The Power of Human Creativity: The Future of the World May Depend on It

“Things I Would Not Normally Recycle”

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018, the Owl & Ibis Confluence of Minds took a swipe at the Dark Mountain Project by tapping into our respective creative spirits. Why? Perhaps to actively, personally demonstrate to ourselves that the human creative spirit is alive, well and ever necessary – now, if not more than ever, during the 200,000-year evolutionary history of Homo sapiens.

Necessary, especially now, given DMP’s and others’ claims of impending global catastrophe(s) from human arrogance and delusion, and wasteful, unbridled-growth global capitalism.

Since January, O&I has been closely examining DMP’s bleak forecast, and DMP’s suggestion that only the arts, especially literary efforts at a new “story” for civilization, can help avert the coming fall of Humankind. Tuesday evening’s presentation, “Current Worldviews and Visions of the Future, Art” led by Judith Moore, and the upcoming O&I presentation on June 26, “Current Worldviews and Visions of the Future, The Humanities” by John Cruickshank, will conclude O&I’s look at the Dark Mountain Project. To the relief of many, I am sure.

Kudos and a hearty thank you to Judith for organizing and leading this great evening, and to her husband Richard who participated and helped schlep the pile of art materials to the meeting! Judith’s presentation also included showing excellent short videos on creating art works from disposed of materials and Dan Phillips’ construction of alternative homes from found and natural items, and construction project discards.

“Never underestimate the power of human creativity!” one attendee quipped at Tuesday’s meeting.

Great evening, time well spent! At top is an image of one of the evening’s creations. Here are the rest:

 

 

 

Pith helmet a prop, not standard O&I gear. 🙂

Advertisements
Standard

Stoicism and relationships: three models

Great piece on relationships by Massimo Pigliucci – scientist, philosopher and Stoic.

How to Be a Stoic

Xanthippe pours the contents of a chamber pot on Socrates’ head

For a variety of reasons I’ve been thinking of relationships of late, from a Stoic perspective. In part this has been spurred by my reading of Liz Gloyn’s superb The Ethics of the Family in Seneca, regarding which I’m running a multi-part commentary. I recently also ran one of my Stoic School of Life meetups in New York in which we discussed the function of role models in Stoic moral development. So why not combine the two? Does Stoic lore provide us with examples of relationships we could reflect on and, perhaps even use as guidance? As it turns out, it does, and I have picked three in particular to discuss here.

Before we get started, however, a due caveat: all three examples are, not surprisingly, of heterosexual relationships where the man is the philosopher and the woman…

View original post 1,881 more words

Standard

Hamlet & Human Nature

Program for a nineteenth-century production of <i>Hamlet</i>

Program for a nineteenth-century production of Hamlet

IMG_2667

What follows in this note and the linked essay below may be obvious to you. Maybe such things become more obvious to most of us the longer we live; and if, in living longer, we find ourselves among the fortunate who learn from our experience. I think the matter of decision-making prior to taking actions in our lives is worth thinking about to some degree, at least occasionally.

Doing so seems especially important in our teens. Or maybe later in early adulthood when we start to put in practice and test the ideas we learned, fully or partially, as teenagers. But, really, who among us ever did this in our youth? Rarely, except maybe when we were smacked between eyes by the reality of some stupid action we had taken, did we stop and consider what led us to such an action. And when we did we were seldom able to ferret out a good, useful answer from our under-cooked brains and the cauldron of hormones we were drowning in. That said, I think it is important from time to time – in our youth, in our prime, and in old age – to occasionally revisit our means of personal decision-making.

What is the point of such an effort? To become sagely wise? Very few of us become sages including first and foremost, yours truly. In fact, I’ve never met a sage and if I did or ever will I am not smart enough to know it. Should we study our moral decision-making because Socrates insisted that “an unexamined life is not worth living?” I don’t think either justification has merit or is inherently worth pursuing. Self examination should be attempted for good practical reasons and purposes. The Stoic Epictetus put it this way: “This, then, is the beginning of philosophy – an awareness of one’s own mental fitness.” More to the point, he said: “If you didn’t learn these things (the principles of philosophy) in order to demonstrate them in practice, what did you learn them for?” In short, we should pursue wisdom and self-knowledge in order to become better persons.

As for you who have a means of personal decision-making you are satisfied with, or have no difficulty with the imperfect way most of us muddle through, I salute you. But I’d be lying if I didn’t say I’m skeptical that the confidence and comfort you feel comes from a decision based on blind faith for the sake of making the anxiety of uncertainty tolerable, if not “go away.” I understand that. “Hamlet moments” of indecision over the serious matters arising in our lives are unpleasant. And the act of agonizing over these episodes solves nothing. I think for most people making these decisions is a practical matter. That is, make the best decision you are capable of at the time, in a way that keeps one’s stress level as low as possible, then just move on. I suppose, sooner or later, we all end up doing this.

But I sometimes wonder, is it better to be comforted based on such faith, or be practical and not agonize over our dilemmas, or to live in the ebb and flow of anxiousness from trying to truthfully, objectively stare the uncertainty of our moral decision-making in the eye? Maybe there is room for a full range of valid and viable approaches among Humankind. Maybe there always has been and always will be. Then again, maybe there is a way out of the recurring dilemma of whether to act or not, and if to act, in what way? To find out, let’s consider the main character in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, and an author and a reviewer’s respective views of him and his moral decision-making.

Hamlet & Morality – Where The Buck Stops

Is Hamlet the moral, decision-fearing weakling we were taught in high school or college? Was Hamlet no different from the rest of us at present?  That is, being too often overwhelmed when facing serious moral dilemmas – to be, or not to be; to act or not act? How is it many of us so often find ourselves blocked from making a decision about action on a serious matter because we don’t have, or refuse to avail ourselves of, a satisfying moral system to turn for help in making our decisions? For example, when someone finds no help in the rigid moral codes of religion, or secular reasoning such (including Stoicism), or the common sense of folk psychology? And in the end is left on his/her own, with only the question of what is best for ourselves and, maybe, for others? Then, finding our ‘self,’ by its very nature, torn between our personal needs for survival, virtue and self-respect on the one hand; and on the other the needs of other people – the moral obligation to honor our family and larger groups, and live up to that which others say a honorable person should do to be human?

All social animals often face and must resolve this dilemma. Sometimes the result has serious if not deadly consequences. That is, deciding what is best for oneself and/or what is best for the group. Humans, and perhaps all sentient social creatures, are born with and improve upon inherent capacities to do this. But each of us must resign ourselves to probabilities rather than guarantees that the choices we make and actions we take will benefit us and/or others appropriately.

Of course, during our respective lives some of our possible and actual choices and actions are better than others. But we can never know for sure beforehand, only afterwards. Even then, the outcome can be mixed as to its virtue or morality. That is to say, acting in a compromising manner that partially satisfies oneself and the other can be a disappointment to all.

IMG_2668

The Nguni Bantu peoples of southern Africa (Zulu, Xhosa, Swazi, & others) provide some insight on these matters. Their notion of ubuntu, “I am because we are” or “a sense of and appreciation for the humanity of others” is helpful. The Nguni take the long view – in your decision-making give first priority to what is best for the group not the self, that is, one’s family and one’s community. Their rationale being, if all give first priority all the time to the self, the group will eventually fail and disappear. When that happens there will be no more groups to give birth to, nurture, protect, and support new selves.

However, there is seldom a clear and unequivocal choice between what is best for me or what is best for us. Further, whatever decision is made or action taken, on all matters great or small, the outcome that is played out in our lives and among our fellows is for the most part beyond our control.

The book Hamlet and the Vision of Darkness and a review of it “The Question of Hamlet” provide respective views on Hamlet’s decision making. Both consider the consequences of relying either on the groups’ moral systems or on his (our) personal, self-oriented needs. The author and reviewer both seem to argue there is no way to resolve the dilemma. That it is an endeavor each individual is bound to lose, especially when choosing what best suits the self.

Here’s my take. Your best chance to survive and possibly thrive is to learn the rules of the game, take the stage, make decisions and take actions you think best. Sometimes this will favor your own interests, other times the interests of your groups. Then, once your action is taken, respond to the consequences as best you can in a like manner. Maybe you will survive. Maybe you will flourish. Maybe not. In the course of your life, that being the evolutionary short term, consider if each action option matters to you, and consider what you see of your self living within the group after each of the options is taken. In the group’s life, the long evolutionary term, you and your decisions only really matter to the extent your actions help the group – to survive, to flourish.

Your thoughts?

Standard

Emotion Over Reason, Reason Over Emotion?

Reason-and-Emotion-title-card

Suddenly seeing a snake in your path, followed by a fixed wide-eyed stare, muscle tenseness, increased heart rate, perhaps a jump backwards, are emotionally reflexive responses, not deliberative or reasoned choices and actions. There is little if any deliberative, choice-making reasoning occurring in this instance.

During the snake encounter emotion played a dominant role. Reasoning, as a reflection on the events that just happened, came second: “Yes, that was a snake, a poisonous one. Good thing I saw it when I did. To have stepped on it may have made it bite me. I might have died if it had.” Reasoning can also be a slower more deliberative post hoc rationalization of the emotions we experience and the emotion-driven actions we take: “So-and-so repulses me physically, visually. I have a bad feeling being in his/her presence. I will avoid this person because of this.”

These examples do not justify a now widely accepted conclusion that reasoning, in general and for the most often, is an after-the-fact comment, reflection, justification or rationalization of emotional states. This emotion-above-all view is one that psychologist Jonathan Haidt and others have recently convinced many pundits and much of the public to believe. I think Haidt’s view is yet another modern version of sociobiology or Skinnerian stimulus-response behaviorism. It minimizes the role and importance of reasoning in human affairs and points to genetic, sensory-emotive and hormonal processes as the predominant and overriding causes of behavior.

Deliberative, choice-making reasoning also plays an important role as a basis for action, a role in one’s life that may be influenced by but can remain functionally separate from one’s emotional state.

In a mature mind that is operating optimally in terms of personal and social wellbeing capacity, reasoning is a skill that can be learned and improved upon. It is a deliberative process, a post-emotion, option-considered, over-riding response to matters our senses and emotions alert us too. It is not a perfect, failsafe process. The best deliberative thinking and choice-making can lead to failure, harm or death due to circumstances beyond one’s knowledge or control. But, reasoning of this kind, versus behavior based on raw emotion (the snake response, etc.), increases one’s chances of making decisions and taking actions that provide greater benefit for individual survival and social flourishing.

There is also a virtue and moral aspect of reasoning – Hitler was capable of deliberation and considering options but his ideas and actions were immoral and lacking virtue. His ideas and actions did not provide benefit to individual wellbeing or contribute to social flourishing as these are understood by most sane people.

More generally, consider the matter of individual survival or wellbeing and group flourishing in the long-term, that is, evolutionarily. Take, for example, the emotion fear as it is prompted by conditions of extreme hunger, lack of shelter or safe haven, or knowledge of being in a high-threat predator environment.

Under such circumstances the deliberative, option-considered responses and strategies arrived at from deciding on how to seek food and protect oneself from weather and predator attack are not emotional ‘decisions’ where reasoning comes along later as a rationalization or justification. They are arrived at through a process of decision-making based on calculated assessments of the potential positive yield and risks associated with various behavioral response options.

This is a process all sentient animals use. If birds at my backyard feeder, for example, become habituated to my presence they do so based on their recognition and remembrance of me, and their acceptance of their conclusion that I pose a low and therefore tolerable risk of harm or death. This is not a post hoc rationalization of, say, a bird’s initial emotional response to my presence. It is a decision it makes each time it sees and identifies me, as opposed to its reaction to someone who is not me, someone they have not seen before.

The Greco-Roman Stoics wrote down this ancient wisdom and encouraged and taught methods for its practice. They taught the use of deliberative reasoning to devise and choose among various possible responses when specific emotions (impressions) arise. Here is an excellent essay by Massimo Pigliucci describing the Stoic view of emotions:

Reason and Emotion, Plato

Plato saw reason and emotion as two horses pulling a chariot, with the charioteer struggling to make them work as a team. But while reasoned thought and emotional response are distinct mental modules that even operate in different brain areas, yet they do work together. For a normal person, they are so intertwined that it’s really a single combined process of mental functioning. – Frank S. Robinson, “Reason vs. Emotion?,” The Rational Optimist, September 13, 2012

Stoicism and Emotion, IV: Feelings Without Assent

by Massimo Pigliucci

Standard

The Things and Processes of Life

GBH Takes Flight
 ~
~
“[A]n answer to one of the oldest chestnuts in the history of philosophy: is reality made up of things that somehow change over time, or are things just temporary shapes that our perception plucks out from a flux of unruly, unfolding processes?”
“[S]cience is simply too limited, parochial and fallible to tell us anything truly fundamental about what something is or is not. But for a naturalistic metaphysician, these observations of constant biotic flux point to the need for an overhaul in how we see the world. Instead of searching for things with fixed essences based on form and function, naturalistic metaphysics suggests that we need to move to a picture that’s much more dynamic – in which any ‘thingness’ is strictly temporary.”
“In the living world, at least, a metaphysics of ‘things’ is hard to sustain. Where once we had discrete and distinct ‘proteins’ and ‘organisms’, all we are left with are highly dynamic processes.”
“The really remarkable thing about the world isn’t how much things change, but how they achieve stability for any length of time.”
“In nature, though, nothing is ever independent of what’s going on around it. … If a living system ever manages to provide a constant result, it does so by reacting appropriately to an ever-changing scene.“
“[L]iving things are processes that are capable of assuming many protean forms: dynamic, ever-changing, but balancing, for a time, on just the right side of chaos.”
Standard

If You Like What You Find Here On ‘Being’….

….you might also like my other blogs and website. If you do, kindly visit them, follow or subscribe to them via email, and leave your comments, if any, on my posts. Thank you.

Here’s a guide to what each site is about:

Being Human – Our Past, Present and Future in Nature
www.jameselassiter.blogspot.com
On Anthropology and Biology

This is my original blog begun in September 2010. My original description of it remains unchanged: “an open forum on topics in anthropology, science, philosophy, religion, and African studies. The purpose of the blog is to promote thought and increase and improve knowledge.” The blog’s focus has since narrowed to human biological evolution and “human nature.” Topics in cultural anthropology, human cultural evolution, and the peoples of Africa are addressed on this blog, Being: In Nature and the Ethnosphere. To follow or subscribe to Being Human – Our Past, Present and Future in Nature go to its home page and complete the form “Follow by Email.”

 

Owl & Ibis – A Confluence of Minds
www.owl-ibis.blogspot.com
On the Natural & Social Sciences, History, Philosophy, Modern Stoicism, and Aspects of Cultural Studies, Including the Sacred

I initiated Owl & Ibis – A Confluence of Minds as a private critical thinker club in mid-2013. On September 22, 2015, I made it public as an open-to-all freethinker online forum and in-person gathering. On September 9, 2017, following my departure from Facebook, I moved the online forum for O&I posts and comments from Facebook to this blog. O&I is a secular, humanist, free-thinker discussion group. Discussion topics are drawn solely from the natural sciences, social sciences, philosophy, history, and cultural studies, including the sacred. Sacred topics have to do with the impact of sacred beliefs and behaviors on the well-being of the individual and his/her society, and on Humankind as a whole. Owl & Ibis is not the forum for religious apologetics and proselytizing. The chairship of meetings will rotate among the participants. At each meeting a presentation will be made by the chair. The presentation will cover a topic from one of the above subject areas and should include a point of argumentation. Any time remaining after the presentation will be used for discussion. Meeting attendees accept and advocate, totally or in part, an understanding of the Universe based on the principles and methods of scientific-secularism, skepticism, and reverence. Owl & Ibis is tolerant of a wide range of worldviews and belief systems. Pluralism and inclusion are regarded to be the best ways forward in Humankind’s efforts at forging a global morality and civilization, and for acting responsibly as Earth’s steward. Owl & Ibis attempts to contribute to such a future. To follow this blog fill in the “Follow by Email” form on its left sidebar.

 

Migration Anthropology Consultants (MAC), LLC
www.migrationanthro.com
On Human Migration, Refugees, Cross-Cultural Training, and Workplace Culture Analysis

Begun in May 2009, Migration Anthropology Consultants (MAC), LLC provides expert international and domestic consultancy and training services to governmental and international agencies, non-governmental organizations and voluntary agencies, and corporations and businesses. The multidisciplinary, holistic, participant observation methods of anthropology are applied to human migration, refugee populations, and business and organization workplace analysis.  Behavioral scientific rigor and humanism are essential to this approach. Training programs are also provided on cross-cultural communication and other skills necessary for living and working in multi-cultural, international settings. The MAC website also provides news and commentary on migration, immigration and refugee matters around the world. To follow or subscribe to this website go to its home page and complete the form “Follow by Email.”

Standard

African ‘Reverse Missionaries’ Have Come to Save Souls Among the Heathens of Britain

African Christians in Britain

African Mission Church in York

Africa’s Reverse Missionaries are Bringing Christianity Back to the United Kingdom

“[Nigerian Rueben Ekeme Inwe of York, England] is what some scholars would call a ‘reverse missionary,’ evangelists from former mission fields in Africa, Asia, and Latin America who believe their calling is to revitalize Christianity in the countries that first brought the religion to them. It’s a phenomenon that marks a shift in Christianity’s cultural center from the West to the so-called global South. By 2025, at least 50% of the world’s Christians will be in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia; in 1950, an estimated 80% of the world’s Christians were in Western countries.”

“The idea of the reverse mission has been around for a while. In 1880, a West African preacher named Edward Blyden predicted that one day Africa would be the ‘the spiritual conservatory of the world.’ In the early 1900s, Daniel Ekarte, a sailor from Nigeria, started a church in the slums of Liverpool for both Africans and white British. Around the same time, a Ghanaian businessman, Kwame Brem-Wilson, also founded a pentecostal Sumner Road Chapel in Peckham, London and helped spread Pentecostalism in the UK.
“In the 1970s, as former colonies adjusted to newfound independence, religious leaders from Africa, Asia, and South America began calling for a moratorium on Western missionaries to give local churches a chance to ‘stand on their own feet.’ The International Congress on World Evangelization, held in Lausanne Switzerland, declared in 1974, ‘A new missionary era has dawned. The dominant role of western missions is fast disappearing.'”

“Since then, the growth of Christianity in the developing world, migration, and the explosion of diaspora churches have given the idea new currency. Today, the largest Christian church in Europe was started by a Nigerian pastor, Sunday Adelaja, who first went to the Soviet Union and Belarus in the 1980s to study journalism. In the US, the Catholic church has been recruiting African priests for years.”

Standard