult problem than I imagined initially. But I still think it is worth exploring this idea; of reforming the education system to allow for more wherewithal for the kids. More awareness of their own strengths not thrust into a world of almost randomness. 

MV: 

I think our system increases specialization in some capacity.  The issue I've been debating in my head today is how well our system would work with a changing work force.  Our system is designed around the idea of getting rid of generic degrees.  So instead of being an English major, you major in some major field (legal document writing) and then minor in English.  What happens if legal document writing becomes automated then?  The specific degree is now completely worthless......while a more ambiguous, generic degree in English would retain value.  Perhaps.  However, the argument for our system is that once you are an experienced worker - your degree means less and less anyway.  So someone with an English degree and 10 years of specialized work experience is essentially pigeon holed anyway.  The specificity of the education does amplify this which creates a lack of flexibility in the work force which can create economic problems at a macro level under certain circumstances.  

It is an interesting discussion.  Specific education would help our current situation because it would help get you into a job.  However, specific education would have killed the economic boom of the 90's.  So when designing a system, we must consider far more than our current situation.  

Well, aptitude and education are separate.....and then they are not.  Upon reading your thoughts I immediately thought - well, if we had a reliable means with which to gauge aptitude then why do we need advanced education at all?  If you major in something broad, then a business will have to train you to teach you the specifics.  What is the point of the degree then?  Why not just have the business hire based on aptitude and teach the specifics that it would otherwise have to teach anyway?  

It seems to me that the major function of education, in the current system, is to rank people.  I can judge a person’s aptitude based on how highly ranked their school is and their GPA.  I know a person who majors in finance will have a higher aptitude with numbers than a person who majored in English.  The current system allows for that type of thinking, from the perspective of the hiring agent.  The hiring agent can also assume a basic understanding of the specific systems in place.  I know a finance major will understand a few basic principles that an English major probably won't have knowledge of.  So aside from ranking people, a degree provides some very basic value.  But it seems like the primary point is the rank people. 

Perhaps the question then is, when you say that our current system doesn't prepare someone for the job market - how would a less specialized system do any better?  It seems to me that the only way to prepare someone for the job market more efficiently is to become MORE specialized......which then runs the risk of being incapable of adaptation to technology.  

Also - while our jobs don't need degrees.....someone with a finance degree would be significantly more likely to have an aptitude for my job than someone with a different degree.  There are exceptions, but hiring is based on probability.  The problem with higher education is that there are degrees where aptitude is unclear and probabilities are impossible so these majors are often ignored.  An English major might have aptitude in what?  Organization of ideas?  Creativity?  Operating within a defined rule set (grammar)?  Reading comprehension?  It is too vague of a concept.  Finance is more concrete so it is easier for hiring agents to understand it.  The problem still remains, to help an English major and a hiring agent find some kind of link where they understand each other - you have to make the degree less vague and therefore more specialized.  

The basic link is that hiring agents want a specific skill set (or aptitude in a specific area) so they are looking for education that speaks to that specific skill set (or aptitude).  The specificity of employment demand seems to warrant MORE specific education.  

To create less specific education would create a more adaptable work force; however it would make the problem of hiring even more of a problem.  A balance must be struck between the two ideas.  You need a work force with specific knowledge but also flexible enough to survive innovation.  

I still argue that solving the problems of today would require more specialization.......however I also think this would cause problems in the future.   

So I am less convinced today that our idea is a good one.  

Well maybe not.  Our system would guide people of a certain aptitude into a customized education that fits their skill set (intellectual strengths).  This would make the assumptions that employers already make increasingly accurate.  

At the back end (the college level), the idea would be to get rid of majors that have no employable value.  However, building that curriculum into majors that have employable value.  For instance, business school does this already.  You go into a business school because you think you like business admin - you end up specializing in marketing, finance, accounting, strategy etc. The degree is both broad and focused at the same time. 

I guess social science majors would have to get pulled into the appropriate degree (teaching, econ and perhaps a handful of others) and then what we know now as English, Philosophy, history etc. will be more meaningful minors.  So you will end up with a specialized degree because the minor will have meaning, but the degree will remain broad because of the major. So someone with a degree in Econ with a minor in history will have a broad understanding of econ with a solid basis in history.  This isn't really any different than today's system, however we are basically guiding students better and getting rid of degrees with no employable value.  

Perhaps the weakness in today's high school system is that someone with an aptitude for social science does not have access to more employable subject matter.  There are really no econ classes in high school so a student might fall into an English major simply because they haven't had the exposure to econ or another subject that the same aptitude levels would apply towards.  

However, by limiting the choices of college degrees......we are forcing some level of specialization; however it isn't so specialized that it is restrictive.  We know that econ will be a meaningful degree as long as humans engage in exchange of goods (the foreseeable future).  English is a broader degree, but it is too broad.  

I don’t know, maybe the current system isn't so bad as long as we simply got rid of the degrees that have no employable value and improved the k-12 experience.  

2/5:

TH:

Such an interesting discussion yesterday.

I have many thoughts, though hashing them out in any structured way will be difficult. First of all; why are we intent on reforming the education system in the first place? Does it not work as it is? I don’t think it works as it could work. Further, what evidence is there that suggests the current system doesn’t work as well as it could? Is the evidence based on assumptions we are making about society at large? I think that is probably a large part of it. However, our views on the way society functions are probably fairly different, though they converge on many points. My problem right now is that I can’t stop my brain from zooming way out and looking “down” over the system; the problem area(s) start with education; but why? Because it seems there are way too many futile, unproductive people in the world. Part of that is because of the system. The system gives people the freedom to pursue their own ends. If their ends do not conform to the goals of the system, their ends are often out of reach; the primary example of this problem is what you’ve focused on already: degrees. Fruitless degrees yield no fruit; not because in and of themselves they are fruitless, but because the system is oriented in such a way as to not reward people for the skills they obtain from those degrees. This is a systemic problem; the problem thus, for me, is simply this: the system is a material condition of great complexity that is determined by what it desires… production and sustainability. Whatever the results of those desires are (greater efficiency in manufacturing, better technology, better service industry, etc etc); people pursue degrees to fit into a structure that ideally facilitates some goal within that paradigm. If that is the only paradigm, then the education system must be restructured to facilitate that goal.

However, perhaps society needs reformation on a very general level. Perhaps productivity and sustainability are going through a paradigm shift; with increases in technology (as we’ve mentioned), many jobs are no longer in existence. The demand for specialization will maintain itself, but the specialization needs to be more “broad” in scope; that is, people need to be prepared to work many types of jobs over time, and perhaps no longer think in terms of long term, single job lives. Degree programs should specialize in creating a broad skillset that focuses on certain disciplines. Our major/minor distinction is important here; if, for example, an individual emerges from our new education system with a focus in finance and economics; his skills should also have developed in such a way as to orient him toward policy implementation and political ethics/morality. Education shouldn’t mold someone into a niche, because society is necessarily a changing entity; in virtue of its complexity, and the drastic increase in technology advancement, our understanding of the world is shifting. People should be trained to be flexible, to be able to work many kinds of jobs.

I’ve run out of time, but yeah…  

MV:

Well, one thought I suppose is that the education system is not the issue.  People are the issue so therefore to fix the "problem", which will need to become a defined term, we will need to somehow provide means with which to fix people. 

I think I've used this line of thinking before - but economics majors and business majors are a great example.  There are econ/biz majors that land in those fields simply "because", and those people typically land in low paying, meaningless jobs.  Then there are econ/biz majors that have a true passion for the field and they end up with more meaningful and better paying work.  There are multiple layers to this of course.  People with "passion" could simply be harder workers or less lazy or more intelligent or from the right background with the right parents and the list goes on and on.  That is the complexity to this.  How do you disect that onion and determine what factors are the difference between the person with "passion" and the person without?  And then how do you manipulate those factors to increase the pool of people who have a "passion"?

A seperate issue is the issue of people having a passion for education that has no employable value.  You are the prime example of that.  Philosophy has no employable value when compared to other majors, however you are gifted with it and have a passion for it.  So how did the system fail here?  Is it a failure that a philosophy degree exists?  Perhaps there is a failure of expectations.  People who major in degrees such as this should be warned quite severely that the employability of the degree is essentially zero.  The degree can exist for people who have the time and money to pursue it, not for people who are primarily focused on education as a means into the work force. 

However, I'm willing to bet that another failure is present in the system in regards to these types of degrees.  I'm thinking that many individuals who end up in these degrees are people who end up "lost" in the system.  You gravitate towards something that you find comfortable.  English.  History.  Philosophy.  Art.  These are things that could easily be hobbies for many people and there is a comfort there.  Comfort does not neccesarily mean a level of aptitude.  However, if you are a mediocire highschool student that enjoys writing then you may just wind up as an english major because that is your comfort zone.  It also does not exclude aptitude.  These degrees seem aptidudely ambigious to me.  There are infinite reasons for people to gravitate towards "comfort" degrees.  ADHD, depression, lack of guidance, lack of exposure to other subjects, lack of understanding of one's own self, lack of understanding of the job market etc etc etc.  Having a system that addresses these problems is also infinitely challenging. 

HOWEVER - it seems to me that one of the biggest areas of concern is the lack of guidance provided to young people.  This might be a paradigm shift.  In the past - the family was a stronger core unit and it seems to me that it is possible that the responsability of guidance is shifting from the household to the "system".  I'm biased towards my own life of course.  I received a lot of guidance from my parents/brothers/relatives/friends/friends parents etc.  It is most likely that this social structure I grew up in is what fostered my mentality towards work and education.  I'm driven towards things because I've been focused on them since a young age and that focus derived from the environment I grew up in.  It seems more and more likely that this environment must be provided by the "system" because the family is no longer capable of providing this is many cases. 

Which leads is into more of a political science and philosophy (with perhaps law and history) discussion of the role of government and society?  I'm not really interested in going down that path because it seems less practical (by means of being more outside our level of influence).  The point is that I'm becoming less convinced that the education structure is the root issue.  There seems to be more of a macro-societal inefficiency.  The question then is - is the inefficiency a chronic problem or is it just the result of constant change?  Whenever there is change there will be inefficiency.  It is inherent and acceptable.  We went through massive change as a society in the past 20 years and I think society is struggling to evolve.  The issue for us then is what ideas do we have to aid that evolution?  What future do we envision and what type of tactical actions are neccesary to ensure a safe transition into the future?  

TH: 

Very nice.

All very good points. It is a truism that the people are the problem – That is always the case, simply because people make up the society. This is my biggest focal point in philosophy of society, etc… The system is comprised of people, and people influence the system. However, we are at a point in history, if you will, in which the system is so entrenched that it is very difficult for the people, in the strict sense, to alter its course; rather, it is now bound up by the influence of larger, more influential entities. These are obvious points to make; but it is important to acknowledge that the education system is one of those entrenched institutions that pushes back hard against change precisely because those “larger entities of influence” have their grips on it.

Education as a system is perhaps the wrong way to go about it then, or rather, the wrong lens through which to examine the problem and offer a solution. Perhaps education ought to encompass a wide range of learning that, as you mentioned, pervades the home and the family, and creates conditions for people who didn’t grow up with rich family influence (rich in the qualitative sense… not money). However, we encounter the issue of the age old debate; freedom vs government/institutional intervention. It’s a problem with the kind of complexity that inherently exists in the system.

We grew up in completely different situations. I grew up with no direction whatsoever. I was allowed to make my own way without the kind of guidance that facilitated good, preparatory decisions. And I’m dealing with the consequences of my upbringing every single day. You’re right though; regardless of the environment, in some sense, aptitude is often able to persevere through influence; it’s just that the aptitude of an individual can be utilized in ways that do not facilitate sustainability for the individual and thus, right on down the generational line. Of course there are ways to break that chain, but yes, that is most definitely the issue in our society. Families no longer, in a broad sense, “guide” their children along a certain path, but rather, for many sociological reasons--parents work more and harder, are more distracted by media and technology, are also products of the same kinds of families that didn’t guide their children… etc—and as a result there are generations of children in the same boat as me, and, perhaps these are too broadly generalized to be verifiable, but perhaps not as many children like you who grew up with that rich family influence that guided you to where you are.

You’re right, these are very complex philosophical and sociological problems. Indeed, all social science disciplines are needed to understand these problems. Which brings me to my next point:

If the problem is inherent in the system, and the system is composed of families who do not facilitate the kind of developmental setting that helps children become “agents,” as it were, and as such people find themselves in degree programs that either don’t satisfy them existentially, and thus create wealth but not health, or they find themselves in the job market with “unemployable” degrees, and perhaps do not have the material conditions necessary to facilitate happiness and wealth; then there is something to be said about these unemployable degrees that ought to be used to help explore and understand the conditions through which these problems emerged. In a lot of ways, we encounter a negative feedback loop – because our system demands the kind of degrees that in a lot of ways, sustain the very problems – more work to obtain more specialized degrees, more hours on the job, less family time--- etc etc.

Yeah… I wish I had more time to sustain my trains of thought, but I’m constantly interrupted due to my unfulfilling job that I have only to make money that my unemployable degree landed me.

MV: 

Look at you defending your unemployable degree haha.  Well played sir. 

I think the family vs society thing is the real issue.  Arielle has an associates degree and finds herself in a very "employable" state of being.  She also had that rich family upbringing that you discussed.  It seems based on this microcasm that the upbringing trumps the degree, regardless of degree type or field. 

It should also be noted that we are making very broad sweeping generalizations.  A specialized degree does not neccesarily mean more time spent at work and less family time.  I think we may be both putting too much weight on degrees in general.  You spend 4 years in college and 40+ years working.  The degree leads to a job and acts as a first step down a path, however there are countless other steps in a human life. 

Specifically - I'm thinking about the problem you brought up.  The system demands degrees that do not focus on adjustments to the system.  However - it seems to me that a 4 year degree could not possibly prepare someone to make adjustments to the system.  It is more likely that someone would have to spend 20 years studying the system to really understand it.  These types of people would likely have advanced degrees + advanced work experience. 

So my new question - when weighing the grand scale of a human's life - how important is the degree choice?  

TH:

Good questions.

Interesting. This goes back to how our discussion began in College Park. The assumptions we make based on value determine whether or not something has any inherent “worth” to society. Quite literally too; if the market devalues something, it’s because the “agents” that act within the market determine that valuation assumption. So weighting degree choices on a subjective spectrum influenced by sociocultural/sociopolitical/market-driven assumptions is difficult to do beyond merely pointing what dominates the professional milieu.

The grand scale of a human life includes how one is oriented professionally, personally, etc and their attitude/feeling in regards to that orientation. A degree, in our society, either situates someone effectively toward pursuing some goal (namely, income which allows for the pursuit of basic needs), or does not situate them effectively at all toward those goals. The way the system exists now, it seems obvious. But I guess it depends on your view of our society, politically/culturally. Is it successful? Is the economic crisis evidence that it is not successful/efficient?

All these factors and more play into it. So a reformation of the education system might be a process worth considering depending on where you fall intellectually in this labyrinth of conditionals.

Yeah. So we may not have anything to contribute at all; regardless, thinking about social well being and political efficacy and cultural success through the lens of education reform is interesting. 

MV:

I think this discussion is more interesting from the lens of "how did we get to where we are now?".  And it seems, efficient or not, the system makes sense based on the questions we are asking.  It makes sense in the sense that it seems to have followed a logical evolutionary path, not in the sense that it is the best system one could imagine.  There is this constant balancing act between financial motivation and intellectual motivation.  Between specialization and generalization.  Between the demand for jobs and the demand for quality of life.  The balancing act, when looked at through the lens of education, is seen fairly clearly which is why I agree that it is an interesting lens.  Seeing something clearly doesn't make it any less complex of course, but it does seem helpful in understanding the system. 

I think education is somewhere in the middle of the "process" of a human life, which is why it provides a nice 360 degree view.  Your childhood environment will, to a certain degree, dictate what field you choose to study in.  All the numerous factors, your parents occupation, your friends, your lifestyle, your income bracket.....those will dictate your interests.  Of course - at the macro level, there are always exceptions.  So your environment --> education --> career.  Education being in the middle gives a solid understanding of the push/pull between all other facets of life.  The system essentially enables/inhibits the flow of one human through this process.  In theory, the best system would ensure the best environment, allowing one to have the most effecient education and go on to have the most meaningful career (based on self actualized value, not money). 

The difficulty lies in how vast the system is.  Having a bad relationship can throw off this process.  Should the system account for that somehow?  Having a child, having a car accident, having a death in the family, moving, etc etc.  There are so many variables.  It can be reasonably said that it is impossible for a system to account for all of them.......so therefore the system must decide which variables it should/can control and which it should/can ignore. 

This brings us back to the role of government, simply because in our current situation it seems likely that government is the only agent powerful enough to effect the system.  Of course, the government agent is an agent made up of many agents.  To become one of those agents you must go through the system, which seems to bias certain environments, educations and careers into the path towards agency.  Therefore, our agents (assuming they act morally), are making decisions based on their own biased, limited knowledge of the system which is likely to have a complete lack of diversity in thought and background. 

So the original idea, at the macro level, was to find a kink in the system that would throw society out of this negative feedback loop.  Changing the environment is unlikely, because it requires agents to choose to do so and the negative feedback loop blocks this.  This CAN be done at a micro level by motivated individuals and groups, but would likely be more grassroots than systemic.  Education could do this, however we run into the problem of the balancing act (paragraph 1). 

Perhaps, instead of having specialized education accross the board......we have a focused plan for civil service.  We identify individuals who have certain aptitude towards the skill set required in policy making and allow them an option that provides a clear path into government.  Ideally, we create a government agent that is representative of the population as a whole. 

No-Place Like Utopia

This is a world of microcosmic obscurity and macrocosmic uncertainty. On the one hand, we can analyze the specific workings of a minor institution, determine why it is necessary, what it's purpose is supposed to be, how it functions, and whether or not it fulfills that purpose. On the other, we can examine the grandiose, and see patterns supposedly emerge from overwhelming data sets quantized by super computers and monitors.
In both cases, we are bewildered to find that numbers at the same time do not lie, and lack the virtue of true prescience. Yet, we proceed to make bold assumptions concerning very liberty-sensitive subjects. How can we do this confidently? Are we so bold?

A utopia would require, first of all, a technological infrastructure that comes as close as possible to that prescience virtue mentioned above. Secondly, it would require a means through which to enable positive eugenics without humanitarian atrocities. These two demands are inescapable problems, but at least with respect to the former, we can somewhat safely bring that condition to life as a thought experiment. Regarding the second notion, well, we must be so bold as to posit a system that enables eugenics... It's as simple as that.

One must keep in mind that Utopia is a word that really means "no-place," and to proceed with the abundant cognition that such no-place can never come to pass as long as it portends to express true utopianism is paramount, so long as the utopian writer desires to "try out" controversial ideas in the societies.

A concern to be addressed is the fact that utopianism is an ideal set of conditions hinged on ideological constructs. Such constructs are both the necessary enabling conditions and the major factors of conflict in any diversified society. One cannot make the claim that eugenics is necessary without some notion of the "pure" or actual elite person. One must acknowledge the ideological ruse a utopian espouses when his ideas encroach upon human heterogeneity. There are some preferred features the utopian requires in order to trust his agents in his no-place. Those features will necessarily exclude large swaths of people. As a result, the interested reader must be willing to render very real ethical problems into the abstract, see them as problems to be solved in a later iteration of the system and allow the ideas themselves to come together.

We all exist within boxes, connected to clusters of other boxes that we either voluntarily participate in or involuntarily are associated with simply in virtue of our existence. It is thus impossible to attempt a utopia without attempting to maintain a universe within which those boxes are allowed to persist. We mustn't do away with our ethical sensibilities, but we must be able to do away with certain "beliefs-because-they've-always-been-the-case." Ideology is both dangerous and inevitable, we must account for its influence in such a way that assumes it's effect on agents in the society, and engineer an approach to directing that effectiveness.

Ideology and Repression: Obstructions to Moral Evolution

Reading Foucault, I came across a notion regarding ideology and repression as "universal skeleton-keys" (commonly used jargon that describes specifics in meaning regardless of the nature of the dialectic) which maintain as entities subject for intellectual reproach; surrounded in negativity. That is to say, one's Ideologies or Ideological foundations are looked at as antitheses of "truth" in science, philosophy, etc. Similarly, repressed phenomena within an individual's psychological makeup are very seldom seen as things of a positive nature; rather, they are the very things that may be working incognito to bring about the downfall of the individual.

However, it seems to me that if one were to view Ideology and Repression in the same light, under the same lens of analysis, it is more a natural progression to conclude that perhaps, one is simply the mask for the other. Whereas Ideology seems to be an overriding "view of one-in-the-world" from that one's perspective, taking into account all past experiences, learned and instinctive; it seems also to be, in perhaps more respects that I can deduce presently, a disguise, or a mask for the very things one represses (based on those world-views and nurtured belief systems). Freud's psychoanalytical approach to psychology sought to unearth, as it were--to excavate those repressed memories, fears, desires, etc...

It is interesting to consider, even if the notion ultimately fails to stand on its own, the idea that perhaps, the things human beings repress are essential to the characterizations and evolution of what, in their internal/external world-views, become Ideologies as such. That is to say, what one presumes to know as truth based on a preconceived ideological notion, may merely be the inversion, and/or negative-repression presented in "belief form." Foucault is regarding the two concepts in relation to their effect on power, and knowledge, and the force the two as symbiotic entities have over individuals and the societies they subsequently belong to. If it is the case then, it is no wonder that, as stated in Foucault’s Truth in Power, “Repression is a concept used above all in relation to sexuality;” it is indeed no wonder that notions of civil rights for people of different sexual orientations are such a problem that still divides the Western world.

In this light, one’s ideology is revealing itself through the very fears being repressed. Conservatives and religious people hide behind their ideologies so they never actually have to make an informed decision on civil rights for individuals who differ from them; their ideology becomes the disguise—the mask—of the very thing being repressed. When I say “disguised,” that isn’t to say that one is casted away in some metaphysical dimension separated in some spatial/temporal dimension, or “hidden from view,” but rather a blockade of sorts--an obstruction that hinders progression in regards to whatever contingent set of problems that society is attempting to resolve or explain.

Beyond sexuality though, it seems as though this notion pervades many problems that societal structures shake and rattle as a result from. Under what circumstance does one usually come to face the fears that have so restricted one’s growth, in virtue, in moral goodness? Usually those things that bring under heavy scrutiny their ideological foundations; those root beliefs that fix—weigh on the shoulders from birth—the individual maintains through repressed fears because of the “comforts” the ideology brings in allowing one to essentially avoid the very things that cause those fears, or those weaknesses in character that prevent such growth. The seeker of truth, the philosopher, the writer, the explorer of the arts, it seems to me, has a more efficient capacity to reveal these repressions and therefore, as autonomous, reasonable individuals, bring the light those faulty and potentially character-weakening ideological super-structures that so prevent societies from evolving out of bigotry and hatred.

Capitalism as well, seems to be an entity of the same nature. Rather than face up to its weaknesses (creating competitive living environments whereupon the ultimate goal of the individual is to essentially one-up his neighbor in order to receive more money), it hides in a sense behind its ideological framework (undoubtedly driven forth by its constituent actors) creating the grounds for shortsighted, fear-driven obstructions to the progressive well being of the citizenry writ large. Governments are afraid to reveal their own repressive weaknesses and continue to hide behind their own un-evolved predilections of what is “best.” Perhaps the solution lies in the very “crises” sweeping the planet. Perhaps the world as we know it is having its mirror-image reflected back on itself, revealing the very flimsy and nonsensical repressions that create the ideologies that so usurp the creative and positive power of the human world.

Thoughts: art, philosophy, language, existence

When creation takes over; when harmony and rhythm reach a synergy, fresh reality is born. Philosophical systems are a certain synergistic phenomenon. They all utilize the same principles of language upon which established frameworks maintain a semblance of stability. Arts reflect emotion from agent to super-agent -- the true artist creates the mirror while looking into it; the true thinker questions what the mirror reveals. Philosophers of Art use channels of analysis that seem to penetrate mere subjectivity, but if that were truly the case, the interpreter of the piece of art is essentially a Philosopher of Art. There is thus a line that can be distinctly drawn between the two. The philosopher engages with a work of Art and enjoys it aesthetically, or not. Given that the piece of work was able to "connect" the viewer to its impetus, the interpretive engines are ignited; art simply requires this. Even if one gets complete satisfaction existentially from their own work, locking it into a fire-proof safe for no one to ever see but the combination holder; without a modicum, at least, of interpretive "space," the product becomes a lesser thing. By virtue of its resistance to outside interpretation, it contains no "meaning" except what the artist may, or may not have intended to express through the work itself. Thinking reflexively, the philosophical Mind essentially creates Art; when he or she finally chooses to "open the safe" as it were, to stand up to the required scrutiny of the "Other," what once was a mere "lesser thing" becomes a thing-with-its-own interpretive space. Perhaps I'm risking the regresses of Platonism slightly, or my Emersonian "youth" is peaking through, but I'd venture to say that harmonic synergy, or rhythm: when things just seem to be "perfectly in order," touch upon an Ideal, pre-rational, a priori; entities of the metaphysical shine through with aesthetic perfection, or simple "Goodness" when such synergy is created and sustained. Plato "participated" in his Ideal as much as he could, drafting Ideals in concentric circles around one another with a Pureness in the center. Yet, the "center" of a circle is also the "center" of a square, or a number, or a mountain, or a scale, or a solar system, or a universe, or a mind... What are these things we create then? Are they existential "eruptions," manifestations representing the subjective, representing for the interpreter? Mere ideas and music, visually descriptive paradigms, cinematic, illustrative phenomena, from a center, to a center...? Might not they just be centers, or sources... cruxes? Are we all the same then regardless of our character differences, our sensibilities, our temperaments? Is there "truth" in a "name?"


The greatest thing about being human is having the ability to be human. 

 

November 11, 2009 

Meditations and pleadings

Spectral, deserved, driven by the mind killer, reverberating fleetingly; enlivened by exceedingly desperate exactitude; grossly misinformed and vastly uncontainable, this. I grow weary. And yet the only impetus approaching all horizons resounds, "press on, carry forth."

I'm here because hope is thriving, but here is not, paradoxically, where this hope is aroused. (The beginning and end of one ripple gives life to the awareness of an overwhelming connectivity; we may not be destined; but we are an exemplar for ourselves and our future.)

I spend my time engaged in myriad forms of reflection. The only true energy exerted from within me is oriented toward the understanding of... my Self. Soul enrichment; virtue cultivation; character development. Why fear knowledge? Wisdom? Language? I pray you not to mistake such endeavors as ego-encompassed thralldom. Virtues coat the underside of all outwardly ventures. Companionship is a virtue; or friendship of a truer, finer nature. Love and compassion intertwined between souls is our common virtue. "The only way to have a friend is to be one." Conrad wrote of common fate, of the tragic underbelly of our mutual-destiny.

The only path is the path ahead. I seek love now, as well as the future: "Yet a man may love a paradox, without losing either his wit or his honesty." I cannot be content with desolate cascading droughts of insincerity; the elusive agility of simple confidence, in potential amorousness, flourishing in Dreams only. There is more glistening Beauty than is contained in a night of gazing into the cosmos; traversing a township of sorts where all commune for knowledge, every shift of my awareness brings into view the ever expansive, inwardly motivated, desire for real growth; new gardens from which Eden did not fear the sweetness of the fruit, but eagerly pursued its liquid wisdom despite threats from invisible bullying apparitions. Each shift of awareness casts away evil for a time. Too many; yet no one.

Most are ripped from their stagnation by Fate's swinging fury; I will not be dragged along unawares. One must choose. It is no longer acceptable to be led astray by fleeting passions; we all bottle our own raging temptresses... our own casks of wailing tempests. Proximity is a ghastly deception; disillusioned by one claim or another, one portrayal of the Unknowing as if the fanfares and triumphant victories are merely shades of a grander monstrosity.

"How does one kill fear, I wonder? How do you shoot a spectre through the heart, slash off its spectral head, take it by its spectral throat?"

Do not fear the intimations that keep you glancing.

Each glance chips away, slowly, the layers of my being.

I hope to soon be unprotected and free.

February 7, 2010 

What Went Wrong?

The universe must be a composition from a Perfect Mind, removed from the poison and pettiness that limits human innovation; a cosmic second encompasses and sustains into infinite futures the quality of life exceeding the collected works of every genius to ever stroke a brush, pluck a string or deliver oratory. The thinking of one human might approach such mastery, but any terrestrial approach is rather like the romantic traveler heading into the horizon, for which there is no destination, only a confounded, admirable, perpetually stubborn traversing of distance and time; indeed, therein resides the uniqueness and Beauty of the humanity we all possess. What went wrong?

What happens when the rest of the world gets a smart phone with internet access?

Imagine this... a global economy that resembles our current one is functioning, faultily in many respects, but the engine is indeed churning away; adding new consumers/investors all the time; the market is indeed sustained by the need to devote most of its energy in attracting consumers to specific products... then, 2 billion new consumers enter the marketplace.

It isn't quite the same as imagining a local or mid sized retail chain getting flooded with 1000% increased foot traffic, because a global economy works with current and potential inventory; just the notion of that many new eyes alone would spawn efforts to increase market presence. Signaling to your product becomes at least more active, and the demand for new products, increases by sheer awareness increases from those newly considered consumers.

The economic arguments are usually shrouded in pessimissim regarding human nature, and a cynicism about how human beings are going to handle, collectively, such a flux in status quo. I submit that this potential scenario does not lose its luster simply because people might screw it up. I will try my best to argue for a scenario that results itself in lieu of current assessments on human nature (whatever the hell they actually are).

Think back to when you first discovered the internet. I was probably 8 years old; I would goto my sister's house and play video games on their PC. Old, original DOS games mostly. Then, suddenly, they would, before letting me sit down to play, connect their computer vizaviz AOL to the internet, and allow me access to a search engine and chat rooms. I was instantly enamored. What happens when you give an 8 year old today, access to a fairly up to date interface through which to access the internet. Ancient Android operating systems, with their youth, are stable and functional enough to sustain repeated use and intrigue the curious.

Again, I think it's convenient and lazy to a certain degree to simply respond with an argument that hinges upon the historical precedent that humans will likely just screw it all up. Either the power elite will snatch and control this opportunity in fear that too many people with access to information is a danger to the state (which is a likely point of concern for those in power, I'm sure), or people just won't be that interested in the technology because they are somehow not smart enough, or enlightened enough, or educated enough. And indeed, a state responding with control manuevers rather than expansion strategies are probably going to do that in order to stop access to unwanted information. All this really can go without saying, in my opinion, for the implications to the contrary (even if not ultimately optimistic) are considerable, even if the outcome turns out to be a negative one on a moral level.

Think of a society of evil rulers controlling the internet; then think of its contrary... an internet-connected global economy with 6 or 7 billion active participants; I'm confident in the intrigue.

Mysterious Epistemology and Metaphysics part 1

It is probably impossible to convince me of anything. The reason is rather simple. I cannot trust the efficacy of any mechanism that requires itself to understand itself. As a result, I cannot trust, truly, anything that the mechanism claims to understand. Yet, this is itself one of many paradoxes one arrives at following this line of logic.

Yet, it may not be a problem at all. In fact, I'm inclined to think that this infinite conundrum could be the very essence of the evolution of any being that uses a mechanism comparable to our own. In light of this, perhaps I should define this mechanism... (indeed, there are already many terms I must attempt to define to try to render anything I've already said, and anything I will henceforth say into any clarity whatsoever). I will try first then to define the said mechanism, commonly referred to as "mind."

The human mind is a mechanism that wields reason as its weapon in the fight between itself and reality. The battle is waged with interpretation (or perception, though these two terms are generally distinct) and is ostensibly the means to reality's end. The "end" of reality is that which one perceives as reality. It isn't hard to see the circularity inherent in this definition; I'm afraid you will have to set aside your qualms with circular thinking in order to attempt a charitable grasp at what I'm trying to articulate. Mind is thus that which contains reason. Any notion of "mind" beyond that is merely suggesting something different than I am in this instance. Of course, we are beholden to the assumptions we make, and such assumptions are merely the interpretations of our mind-using-reason.

Reality is thus the result of the battle between mind and reality. I like the describing it as a battle for, if anything, an entertaining reason; societies are doomed if they do not determine what is considered reality for most in the society, for they would then be forced to concede to any or all interpretations, and would therefore have no basis upon which to establish codes of conduct and rules of law (relativism). There are indeed problems with this formulation, but we must try to do away with certain things in principle, and allow how things operate in practice to be sufficient frameworks within which to operate.(Not all reality is created equal of course. If this is your argument against what I've said so far, I must implore you to allow the argument to unfold). Mind makes reality, reality is codified, societies operate. Take for instance Kant's categorical imperative, which states that one cannot make universal a law that contradicts what the society determines to be "obligation." Do not steal if you cannot say faithfully that stealing should be a universally allowable behavior. Society would at least cease to exist in whatever current iteration it exists in at the time. That interpretation of reality is standard because any other interpretation of that phenomenon jeopardizes social order. What constitutes effective social order, and whether or not Kant's ethical principles are valid is not the point, but points to the notion that it is at least sufficient that people agree, by and large, to a somewhat standard view of reality to maintain social order. As far as Kant is concerned, and the notion of social order, I will tackle these problems later on.

Let us remind ourselves of what has been said so far. Reason cannot be trusted, yet, reason is required for understanding, therefore, we gaze deeply into the manifold of paradoxes. The mind uses reason to attempt to avoid such paradoxes by engaging reality with its interpretation of that reality. The paradoxical nature of such a mechanism emerges because in effect, mind cannot use reason to understand reason, and thus any interpretation of reality is problematic. It is easy, and convenient to brush aside this problem with many a philosophical trick, yet I remain unconvinced. Perhaps I am not intelligent enough to confidently implement any of the major philosophical strategies and derive a compelling solution. Yet, perhaps there is no mind intelligent enough at all to do so.

Above, it is claimed that the paradoxical nature of reason could be the primary engine of the evolution of whatever being that engages with reality as stated previously. To unpack this notion, it is helpful to attempt a definition of "evolution," given its hefty connotative baggage. Firstly, we must assume (every notion is an assumed notion) that beings with comparable mechanisms such as ours at least desire, on some level (primitive or otherwise) their own progress. Progress can be construed as that phenomenon which a reasonably ordered society strives toward in its overall state of affairs. Astute readers might have noticed that as a result of this particular assumption, evolution and progress are related but distinct dynamic phenomena. They differ in one important way; progress is relative to a society's interpretation of its reality; evolution is all-encompassing progress, and may or may not include, or even "agree" with the society's interpretation of its own progress (here we see another iteration of the paradox of reason). With that distinction in mind, we might also want to assume that there is indeed an evolutionary trajectory. Again, it is important to remember that whatever understanding reason comes up with to interpret such an evolutionary trajectory must be held under close scrutiny and suspicion. The conclusion to this line of thinking, while it is what I am striving to achieve currently, still does not convince me ultimately that such truths can be known. Nonetheless, it is clear at least that there is progress in the universe. If that is the case, then perhaps there is indeed an inherent teleological "forwardness" carrying itself out.

I will have to now concede absolutely to the notion that the nature of the universe is unknowable to reason. In light of the above, hopefully the manner in which this concession is made is coherent. Notice, I have until now avoided making any theological claims. I will try to tackle some theological issues moving forward. First, whether or not God is an adequate solution to the epistemological problem of interpreting reality depends on whether or not God exists. This is itself an epistemological problem of interpreting reality, and thus cannot be adequately engaged using reason. Some might then employ the notion of faith in response to this problem, and while the jury is most certainly out on this question, I have no qualms with concluding that it is paradoxical by virtue of its notional existence, in the same way that any concept is reducible to paradox. For example, to say that something exists is to suggest something true about reality. If truth about reality is subject to the interpretation of reason as stated above, then such truth is at best a place holder for potential truth. If such place holders can be allowed to exist, then all interpretations of reality have equal access to placing whatever notion in as a place holder for whatever cannot be explained or understood through reason. This is paradoxical, because the suggestion that all interpretations of reality are valid defies reason, and reason is the cause of any interpretation of reality.

A counter to this line of thinking might attempt to place any of the previous assumptions made above about the nature of reason in the same category as things that exist through faith--in the "place holder" position as something that only might exist, and because one cannot access it through reason, then it must exist in another realm of existence (or some such formulation). But to say that something both is, and is not, is incoherent to reason. Only when we add qualifications to that undefined something are we able to force it out of nonexistence. Thus, we cannot say something exists through "faith" with any more confidence than anything else that might exist through faith or reason. If something "is" because of "faith," then it no longer occupies a space out of reach of reason's interpretive grasp. And yet, this very move is subject to fall into the same trap, for it requires reason, and reason cannot be trusted with matters of understanding reality. Another way to look at it, is to examine more closely the notion of faith. One might have faith in something, which at first glance doesn't seem like quite the same thing as faith about unknowable existence. Faith in something brings that something into existence as a desired interpretation of reality. But, the fact that if I have faith that I am healthy enough to not get cancer, does not render out of existence the possibility that I might get cancer. If that is the case, then an odd thing happens. Faith about the existence of God is just as ineffective; just because it is bringing something from beyond the realm of interpretative existence, does not give it adequate space to exist outside of becoming a mere "place holder" for something that cannot be known. It seems then, that faith is actually a form of reason, for it requires both realities to be true and false in the same instance, and is thus paradoxical.

To be continued.
---

Follow me to keep up with this series of writings on epistemology and metaphysics.

@sacrifice_mc
Soundcloud.com/sacrifice

Our Political Turmoil: Ideologically Driven Shutdowns, Furloughs, Concessions to Law... Confusion

Our Political Turmoil: Ideologically Driven Shutdowns, Furloughs, Concessions to Law... Confusion

To say the least, it has been an interesting latter half of 2013. Blaring from our TV screens, radios and media devices are issues ranging from the domestic consequences of foreign policy spending, Syria and the U.S. Middle Eastern footprint, Healthcare, Gun Control and Education to name a few. And now, a not-so-unprecedented, yet strangely anomalous government shutdown, causing millions of people to either be subject to furlough or to be forced to work without pay; and perhaps most importantly, a gridlocked legislative system caused by political hardliners driven solely by ideological agendas. It is difficult, if not nearly impossible to parse out this situation in objective terms, because most opinions (private and public) are influenced entirely by factional opinion creating and propagating machines: political parties and their proponents in the mainstream media establishment driven by fervent political activism. It is increasingly difficult to sort out why politicians take certain positions, because in large part, they are in a perpetual political war, where ideological trade offs become valuable political currency, or territory, to use the war metaphor.

These issues raise many important, systemic problems. These problems procedurally condition our political processes, orient and reorient them closer toward extremism, and determine public opinion. This is not an uncommon phenomenon in a political economy where the default currency is public opinion. This indeed, is a problem that most opponents of democracy writ large have warned about throughout intellectual history.

How then should a Federal Constitutional Republic governmental structure work? What are the conditions under which a smooth policy making process ought to unfold? How much influence should a capitalist economic system have on policy making? Is it ever a good political strategy to threaten political/economic stability to push an ideological agenda?

It comes down to a very simple, ethical, and ultimately philosophical dilemma. How far should a policy maker go, politically, if he or she truly believes that a law, or political position could destroy economic and political stability? Should he push his agenda to a point where such instability is immediately foreseeable, so as to force an opposing point of view to fold under the pressure of disaster? If that is a viable strategy, are we engaged in a healthy political process? It's a matter of perspective: what is the end-game scenario for any political ideology?

It's not merely a "big government" vs "small government" paradigm anymore. With respect to our two main political parties, the threshold encapsulating that line is becoming increasingly crowded. In many respects, both parties lean toward the center on this issue; its not even clear that this is still the crux of the debate. It's perceived as a trivial point, unfortunately, but the purpose of a government depends upon the ideological outlook of each bureaucrat independent of any partisan agenda. We should be debating along these lines every single day in D.C. Out of this fundamental debate, key issues will be forced onto the floor. No one should simply assume that because representative x is a republican, or a democrat that he automatically treads the basic republican political line. Parties exist to facilitate political support mechanisms to hoist individuals into positions of power, where the perception is that they will have some sort of procedural influence over the ultimate partisan strategy. In reality, it is never made clear what a politician believes regarding this fundamental question. 

Religion and the Sociological Paradox

It is impossible to declare anything definitive about "God," except that it either exists, or does not exist. These two propositions are absolute realities that are, paradoxically, contrivances of the human mind as we understand it. There are many philosophical problems, and linguistic difficulties when attempting to articulate anything regarding ultimate reality and "creation," which renders discussions between believers and non-believers both necessary and meaningless. Faith cancels out reason, and reason cancels out faith. There are no "voids." Yet, semantic renderings of absolute substances like "God" create voids.

This is the reason religions motivate people to do terrible things to each other, because of the logical and spiritual impasse naturally reasoning minds reach when trying to justify their belief systems to people who have different belief systems.

The only stance I can possibly take is a spiritually charged, rational skepticism; or if you will, a Socratic, principled discourse of knowing ignorance. The fact that religions inspire people to commit atrocities is a psycho-sociological and anthropological problem of finite beings in constant battle with their own existential angst in the face of death. The logic is clear; death is the antithesis to life; life is the synthesis with which we derive purpose and meaning, thus, when there is a clash between ideologies that quite literally provide the enabling conditions for actualized meaning and purpose, it is no surprise that so much blood is shed as a result.

As an aside, this argument can be applied aptly to many debates where a "cause" for such things as violence, war, etc. are concerned. People are desperate when the meaning of their existence, or the purpose of their being on the planet in the first place is questioned or threatened. Sociological phenomena such as economic struggles, for instance, or socioeconomic statuses that render upward mobility near impossible, or living conditions that include substantial lack of essential needs; it is not surprising that the most violent places on the planet are those places that turn out to be breeding grounds for desperate extremism. Purpose driven by desperation is possibly even what spawned the need for religions in the first instance.