I used to be on a popular dating site where you answered a bunch of questions to try to match with like-minded people. One of the questions was "How do you feel about Taoism?". The positive answer option was "I love the Tao Te Ching!" and the negative was "Don't like it. Taoists are too passive."
This irritated me in two different ways.
First, there is a second major Taoist text, the Chuang Tzu, that is a much better exposition of Taoist ideas. It's funnier, clearer, and is made up of narrative pieces that make it a better read. Unfortunately, other than the famous piece about Chuang Tzu dreaming he is a butterfly, it is not as well-known in the west.
The better known Tao Te Ching is quite challenging to translate, even by the usually challenging standards of Classical Chinese texts (there is a whole other post in that), and some of the translations available in English are really quite loopy, so that people can interpret them however they want with very little understanding.
This might account for the second irritation: the belief that Taoism is essentially the philosophy for slackers who plan to smoke dope in their basement for the rest of their lives.
On the contrary, I think Taoism is exactly the philosophy needed for modern western people, especially North Americans. Unfortunately, Benjamin Hoff had the same idea with his book The Tao of Pooh, a book that was popular when I was in university. And though his book is amusing, I think it gave a lot of people the wrong idea about Taoism by aggressively attacking "Confucian" ideas (really North American success values by proxy) and making it seem that Taoism was just hippy "dropping out" from an ancient Chinese source.
But Taoism is much more sophisticated than that. Sure, Chuang Tzu light-heartedly spoofs other contemporary philosophers, such as Confucius and Hui Tzu (the latter a philosopher of logical reasoning), but it is not to negate them, but show that their concerns are only part of a greater whole, a bigger picture.
We don't need to give up our ideas, values and goals, or abandon our strivings, so much as to remember that we are part of a huge, complex world, with its own forces and "ends". Learning to go with the world's natural flow and align our designs with the currents (human and natural) around us would allow us save some of our energy and to enjoy our lives more: you don't have to paddle so much if you are going with the current.
So a good Modern Taoist doesn't have to be a slacker. They will just spend more time figuring out how they can use the current to get them somewhere they might like to go, rather than ignoring that current and blindly going up against it and making themselves miserable in the process.
December 31, 2015
December 28, 2015
Donald Trump and Rob Ford: Diagnosis and Prescription
I live in a city that was briefly famous around the world for having a clueless, egotistical, crack-smoking mayor.
Like many Torontonians (and most Downtowners), I was embarrassed and frequently mystified that Rob Ford had been elected in the first place. Who were these bozos who had voted for him? Couldn't they see how incompetent and ridiculous he is? But his "Ford Nation" fans couldn't seem to get enough, never censuring his antics, and eating up his "shock the bourgeoisie" pronouncements.
More recently, in the US, Donald Trump has been making headlines with his own shocking pronouncements. The more shocking they are, the more enthusiastically received they are by supporters, and the more establishment voices are appalled and dismayed, with frequent astonishment that anyone can succeed with such buffoonery and demagoguery.
Part of what these two men have in common is reasonably obvious: both on the right, both appealing to a working class constituency. On the surface, both seem to appeal to white, native-born voters, but interestingly, in the case of Rob Ford, many of his supporters are actually from visible minorities.
Another thing they share: their antics make the urban, globalized establishment crazy.
And I think this is the essence of their appeal, rather than the literal content of their policies. In both cases, a disaffected group takes pleasure in seeing the winners in the current economic order tweaked and horrified.
In Rob Ford's case it was the suburban poor forced out of downtown by gentrification, and in Donald Trump's it is working class or small town men whose economic prospects have been off-shored by globalization.
Democracy works best when all constituencies feel that they have a voice. Perhaps rather than reacting with outrage at crazy policy suggestions, we should listen to the underlying concerns that fuel them. Not only will we reduce our own risk of apoplexy, we might strengthen our democracy and our society.
If that doesn't move you, think of it this way: if you listen to the concerns of the constituency, you will stop encouraging the creation of the maddening showboat politicians needed to give them a voice.
Like many Torontonians (and most Downtowners), I was embarrassed and frequently mystified that Rob Ford had been elected in the first place. Who were these bozos who had voted for him? Couldn't they see how incompetent and ridiculous he is? But his "Ford Nation" fans couldn't seem to get enough, never censuring his antics, and eating up his "shock the bourgeoisie" pronouncements.
More recently, in the US, Donald Trump has been making headlines with his own shocking pronouncements. The more shocking they are, the more enthusiastically received they are by supporters, and the more establishment voices are appalled and dismayed, with frequent astonishment that anyone can succeed with such buffoonery and demagoguery.
Part of what these two men have in common is reasonably obvious: both on the right, both appealing to a working class constituency. On the surface, both seem to appeal to white, native-born voters, but interestingly, in the case of Rob Ford, many of his supporters are actually from visible minorities.
Another thing they share: their antics make the urban, globalized establishment crazy.
And I think this is the essence of their appeal, rather than the literal content of their policies. In both cases, a disaffected group takes pleasure in seeing the winners in the current economic order tweaked and horrified.
In Rob Ford's case it was the suburban poor forced out of downtown by gentrification, and in Donald Trump's it is working class or small town men whose economic prospects have been off-shored by globalization.
Democracy works best when all constituencies feel that they have a voice. Perhaps rather than reacting with outrage at crazy policy suggestions, we should listen to the underlying concerns that fuel them. Not only will we reduce our own risk of apoplexy, we might strengthen our democracy and our society.
If that doesn't move you, think of it this way: if you listen to the concerns of the constituency, you will stop encouraging the creation of the maddening showboat politicians needed to give them a voice.
September 21, 2013
Some Thoughts on Malcolm X
I've been a fan of Spike Lee's movies for a long time, and I still remember seeing his "Malcolm X" in the theater.
Though it may seem like an odd thing for a white guy, I left that theater an admirer of the icon of Black Power who would later choose the name Malik El-Shabazz, and earn the honorific El-Hajj.
And it wasn't just the universalist El-Shabazz I admired, the one who had given up his anger and hatred against me and my kind, but, in part thanks to the brilliance of Lee's movie-making, I also learned to admire, and appreciate the necessity for, his time as "Malcolm X", when he would have been perfectly happy to call me a "white devil" to my face.
When you believe passionately that diversity is a strength and an enhancement to the quality of your life, when you feel that you are "one of the good guys" reaching out in friendship, the venomous rejection that X and the Nation of Islam were spewing out is very hard to take, even if you recognize the justice of the grievances that inspired it. It isn't easy being told "We don't want you here" when you feel you are on the same side.
But I learned through Spike Lee and Malcolm X that the "white devil" message was not about me, and not for me. In a way, it was none of my business.
It was about purging the internalized sense of inferiority, shame, and envy that had been instilled by centuries of domination and abuse. The truth is that equality is not conferred by others: it needs to grow and become firmly established within first. Once it is there, others can accept it or not, but then that is THEIR problem.
Centuries of collective, and decades of personal, anger and hurt had to be vented, processed, and transcended before El-Shabazz could emerge, equal not because someone else (or some document) told him he was, but because he just was, and knew it as surely as he knew his own freely-chosen name.
Another important thing I admired about Malcolm X, and the Nation of Islam, were the discipline and focus they brought to their activities, and while the message may have sounded vitriolic, they stopped short of actual violence. This is not a trivial accomplishment, and it makes all the difference.
Recently, it has come to my attention that I need to relearn the lesson that Mr. Lee and El-Hajj El-Shabazz were kind enough to teach me over twenty years ago.
In my larger professional community of software developers, there are new groups with real historic grievances, and they are getting to the point where they too want to sit at the table without having to apologize for who they are. I've been fortunate to work in environments with a lot of diversity, and I welcome more of it enthusiastically.
But some of these aggrieved groups are working through the anger and hate built up from their long suppression, from the mistreatment they have received from our industry and society at large. And sometimes what they say and do makes me uncomfortable, seems to target me or seems to contravene the values of diversity as I understand them.
As I said, this can be hard to take. But maybe I have to remember the lesson of Malcolm X: it's not about me, and it is not for me. In a way, it's not even my business.
Rather than taking offense, or speaking up, maybe the best thing I can do is LET them hate my male, white, hetero, cis, middle-aged ass.
If it gets too much, I can look away, ignore it, bite my tongue, live my values in some other way. Short of actual violence, or the genuine threat of it, maybe I need to let them express themselves, however they like, until they've worked it through.
Diversity is one of MY most deeply-held values, and no one said that living your values was going to be easy (actually, I'm pretty sure that it being hard and doing it anyway is how you know it really is a value). I will continue living that value, even if sometimes it is rejected by those I'm reaching out to.
Perhaps the best I can do is to continue to be a SILENT ally, and to be ready, when they have worked through all that anger, when they are healed, to welcome them as the friends, colleagues and siblings in the universal family that I already know them to be.
Though it may seem like an odd thing for a white guy, I left that theater an admirer of the icon of Black Power who would later choose the name Malik El-Shabazz, and earn the honorific El-Hajj.
And it wasn't just the universalist El-Shabazz I admired, the one who had given up his anger and hatred against me and my kind, but, in part thanks to the brilliance of Lee's movie-making, I also learned to admire, and appreciate the necessity for, his time as "Malcolm X", when he would have been perfectly happy to call me a "white devil" to my face.
When you believe passionately that diversity is a strength and an enhancement to the quality of your life, when you feel that you are "one of the good guys" reaching out in friendship, the venomous rejection that X and the Nation of Islam were spewing out is very hard to take, even if you recognize the justice of the grievances that inspired it. It isn't easy being told "We don't want you here" when you feel you are on the same side.
But I learned through Spike Lee and Malcolm X that the "white devil" message was not about me, and not for me. In a way, it was none of my business.
It was about purging the internalized sense of inferiority, shame, and envy that had been instilled by centuries of domination and abuse. The truth is that equality is not conferred by others: it needs to grow and become firmly established within first. Once it is there, others can accept it or not, but then that is THEIR problem.
Centuries of collective, and decades of personal, anger and hurt had to be vented, processed, and transcended before El-Shabazz could emerge, equal not because someone else (or some document) told him he was, but because he just was, and knew it as surely as he knew his own freely-chosen name.
Another important thing I admired about Malcolm X, and the Nation of Islam, were the discipline and focus they brought to their activities, and while the message may have sounded vitriolic, they stopped short of actual violence. This is not a trivial accomplishment, and it makes all the difference.
Recently, it has come to my attention that I need to relearn the lesson that Mr. Lee and El-Hajj El-Shabazz were kind enough to teach me over twenty years ago.
In my larger professional community of software developers, there are new groups with real historic grievances, and they are getting to the point where they too want to sit at the table without having to apologize for who they are. I've been fortunate to work in environments with a lot of diversity, and I welcome more of it enthusiastically.
But some of these aggrieved groups are working through the anger and hate built up from their long suppression, from the mistreatment they have received from our industry and society at large. And sometimes what they say and do makes me uncomfortable, seems to target me or seems to contravene the values of diversity as I understand them.
As I said, this can be hard to take. But maybe I have to remember the lesson of Malcolm X: it's not about me, and it is not for me. In a way, it's not even my business.
Rather than taking offense, or speaking up, maybe the best thing I can do is LET them hate my male, white, hetero, cis, middle-aged ass.
If it gets too much, I can look away, ignore it, bite my tongue, live my values in some other way. Short of actual violence, or the genuine threat of it, maybe I need to let them express themselves, however they like, until they've worked it through.
Diversity is one of MY most deeply-held values, and no one said that living your values was going to be easy (actually, I'm pretty sure that it being hard and doing it anyway is how you know it really is a value). I will continue living that value, even if sometimes it is rejected by those I'm reaching out to.
Perhaps the best I can do is to continue to be a SILENT ally, and to be ready, when they have worked through all that anger, when they are healed, to welcome them as the friends, colleagues and siblings in the universal family that I already know them to be.
September 5, 2012
De Morgan’s Laws are (Mostly) Constructive!
Most programmers and anybody with a basic knowledge of logic
will have heard of De Morgan’s Laws. They provide an easy way to switch back and
forth between “or” and “and” in Boolean logic, which is very handy.
When I was first introduced to intuitionistic logic,
I remember being somewhat scared off it by the statement that De Morgan’s
Laws don’t hold in it. This will make
any programmer nervous!
So, it came as a surprise to me to learn that in fact three
quarters of the propositions that make up De Morgan’s Laws still hold for
intuitionistic logic!
It is interesting to examine why. De Morgan’s Laws can be broken up into four
implications:
1)
(¬ P) ∧ (¬ Q) → ¬ (P
∨ Q)
2)
¬ (P ∨ Q) → (¬
P) ∧ (¬ Q)
3)
(¬ P) ∨ (¬ Q) → ¬ (P
∧ Q)
4)
¬ (P ∧ Q) → (¬
P) ∨ (¬ Q)
Of these four implications, only the fourth one fails for
intuitionistic logic!
Let’s check.
Case 1) If I have a proof that P is false, and a proof that
Q is false than I can’t possibly find a proof that either P or Q is true, by the basic definition of ∨.
Case 2) If I have a proof that P ∨ Q can’t be true,
then clearly there is no proof for either of P or Q, by the basic definition of ∨.
Case 3) If I have a proof that P is false, or a proof that Q
is false, there can’t possibly be a proof that both P and Q are true, again by the basic definition of ∧.
So far so good. But
here is where things go awry.
Case 4) If I have a proof that both P and Q can’t be true at
the same time, that doesn’t tell me for sure that I have proof that either one
in particular is false. They just can’t
both be true. So case 4) isn't guaranteed to always be true, and therefore isn't a law after all.
However, if I find a definite proof that one of P or Q is true, I can still conclude that the other is false. This can be formalized as:
4') ¬ (P ∧ Q) → P → ¬ Q
However, if I find a definite proof that one of P or Q is true, I can still conclude that the other is false. This can be formalized as:
4') ¬ (P ∧ Q) → P → ¬ Q
So even this fourth case, with a small caveat, still contains a lot of useful
information. Maybe we can say that De Morgan’s Laws are more than three
quarters constructive!
The moral of the story is not to be scared away by
constructive (i.e. intuitionistic) mathematics: more of the familiar rules still
work than you might think, even if you have to be a bit more careful around
the edges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)