When friends attack

We've all experienced a friend saying something hurtful to us - those little jabs and barbs. Today I was thinking and realized what that can often mean, sometimes why it happens, and what to do about it in those cases.

I have two friends who are close friends with one another. However, they go through cold spots from time to time. One of them, let's say Friend A, recently told Friend B something somewhat the equivalent of "you don't really matter to me anyway". Friend B was telling me how hurt she was by that.

Why do friends sometimes say things like this? It happens between couples as well, but let's just look at friends to keep it simple. I think it sometimes happens because your friend is starting to lose confidence in whether or not you still care. It sounds strange to say this, but it is important for your close friends to know they have the ability to hurt you.

When you're close to someone, you invest part of yourself in them. You trust them with a piece of your heart, and what they say matters to you. You want to know that they feel the same way. When I think about Friend B, I realize that she is a very busy person and sometimes doesn't answer messages or give a lot of time to friends. I think maybe Friend A was starting to lose confidence that she was still entrusted with a piece of Friend B's heart. She was starting to wonder whether Friend B still cared what she had to say.

So, when this happens and we're starting to doubt whether or not our friends care, sometimes we're tempted to run a little experiment. By pricking the person with a snide remark, we see whether or not they're hurt by it. If we know we have the power to hurt them, then we know whether or not they still care. It's strange but I think sometimes this is the motivation behind these kinds of remarks, even if only subconsciously.

Unfortunately, if we are on the receiving end of something like that, our response is often egotistical. We don't want them to have the 'satisfaction' of knowing they hurt us, so we act like it didn't matter and we don't even care what they say. This is the exact opposite of what the friend was hoping to see. It only confirms their suspicion that you no longer are invested in them and, sadly, the friendship is further strained or even broken with both sides hurt. It sounds silly, but if you are hurt by it, the friend will often be surprised that you were so hurt, but deep down relieved. Then they'll suddenly feel guilty about saying it now that they know you really do care.

Next time you get a snide remark, insult, or hurtful comment from a friend, think about whether or not they might feel neglected. They might be 'pinging' you because they're losing confidence in whether or not you still care for them. Let them know, in a non-accusatory way, that you were hurt by the comment and the reason you were hurt is because you care what they think. Then offer them reassurance that you love them and are invested in them, and apologize for not making that more obvious lately. If my theory is correct, that response should be helpful.

Thoughts on Compassion

Criminal in China long ago, not allowed to
feed himself, must rely on the compassion
of others. (CC) Okinawa Soba, Flickr.com

What is compassion and what are its benefits? How can we learn to be more compassionate? Let's take a look at some ideas on these questions and how they can improve our lives.

Last Sunday I visited the Huntsville Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, where I had been invited to speak. The topic I chose was compassion. I like to speak and write on compassion because I think many Humanists tend to overlook it, often distracted by arguments about god/s, science, reason, superstition, dogma, and pseudo-science, and a lot of other things that may be compatible with Humanism - even a part of it in some cases - but not quite Humanism directly. Humanism is, first and foremost, about compassion. It's very name is meant to be juxtaposed with other 'isms', saying: our concern is for our fellow human being. All other ideas and principles spring from that root foundation.

But rather than talk about 'isms', I'd prefer to talk about compassion itself, and what role it should have in all of our lives. My talk was a modified form of the talk I gave to the Houston Church of Freethought some time ago, and summarized in an essay at The Humanist Contemplative. In it, some key points about compassion are:

• Compassion makes logical and survival sense
• Compassion is an integral part of our nature as social animals
• Compassion is not a 'sacrifice' or a 'charity' to others - it is a benefit to its user
• It is essential that sometimes Compassion be shown when it is not deserved
• The greatest gains we stand to make are when we show compassion to enemies

I have recently spent a couple of years actively trying to condition myself to be more compassionate in character. I often fail at this, and slip many times, but I think the effort has helped me, and added a lot of happiness to my life. At one point, however, I found that I had made myself more vulnerable to emotional pain. It was in a Dharma talk at the Jade Buddha Temple here in Houston where I learned what the problem was. Compassion must be balanced with wisdom, and by wisdom I mean specifically the wisdom of non-attachment. Combining compassion and non-attachment is one of the most difficult subjects I've approached, but that's something I will cover in the future.

For now, here are some practices and ideas I think should be helpful in improving our ability to be compassionate...

1) Do not fill your time and your mind with vitriol
Vitriol and hateful thinking is insidious, as tempting as candy, and as addictive as a narcotic. It’s so easy to slip into without realizing it, but no sensible position or action ever requires it. Even if violence were the logical alternative, it can be done without hatefulness. That hatefulness may seem to be our ally when it comes time to perform certain actions or present certain positions, but it lingers around long after it has worn out its welcome. It shapes our habits and our character, and that hatefulness will breed. Not even counting its effects on our external world, it will make us bitter and negatively affect our contentment internally. When you notice yourself thinking hatefully, try to imagine how tragic it is that our enemies weren’t more enlightened, how unfortunate it is that they didn’t turn out to be loving happy people themselves.

2) Avoid media that ‘poisons the soul’
Films with generally bad people in them aren’t a problem. All good stories need bad guys. But some forms of media, especially the likes of talk shows and some reality television, relish in meanness toward others and the suffering of others. Even many radio talk programs can do this. I used to listen to many of them out of curiosity for the topics, but some contained such vitriol that I found myself affected by it and it seemed to be shaping my attitudes. Since leaving vitriolic programming behind, I have found myself much happier.

3) Smile more
It may sound fake and make you feel hypocritical smiling when you don’t really feel that way. But soon you’ll discover that that it’s not just smiles that follow emotional state, but emotional state can follow smiling too. You’ll get some nice responses from time to time, but mostly you'll be surprised at the inner effects.

4) Learn how to moderate your words without sacrificing the integrity of your position or your content
This is an important one for those who think of compassion as some form of appeasement. As mentioned, no position or action ever requires extraneous meanness, insults, or phrasing. Anything substantive that can be said, can be communicated just as well by taking care to word things in a compassionate way. In fact, this will often help those words be more effective because they won’t cause the reader to bring up ‘defensive shields’ and stop listening. Some people are going to be offended no matter what, simply based on the content. But why miss out on the opportunity to get through to those who might not by throwing in extraneous vitriol? Remember too, that these words affect your habits and your character, which will affect your own long term happiness.

5) Be mindful of your own internal emotional responses and states
There are all sorts of stoic philosophies and meditative practices for interjecting your conscious awareness between outside stimulus and passionate response, but even just the attempt to watch ourselves can be helpful. It may seem odd to advise controlling your emotions in order to be more compassionate. This is because, usually, a lack of compassion is due to emotionalism rather than the opposite. This is another indicator that compassion is not merely a feeling, but has a rational component.

6) Remember the source of the benefits of compassion
Remember that most of the benefits of compassion don’t change based on the behavior of the other person. Compassion is about who you are – not about who they are. It’s a matter of asking ourselves, “what kind of person do I want to be?” and enjoying the fruits thereof.

7) Become the advocate for your enemy
First, learn to tell the difference between a person with genuine malicious intent and a person with whom you simply have a misunderstanding, even if they may have done wrong things. For the former, do what you must to protect the innocent (including yourself) and don’t let hatred consume you in the process. But for the latter, consider what motivates them and try to help them in a careful way, to become a better person. Disarm their fears and challenge their preconceptions with kindness

Being good: Spock, Obama, Jesus style

Composite, AP Photos

In my previous article about reader feedback, I wrote about building character - both as an individual and as a nation. Let's explore that further by considering being good versus doing good.

As a long time fan of Star Trek, I was happy to see the recent release of the film reviving the original characters. Zackary Quinto is being hailed for his portrayal of Mr. Spock; a favorite character for many of us. Although Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry was a Humanist, Mr. Spock once described himself as a Stoic.

In so doing, Spock was referring to the ancient Greek (planet Earth, that is) philosophy whose adherents are known for either lacking or controlling of emotion. This is an unfortunate caricature of Stoicism, as Stoics can certainly enjoy life joyfully. Over at Salon.com, Jeff Greenwald recently made an interesting case for Barack Obama being our planet's version of Mr. Spock. With his cool demeanor and yet, ability to smile and laugh with others, Obama is perhaps a better example of true Stoicism than Mr. Spock. I have no idea whether or not he has knowingly read of the philosophy, yet its wisdom has traveled through many streams over the centuries and may have found its way to Obama in unknown ways.

What Stoicism is really about isn't suppressing emotion, but rather changing our way of looking at the world so that we understand what is in our control and what is not - so that we value the things that are truly valuable, get less consumed with those things that are not, and apply ourselves to living more virtuously and in accordance with our genuine natures. When this is deeply understood and practiced, one will naturally find themselves in a more emotionally balanced state and that equilibrium will less often give rise to extreme emotions in the first place. I've said many times before, if you're suppressing an emotion (a psychologically unhealthy thing to do regularly) then you've already failed in the Stoic endeavor. I've given a more lengthy, yet still informal, explanation of Stoicism on my philosophy website for those interested.

When Gene Mayes sent me a link to a paper by Roderick T. Long titled, On Making Small Contributions to Evil, I thought about the issue of how much of Western philosophy looks at ethics, and how differently Stoicism looks at it. Long's is an interesting paper that tries to address the issue of whether or not we have a duty not to make small (insignificant) contributions to evil. This would be something like our carbon footprint and global warming, for example. On one hand, you could say that one person's stopping their pollution will make no difference unless everyone changes. On the other, you could say that we do have such a duty regardless, which leads to a lot of uncomfortable conclusions. Long attempts to create an argument for a middle ground between the extreme of not modifying our behavior at all, and living like a cave man. Even within its context, I think the paper is weak and has some holes, but it's a noble effort.

Aside from that, they main thing I noticed was how focused the entire thing was on outcomes - on the external results of our actions. Western philosophy often treats ethics as a puzzle; a logical and linguistic mind game of weighing up various outcomes, principles, and implied contracts. It looks at how many bodies you have left in the dead pile, how many lives 'saved', how many people who think they're happy, and so on. From this it deduces what is moral, what is immoral, what ought to be done, and what ought not to be done. Those complying with these rules are called 'good' and those not complying are called 'evil' (or at least 'bad'). The entire enterprise just seems hopelessly off base and ridiculous to me.

One of my quibbles (to put it mildly) with Cheney has been the suggestion that we should look at the effects of using torture, although he wouldn't call it torture. Aside from the fact that even that approach is debatable, here we have an example of measuring things by external, easily measurable outcomes and results. The Obama administration has rejected the notion that the results matter when it comes to torture - again, in line the with classic Stoic approach, knowingly or not.

The Stoic approach to ethics is not so concerned with what it would call 'externals'. Rather, to a Stoic, ethics is about personal virtue. It doesn't really matter so much whether you succeed or fail in your efforts, or what effect - lasting or not - those efforts have. If something is appropriate to your nature and virtuous, you are wise to practice in that manner, regardless.

Socrates wasn't a Stoic. He predated Stoicism as a formal school, but was considered a prime influential predecessor. When Socrates drank the hemlock as per the requirements of his death sentence, he never thought about whether his compliance would move people to change the laws, or encourage them to be compliant, or anything of the sort. The only question was, was it suitable to him as a virtuous man? In this line of thinking, it is the motivation and the internal mindset that matters most when we act as moral agents, and what many modern approaches to ethics miss entirely. I'll explain why this is the important element in a moment.

On the International Stoic Forum, Dave Kelly made a post in which he summarized a paper by Stanley Stowers of Brown University: Jesus the Teacher and Stoic Ethics in the Gospel of Matthew. In that paper Stowers makes a case for Stoic influences in the gospel of Matthew which paint Jesus as a Stoic Sage. He states:

"What God requires for righteousness is not simply the performance of actions that in themselves are generally accepted as morally good, but rather that such actions be done with the right moral disposition that is the equivalent doing God’s will."

Although this is arguable, earlier Stoics might substitute "in accordance with Nature" for "God's will", or perhaps use the term 'Zeus' but imply a less personified concept than most modern Christians think of God. The important point is the emphasis on the fact that it is our internal moral disposition that is more important than merely performing outward acts, or even the external consequences of those acts.

Why is Stoicism so different than what much of Western philosophy came to be in this area? There is what Mr. Spock would call a 'fascinating' line of investigation into the early interactions between ancient Greek philosophers and Eastern philosophy. Buddhism, close to Stoicism in many respects, also has a take on this. The word 'karma' literally means 'intention'.

The reason inner intention and motivation are so important to ethics is because the entire purpose of ethics is to inform us of the best way to live such that we may enjoy happiness. And, by happiness I mean a deep contentment which is not dependent on outward circumstance - not necessarily short-sighted immediate pleasure. This is the 'good life' - the flourishing life of well being, and it is not about how many cars you have or how many friends you have. It's a state that is reached because you are living in accordance with your inner nature as a moral being.

While some Western thoughts on ethics get into legalisms, mechanisms, and logical structures on duties, morals, etc, the Eastern approach (and Western Stoic approach) sticks to the idea of what produces happiness - the very reason for all those ethics in the first place. This is the difference between doing good, and being good.

Humanism and Being Humanist

CC Drew Myers, Flickr.com

Today's article is by guest writer Tom Brucia:

Earlier this week I listened to Reza Aslan speak at St. Thomas University in Houston.  I'm now reading his book, 'How to Win A Cosmic War: God, Globalization and the End of the War on Terror'. I wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone who thinks of themselves as a humanist.

Aslan makes the point that as globalization breaks down the influence and power of the nation state, humans are dividing into two camps.  The smaller one is that of people who think of themselves as citizens of the world.  The larger one is people who search for identity in being part of a people (Jew, American, Arab, Persian, black, white, Han, etc, etc) or as members of a religion (Muslim, Jew, Catholic, 'Christian', Humanist, Communist, Socialist, Hindu, etc, etc).

It suddenly dawned on me that humanists are as much divided as are other people.  A few humanists speak of "us" and mean the human race.  Most humanists speak of "us" and mean either atheists, or Jews, or Americans, or haters of Islam, or haters of fundamentalism, or Democrats, or whatever.  And then I thought of the words of the former honorary president of the American Humanist Association, Kurt Vonnegut, who dismissively described a "granfalloon": "the Communist party, the Daughters of the American Revolution, the General Electric Company, the International Order of Odd Fellows -- and any nation, anytime, anywhere." He went on to say, "If you wish to study a granfalloon, Just remove the skin of a toy balloon."

And here lies my disillusion NOT with humanism (pledging allegiance to the human race), but with many 'humanists', who (in my individualist arrogance) just 'don't get it' and are hung up on a variety of granfalloons...

As a humanist, I think of being an American in the same way that I do being a Houstonian.   I think of being white in the same way as being pink, red, grey and white (as I am under my skin).  I think of being a non-Christian in the same way I think of myself as being a non-Hindu, a non-animist, and a non-Zoroastrian...

In other words, why should I bother with 'having an identity'? Isn't just 'being a human being' enough?


DT Strain adds:

I featured Tom's words here because I share many of his concerns. If Humanism is about anything, it is about being concerned for all of humanity, even a-Humanists. Tom went on to say that he felt only being a part of the Humanist movement is very constraining. I'd also agree. It is my hope that this column at Examiner.com will be my little way of interacting with all of our non-Humanist friends here, discussing the real issues we all care about through a humanistic lens, and simply living as a Humanist rather than being consumed by 'preaching' Humanism or insulting people with other beliefs.

More on beliefs, torture, complexity: reader feedback

Juliette Rousselot opposing torture, AP

I've been so happy for the responses I've been getting to this blog. There are two lists I am able to see, which show top five visited blogs on Examiner.com. One is the top five Examiner blogs in Houston (out of 127), and the other is the top five for the Religion & Spirituality section (out of 274, regardless of city). Thanks to readers, I have several times seen Houston Humanist Examiner appear on both of these lists. We passed 1,000 unique hits sooner than I thought we would, which substantially exceeded the average for a little over 1 week being active.

Along the way, I have received many excellent comments from you all (some of them have been directly or in other venues than the comments sections you see here at Examiner.com). Please know that I read every one of them and give them all careful consideration. I decided that I'm not going to comment in the comments section below the articles, but rather leave that as a place for you all to have your say. However, I do plan to make a post every so often where I answer reader feedback. I've tried to answer the most interesting or pertinent questions, or one's where you've put me on the spot. Many I have not answered, but it isn't because I don't think they were good comments, or that I don't appreciate them. It's just that many of them speak well for themselves, or I'd have little to offer. So, without further ado, let me address some of your wonderful points!


From "Torture: what's the answer?"

Nathan: "how can any immoral action be justified using the logic in this article? If it is wrong to torture, regardless so of the circumstances, then how can it ever be considered right to kill somebody because "it's war", or imprison somebody because "they broke the law and must learn their lesson". How do you distinguish something like torture which you seem to say is wrong in all cases) from something like imprisonment (which we view as wrong to do to somebody - unless they deserve it). How do you define which actions merit the "it's ok if the person deserves it" tag, and which merit the "wrong in all cases" tag?"

You win the prize for deepest and most difficult question of the month! I think your question is essentially one of ends vs means. Despite my admonishment of an 'ends justifies the means' mentality produced by consequentialism in my article, I actually believe that sometimes the ends do justify the means. Usually when we face and ends/means question, it's because two principles are at odds. The 'weight' or importance of those principles relative to one another will determine whether the ends justifies or does not justify the means (for more on this, please see my essay "2.13 The Means/Ends Principle").

However, in this case - the main point I make is that, in looking only at outward consequences, we are not weighing the value of "not torturing" correctly, in proportion to the value of the information we might glean, or even the lives saved from it. Instead, when we consider how being a 'torturing people' will effect us, our society, and the kind of world in which we live, I believe the consequences are so substantial, that were we to measure these things properly, we would find torture not to be worth it.

Many times in our individual lives, when we go through our various tumultuous dramas that cause us so much distress, we see a person who is trying to play the puppeteer, crunching the numbers, looking at what will happen and when, and imagining that if they take certain actions at certain times, they can orchestrate events to come out as they desire. To a degree we can influence things like this, but the operation is always more daunting than we first imagined, and more complex and out of our control than we perceive. So, it's easy to get caught up in that and think of ethics as 'general principles that work most of the time, but not in this case'.

However, what really leads to a lasting, deep, happiness and contentment is not outcomes - but the nature of our character, and that is formed only by being virtuous. So, what we must do is rely on that wisdom, even when our machinations can't always calculate just how they will result in good outcomes. That will build a fortitude that will carry us through all outcomes.

Sam: "I consistently see the statement that we prosecuted Japanese soldiers who used waterboarding during WWII. The reality is that we DID prosecute them, and in fact executed some. But it is always framed as if waterboarding was the sole or main offense. Waterboarding might as well have been 'boogie-boarding' compared to the types of torture done by the Japanese. (Starvation, Electric shock and cannibalism to name a few) To use this, in my opinion, muddies the conversation.

It is certainly true that Japanese were not executed solely or even mainly for waterboarding. Some people may sometimes veer into framing it that way in order to emphasize their point and when they do so they are wrong. After being criticized by Mark Hemmingway in the National Review, Paul Begala justifies his point in this article but Hemmingway answered the next day here.

As Hemmingway notes, Begala smudged the line when he said on television, "We executed them for the same for the same crime we are now committing ourselves". Actually, we charged them for the crime as though it were a war crime and torture, and they were charged with a lot of other stuff and eventually executed. So, technically Begala oversteps a little here - something that should be important to we who care about intellectual honesty. But it's also important to know that the fudge isn't where it counts when it comes to the point of contention. Remember that the argument isn't that waterboarding deserves execution, or that the U.S. should execute waterboarders if it is to be consistent. Rather, the argument is that, to be consistent, the U.S. should consider waterboarding torture and a war crime in the same way it did when it included that in the charges against Japanese soldiers.

Hemmingway concedes that his argument doesn't mean waterboarding isn't torture, and he notes that McCain's original statement (which Begala was referencing) was correct as McCain phrased it: "The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding." I was careful to use similar wording in my post when I wrote, "the United States tried and executed Japanese personnel after World War II for war crimes, specifically including waterboarding." Although we risk muddying the conversation if we suggest the waterboarding was the main charge, I think it is so important to know that the U.S. at one time saw fit to include waterboarding among war crime charges, that we should carefully continue to make that point.

From "Why do my beliefs not match my religion?"

Sam: "I don't believe that any one person's beliefs can be 100% orthogonal with the 'published' beliefs of a religious group."

I'd definitely agree with that, I think most people would. What I found fascinating about the recent population of those identifying as Christians, is just how enormous and 'foundational' many of their beliefs are to traditional Christian doctrine.

Sam: "This article is a fine example of what we need more of. The more we think about our beliefs and better establish our values, the better off we will be. Excellent job."

Thanks very much! This kind of feedback gives me an indication of what people are interested and will effect what I offer readers.

Michel: "My issue with local Humanist/Atheist groups is their focus on debunking OTHER religions, rather than providing a rational approach to addressing the big questions that those religions answer."

I couldn't agree more Michel. As former president and long time member of local Humanist organizations, keeping the focus on the positive aspects of Humanist values is a constant challenge. Throughout the country, the Humanist movement has its share of hard-line atheists who are really just concerned with bucking the religious majority. I think it's fine for specifically atheist organizations to meet those needs, and to do important things like keeping a check on church/state mingling. But Humanist organizations should emphasize Humanism. It also doesn't help that the national level Humanist organizations have become very political in their focus. But I always tell people this: if you don't like what your local Humanist organization is, it's only that way as an emergent property of the current participants and their actions - jump in, get involved, and help to change and direct it where it needs to go, because if people like us don't, then the community will only do the opposite. In a way, my own efforts here at Examiner.com are all about quitting my complaining about what Humanists should be doing, and being an example of it. As Marcus Aurelius wrote, "Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one." The same could be said of being a good Humanist.

Arthur: "DT- You said: "...the barren meaningless landscape of Wal-marts, iPods, and materialism plaguing our society." Why on earth do you consider these three items barren, meaningless, and a plague?"

First, two linguistic points about that sentence that lacked clarity...

The grouping of items as I was thinking of them was:
barren meaningless landscape of:

1) Wal-marts
2) iPods
3) materialism plaguing our society

So, the "plague" part referred to the materialism.

The second linguistic point is the definition of "materialism". Here I am not referring to the philosophy which excludes the supernatural. For that, I use the term naturalism (to which I ascribe). Materialism here refers to an unhealthy focus on material possessions, greed, and jealousy - the "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality.

There's nothing wrong with iPods (I have one myself), or with retail stores per se, or with material possessions. But, within the framework of writing about deeper purpose and values in life - they truly are 'barren and meaningless'.  Things which are meaningless with regard to 'ultimate values' and barren of 'deep meaning' are not evil or wrong - in fact, they can be fun and add spice to life. But they are wholly insufficient as a means to a true contentment and real happiness and long term satisfaction in life. Therefore, any philosophy which seeks to remove the current basis of those values without replacing it with something, imagining the three items listed above to be enough, will absolutely fail.

Bill: "No matter where America goes, doesn't go, or the world for that matter, there will always be a few who continue to recognize Jesus as 'the way, the truth and the life.' Narrow minded to many perhaps, but faithful nonetheless."

Bill, I hope going forward we live in a world where people have even more freedom across the globe to believe and practice their faiths (or secular philosophies) peacefully and without oppression, in the open marketplace of ideas, wherever that leads. I think this can only happen when we have societies that are free, tolerant, respect free speech to the fullest, and the free exchange of ideas and opinions. I personally suspect this will have a diversification effect on the global population, which may even lead to an increased secularization. For Christianity and other mainline religions, that would probably mean a shrinkage - however, I'd only tolerate such a thing if it were a naturally occurring evolution of the population's demographics and free beliefs, and never if it were being enforced by others. All in all, I think you're right that we're likely to see some version of Christianity hanging around for a long, long time to come.

From "Swine flu, recession, terrorism, & Houston traffic: connection?"

smijer: "When I was a kid, they called this thing 'chaos theory'."

I think they still do actually. The book I mentioned refers to chaos theory quite a bit, but I think they are slightly different things. As far as I can tell as a layman, it seems to me that chaos theory is one part of complex systems theory. In other words, chaos is an element that plays out within complex systems, but (a) not all examples chaos pertain to a complex system, and (b) there are many other apects to complex systems besides that which chaos theory covers.

tbrucia: "It's fascinating how some people find the complexity we swim in endlessly fascinating and refreshing, while others find it threatening."

True tbrucia. I have had 'profound experiences' in learning about these things, which is why I wanted to see what implications complexity might have for naturalistic spirituality. As you likely know, the Buddhists would say that distress to which you refer is a result of the delusion of ego. We fail to perceive that what we think of as a unified continuous self, is actually an amalgamation of interacting parts in an impermanent pattern which flows seamlessly with the other patterns around it. Accepting this fully is part of acheiving the detachment needed to appreciate the beauty and wholeness of Nature. It involves letting go of that instinctive drive we have, understanding it is only there because of the natural selective processes which bred it into these bodies - letting go of things over which we have no control, and acting without fear or desire but rather from understanding. What a silly thing for me to try and communicate this in a single paragraph! We'll have to disuss more in coming posts :)

Thanks again to everyone, and if you like what you've read here so far - please consider subscribing to ths blog. By the way, I don't get to see your personal email addresses when you subscribe, that stuff is all secure and automated. But I do get to see how many subscribers I have and that tells me if I'm doing something right.

Dollhouse creator Joss Whedon, Star Trek executive, NYT & other news on Humanism

Joss Wheddon at Harvard University

Just some quick newsbits happening lately:

• Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly, and Dollhouse, spoke about Humanism in April. He spoke after receiving the Outstanding Lifetime Achievement Award in Cultural Humanism at Harvard University's Memorial Church. Wheddon, himself a secular Humanist, in pressing for more education noted, "The enemy of Humanism is not faith. The enemy of Humanism is hate, is fear, is ignorance..."
  [see the video]
   
• Speaking of hate, the Humanist magazine's blog Rant & Reason just posted a good explanation of the hate crimes legislation recently passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, which expands hate crimes to cover sexual orientation, sexual identity, disability, and gender. Along the way, they answer many of the criticisms aimed at it.
  [see the article]
   
• With the new Star Trek movie releasing in the U.S. in two weeks, I thought it appropriate to mention this tidbit: the Indiana Daily Student recently reported that Susan Sackett, who worked with Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, spoke about his Humanism and humanist themes in Star Trek. The talk was given on the Indiana University campus. I had the pleasure of dining with Ms. Sackett when she came to Houston to give a similar presentation for the Humanists of Houston. As a big Star Trek fan, it was fun to hear her stories.
  [see the article]
   
• The New York Times just featured an article about the rise of atheism/Humanism. I've seen the link online, but not the physical paper. However, I heard it was front page. While the exposure for Humanist groups is great, the article seems to mesh atheism and Humanism a little too much in my view. Humanists may be non-theistic, but not all atheists are Humanists. Still, I suppose it's best not to look a gift horse in the mouth.
  [see the article]
   
• Last but not least, the American Humanist Association (AHA) is holding it's 58th Annual Conference in Phoenix, Arizona this June 5-7, 2009. These conferences feature big name authors and speakers on a wide variety of important and fascinating topics. If you're interested in learning more about it or attending, I suggest checking out their site and registering.
  [conference info here]

Many thanks to my Tweeps: cameo, CFIOnCampus, TorieA for passing along much of this news. Check back soon for more articles on ethics, values, spirituality, and Humanist living!

Swine flu, recession, terrorism, & Houston traffic: Connection?

Flickr.com, inspecie.co.uk; AP

What do these things have in common: swine flu, the recession, terrorism, the ecology, the red spot on Jupiter, your brain, and yes - Houston traffic? Believe it or not, there is one field that studies them all because they are all basically the same thing: a 'complex system'.

Complexity is a fairly new field that has brought together professionals from a multitude of vastly different disciplines. It seeks to study what are called "complex adaptive systems", which as it turns out, tends to be just about everything that is interesting about the universe. Furthermore, I believe the study of complex systems theory, mathematical and scientific though it may be, is exactly what Heraclitus was referring to in his descriptions of the Divine Fire, and exactly what the Taoists were referring to with their concept of organic pattern or “Li”. And, unlike retrofits where some religious folks sometimes take the latest scientific theories and say, “hey that’s what x is in my religion”, I think that in this case, the thing being discussed by the ancients and that which Complexity addresses really are the same phenomena. So much so, that I consider Complex Systems Theory to be the modern continuation of the Stoic investigation into the nature of the Logos (the animating rational order of the universe - or the unfolding of the 'laws of physics' to put it in more modern terms).

Ok, that paragraph was an eye-full so let's slow down and back up a little.

A complex system is one where you have multiple agents interacting according to their own individual rules and, as a result, this large system operates in a very ornate and even “intelligent” way without orchestration from a top-down hierarchy. Something that is completely orderly is inert and static, and something that is completely chaotic is random and haphazard. But complex systems lie in balance between these two extremes, maintaining an order that is dynamic. Complex systems can even include the ebb and flow of cultural traits and other meme-based intellectual concepts which interact with one another over time.

The fascinating thing about Complexity, and why there can be a single field at all, is that all of these systems operate by the same fundamental principles. It’s all much more mathematical than I as a layman can really appreciate fully, but as these various equations and laws are discovered, we find that they can be applied to both neurons in the brain, as well as organisms in an ecology or corporations in an economy. What this suggests is that Complexity is not merely pointing out analogies, but that all of these manifestations portray an underlying order that governs how matter in our universe organizes itself.

So, now we have this swine flu breaking out all over the place, and you can bet that complexity scientists are taking notes. Here's an example of a paper studying epidemics in terms of complex systems: link. The goal would be that eventually we can use these models to actually help us do things, like hindering the spread of diseases.

And then we have the threat of terrorism. Terrorist cells are decentralized, independent, and often operate without a top-down hierarchy - yet, networks of information, supplies, and funds move throughout them. Sound familiar? Understanding complex systems can help us understand the behavior of Terrorist movements and hopefully disrupt them in clever ways.

What about the stock market? Again, that environment is a complex system, as is all of the economy. Here is a paper that came out in 2008 looking at patterns that emerge preceding recessions: link.

We Houstonians are well aware of the traffic issue, as I'm sure a lot of folks are around the country. Well, it seems there are complexity studies looking into the possibility of self setting traffic lights to optimize traffic flow, the best ways to handle mass numbers of cars in an open area [link] (like getting out of the parking lot of Reliant Stadium), and of course, dealing with highway congestion such as around 610 and 290. Here's a book on the Physics of Traffic: link.

There are even religious implications for our literal Creationist friends out there. I can't tell you how many times I've heard it exclaimed that evolution of various organisms and tissues is impossible due to their complexity. However, learning about complex systems theory has really helped to understand how these sorts of things can happen - and fairly easily. A good way to get a conceptual handle on how complex systems can spontaneously arise from a few very simple components, is by playing around with Conway's game of life.

In fact, Complexity science is now having an impact not only in multiple previously unrelated scientific fields such as artificial intelligence, sociology, and economics, but also in several new business and corporate concepts. Some people think this is all about math and science, and don’t see the enormous philosophic implications of what’s actually being addressed here. Consider the following, from Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos by Mitchell M. Waldrop (from which I have been paraphrasing, and by the way, will change the way you look at the universe):

“I’m of the school of thought that life and organization are inexorable,” he says, “just as inexorable as the increase in entropy. They just seem more fluky because they proceed in fits and starts, and they build on themselves. Life is a reflection of a more general phenomenon that I’d like to believe is described by some counterpart to the second law of thermodynamics – some law that would describe the tendency of matter to organize itself, and that would predict the general properties of organization we’d expect to see in the universe.” (bold mine)

Now, when we consider the words of the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who originated the concept of the Divine Fire, he tells us of a process that never rests; an everliving fire in an unceasing process of eternal flux. In his observations of nature, he speaks of the way upwards (order/peace/harmony) and the way downwards (entropy/chaos/disorder). Paradoxically, the everliving fire which creates this flux also secures its stability. This eternal exchange is the same for both microcosm and macrocosm alike (layers of organization).

Nearly every feature of complex systems is spoken of by Heraclitus and I find it impossible not to think that Heraclitus was observing the very same sort of activity in Nature that Complexity scientists study today, although not as nearly refined or informed. Even his famous statement that one cannot step twice into the same river, is essentially a description of Autopoiesis (a process where some complex systems are constantly remaking themselves with new material, while keeping the same form - this is what the red spot on Jupiter does, by the way).

This everliving fire, the creative force in the universe, seems to me to a description of what Complexity scientists call the counterpart to the second law of thermodynamics. The Taoist 'Li', or organic form, are those structures in nature which the artist thinks about in his compositions, and of which we all appreciate the beauty. These are forms that are not completely orderly but you know them when you see them. They have an order to them and include cloud formations, and the structures and tissues of living creatures. This is how the Taoists described 'Li'.

A couple of years ago, I got to looking into the Taoist Chuang-Tzu for a very specific reason. I was trying to think of just how these incredibly interesting notions of Complexity can or should play a role in our approach to life. So, since Complexity seems to be the modern incarnation of the Logos (and in some ways the Tao), then I wondered how knowledge of the Tao in Taoism lead to conclusions of how we live our daily lives. Chuang-Tzu addressed this very issue.

After making some notes on it, I came to see that the arguments he makes for how we approach life, based on some aspects of Taoism, hold up quite well and, incidentally, are incredibly Stoic in nature. Most fascinating though, I found that they DO indeed apply in connecting Complexity-based perspectives to our approach to life, just as I had suspected. I need to explore this further, and it's too intricate to go into here, but it has to do with perspectives on things, and where we place value and focus.

The ancient Stoics segmented the philosophy into 'Physics' (how nature works), 'Logic' (how to handle ideas and reason out conclusions), and 'Ethics' (how we are to live, based on those things). For modern Stoics, it is my belief that Complexity Theory is the Physics branch of Stoicism.

Torture: what's the answer?

CC Matthew Bradley, Flickr.com

Last week President Obama spoke before employees of the CIA [video] and touched upon the current controversies regarding certain interrogation techniques, namely the matter of torture. In noting his decision to release the memos on the past use of waterboarding - the Office of Legal Council (OLC) memos - Obama said this:

"I believe that our nation is stronger and more secure when we deploy the full measure of both our power and the power of our values..."

Values, of course, are what we are interested in here, so let's talk about torture, and consult a little ancient philosophy along the way.

Part of the question centers on whether or not waterboarding is torture. Two days after his inauguration, President Obama issued executive order 13491 which restricted the CIA to the same standards of prisoner treatment outlined in the Army Field Manual 2 22.3 and the Geneva Conventions. By those standards, waterboarding is torture. But even before George W. Bush's administration in 1988, the U.S. is had signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which defines torture in Article 1.1 as:

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession..."

[explore further: see PBS' FAQ on torture]

Not only do these definitions clearly include waterboarding, but the United States tried and executed Japanese personnel after World War II for war crimes, specifically including waterboarding. This poignant point so clearly marks the distance we have strayed as a nation, that when Paul Begala made it to the normally talkative Ari Fleischer on CNN, it produced one of the longest and most uncomfortable silences in cable news this week [see the video, namely beginning at 3:00 minutes].

That being said, I'm going to proceed with the position that waterboarding is torture - period. What's worse is that documents so far destroyed by the CIA may have contained even harsher methods. So, the key question is: should we torture and, if so, how much?

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney has said that he 'played a role' in deciding whether to waterboard and that he didn't think it went too far. He noted that 'the results speak for themselves' and that it was effective. His daughter and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Liz Cheney defended him recently in a somewhat combative interview on MSNBC. Again, hitting on the 'ends over means' angle, she wondered if anyone had reviewed the effectiveness of the program before releasing information on the techniques used.

On the matter of whether or not waterboarding was torture, she answered in part by pointing out that we perform many of these techniques on our own people (referring to those we train to endure such treatment if captured). People such as former Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin and columnist/writer Christopher Hitchens have both subjected themselves to a form of waterboarding resulting in opposite conclusions.

Many of us remember Admiral James Stockdale from his bid for office as Ross Perot's running mate in the 1992 U.S. presidential race. At the time, those who hadn't already heard of him were learning about how he had been taken prisoner during the Vietnamese War in 1965, and about how he had relied on Stoic philosophy to cope with the torture and captivity. Stoicism is something that I have become a follower of for unrelated reasons, and a big part of the writing I do in the future will look at what it has to offer us all.

While the Stoics do not claim we can avoid physical suffering, what Stoicism can provide is relief from mental anguish. For instance, you might imagine yourself lying on a bed being cut upon. In one case this might be the result of torture and in another, a necessary medical procedure to which you assented. While both could conceivably result in similar physical pain and outcomes, the torture is by far a worse experience due to our knowledge and judgments about the situations. I think most people would appreciate the difference between the experience in controlled circumstances with an aware subject and the situation in a true interrogation context - even were all of the physical actions identical.

Liz Cheney also seems to believe that our measure of behavior should be based on the al-Qaeda training manual when she criticizes 'this idea that somehow al-Qaeda abides by the Geneva Conventions' - as if our commitment to the standards of the Geneva Conventions were contingent upon enemy behavior. The point is not who al-Qaeda is - it is who we are. People often say, "the enemy doesn't care, they do a lot worse" and that's just as it should be. The reason they are our enemy is because "they are a lot worse". May we all shun the day when that complaint can no longer be made. Liz Cheney nears the end of this display of her astoundingly misguided value system by saying "It's very important for us to take a step back from the emotion of this". Ironically, it is the position that seeks to torture when under danger because its seen as 'effective' and because our enemies will do the same to us that is the emotional position. That emotion, by the way, is fear.

But has torture even been effective?

Former CIA officer Bob Baer said recently on several outlets that torture has never worked, which is why even the Israelis (under a great deal more threat than ourselves) don't torture. He said that most of the CIA agrees on this and that the singular 'ticking time bomb' scenario often used to argue for torture is outlandish, nearly impossible, and has not been shown to have happened. I believe Baer's position to have been (and still be) the overall professional consensus on torture for some time. Subjects will say what they think the torturer wants to hear, and the information is unreliable. He also notes that if a single case of this being directly responsible for the saving of lives had existed, it would have come to light by now to defend those responsible.

In any case, I think whether its Liz Cheney suggesting it was effective or Bob Baer saying it isn't, both sides are off base. This approach comes out of a shallow version of consequentialism - which is unfortunately very rampant in Western ethical thought these days. Consequentialism judges the moral value of actions by their results. However, this way of thinking about ethics has several shortcomings. It can result in unfairly blaming people for results beyond their choice or control. In this case, it has resulted in an 'ends justifies the means' value system. On the whole, it comes out of the delusion that we have more control than we actually do in manipulating world events and our environment to ensure 'good results'.

Instead, philosophies such as Buddhism look at inner motivation, personal virtues, and character development. This is seen as the path to happiness in life. The Stoics too saw the link, stating that virtue alone is both necessary and sufficient for happiness. Stoics knew that the results of our attempts are not truly within our control, but that our choices and values are. So they didn't focus on consequentialism, but on building virtue of character - on our inner motivations.

The world is a scary and unpredictable place. The United States has been in a constant effort to gain more and more control over the globe as a means of making itself feel safe. But this is a fool's errand - it's like chasing a rainbow because that kind of control is impossible. So, as we travel further and further down that path, we find ourselves less happy and even less safe as a result. Instead, as the Buddha and as the Stoic Epictetus would advise, we should focus on being virtuous first, because that is something we can control.

It doesn't matter how effective or ineffective torture is. The question itself is vulgar. Consider why targeting soldiers in war versus targeting busloads of children must be kept categorically separate, regardless of the cause or the ends. It doesn't have to do with the fact that the children are innocent. Innocent children die in legitimate war actions too, but it is unintentional. The allied soldiers in WWII fighting against Nazi and Imperial Japan attacks were innocent too, yet they were legitimate war targets - so innocence isn't the point when it comes to terrorism. The point is this: a standard that accepts terrorism is a lower one that has a big impact on what kind of people we become and what kind of world we live in.

This is why terrorism is bad and, ironically, terrorism is the very thing involved in the hypothetical "ticking time bomb" scenario which seeks to justify torture. A world full of human beings who see terrorism as a legitimate war tactic is a darker world that we can't allow. If torture is ok then so is terrorism, they are both just tactics working toward an end. Will we eventually be debating about how effective terrorism is so that we might entertain using it ourselves?

What matters is, what kind of people we wish to be. What kind of 'national character' do we wish to build, and are we willing to do the hard work and pay the price for being that kind of people?

The Buddhist notion of cause and effect recognizes that when we perform certain acts they have an effect on us besides the mere consequences of the act. They shape us, form our character, and make us who we are when it comes time to make future decisions. This works the same for a nation as it does a person.

Let's not overlook the role of mass media in directing our attentions and effecting the relative weight we give to threats. Three thousand died in the 9/11 attacks, certainly a tragedy that should not be minimized, but tens of thousands die each and every year in the U.S. alone from automobile accidents. This is a sacrifice we make, not for our principles of decency or even for our freedom, but for convenience of travel. So, let's make sure we are looking at this without being alarmist or disproportionate. Are we willing to sacrifice who we wish to be as a people and risk our own freedoms out of a frenzied response to only those deaths to which the media have called our attention?

[Go deeper: "Debating Torture"]

I was disappointed to learn of a recent poll in which almost half of Americans say that torture may be justified in certain circumstances. At some point we need to ask the question, in defending the United States as a nation, just what are we protecting?

In his CIA presentation, Obama also noted that al-Qaeda is not constrained by a constitution, and how that makes their job harder. He rejected the notion that those who would argue for a higher standard are naive, adding:

"What makes the United States special... is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and ideals even when it's hard; not just when it's easy."

We've already determined as Americans that some values and principles are worth fighting for, and worth dying for. Being the kind of people that don't torture is a worthy value so why should we so easily run in fear at the prospect that principle may cost us lives? Since when has being a noble and good people not been worth that sacrifice? In his position, Obama can't tell you this as such, but I can: lives are worth risking or even losing for certain principles - not being torturers is a principle too.

U.N. representative Manfred Nowak has said that the U.S. is obligated under the U.N. Convention against torture to prosecute Bush administration lawyers involved in policies approving these interrogation techniques. However, I hope we won't get too much into this sort of thing. I believe we shouldn't prosecute Bush administration officials for the same reason I support a moratorium on capital punishment - our system is so convoluted with conflicts of interest and inefficiencies right now that accuracy, fairness, and justice are not even close to being assured. When these matters get going, they become very political, with many people getting involved simply to bring down their political opponents regardless of the facts or principles involved. More importantly, it focuses our national energies and attention in places they should not be: on divisiveness, on retribution, and on the past. What's important now is that we find our moral bearings and move forward a better nation for it.

As for the question of torture, we are at a crossroads and we must decide who will be in control of our actions; our enemies or ourselves.

Why do my beliefs not match my religion?

These days I'm meeting more and more people who, when asked what religion they belong to, will say one thing; but when asked what they really believe and what they really live by, will describe something else. Many of those beliefs turn out to be quite different than you'd expect in a Texas city, but then Houston has always been a bit of a multicultural island here in the south.

One of my earliest experiences of this was a couple I met through my local Humanist organization. They came from Russia to live here in Houston, and said they were Catholics. Their attendance at a Humanist meeting, apparently in full agreement with Humanism, confused me so they clarified. They described how their family has always been Catholic and that has become a part of their culture; their identity. They were actually shocked when they came to the United States and spoke with other Catholics, saying, "wow, you people really believe this stuff!"

But it's not just foreigners. It's happening with multi-generational Americans. Once a friend of mine took an online test to see what religion he most closely matched. My friend is Hispanic with a long tradition of Catholicism in his family, yet he came up on the test with the beliefs of a Unitarian (basically Humanist). That wasn't the surprise, however. The surprise was his reaction. In my naivety, I expected him to have an epiphany and begin looking into Unitarianism. But he simply said, "yeah I know, I don't believe most of that stuff but I'm still a Catholic". At the time I was baffled.

Most of us by now have seen the many articles and statistics about the sharp decline of self-professing Christians in the U.S. and the sharp increase in those professing "no religion" over the past two decades. President Obama, has begun to mention "those of no faith" in the same breath with the other religions and even mentioned humanists in a recent speech - this, no doubt, an acknowledgment of America's rapidly changing demographics. Newsweek published an article earlier this month boldly titled "The End of Christian America". Oddly, none of the articles I've seen have made the very obvious connection of these statistics to the rise of the internet. It used to be that a person growing up in a small town would only see and talk to those around him or her, who often belonged to the same churches in pretty much the same belief systems and perspectives. This would be the case even in our isolated sub-cultures here in Houston. But, with the opportunity of young people to speak with people all over the world and see a wider variety of opinions, it becomes harder to see the traditional faith of our families as necessarily the "one truth".

But I'm not really talking about the changing demographics in America, rather something I think is a little more interesting. I'm talking about the demographics that aren't changing - at least on paper. More importantly, what are those self-identifying Christians really believing, and is that anything like what their grandparents would have called Christianity? I think if we took this into account, we'd find the religious landscape is changing even more than we think.

As I write, the Christian survey and research organization The Barna Group has a lead article on its recent findings that most Americans do not believe that Satan or the Holy Spirit exist (recall the recent infamous 'Blasphemy Challenge' that circulated the web beginning in late 2006, in which the Rational Response Squad claimed the books of Mark 3:28-29 and Matthew 12:30-32 meant that denying the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin). Barna claims that, even just among self-proclaimed Christians, that a full quarter of them descibe God in ways that are inconsistent with Christian teachings, such as "the realization of human potential" for example. Incredibly, more than one fifth of Christians do not even believe that Jesus Christ was perfect and without sin.

After my own incredibly difficult coming out to my religiously conservative family about my beliefs several years ago, I am no longer naive on the topic. I can fully understand how it is so much easier not to rock the boat. Your family, extended family, friends all go to church, engage in the various rituals of your traditional religion, have celebrations and feasts, and so on. So we end up practicing "cultural Judaism" and become "cultural Christians", and "cultural Muslims".

From what I've been able to tell, beliefs about the supernatural and the afterlife are tending to loosen up across the spectrum - not just among Christians, but all Americans. There is more of a willingness to live and let live, rather than insisting our beliefs are the only "way, the truth, and the life". The beliefs are becoming more generalized as a "higher power" or a "greater good". And, of course, there is a mix of New Age, pseudoscience, and other influences making their way into the collective consciousness. This seems to be happening to a surprising degree even here in the south. In Houston, there has been a rise in the membership of non-theistic local organizations like the Humanists of Houston, the Houston Church of Freethought, and other groups.

My concern is that as more people begin to shift in their beliefs, they will become lost. Traditionally, our source of meaning, the basis of our ethics, our sense of self worth, and the stable values on which we built our lives have been intricately entangled with our religions and their various supernatural worldviews. But if those are no longer in place for people such as the cultural Christians arising in America, then it won't be long before they realize that traditional rituals alone won't be enough to save them and their families from the barren meaningless landscape of Wal-marts, iPods, and materialism plaguing our society. People need spiritual values, but when they're no longer buying into the mythology, then how can we begin to plant our feet firmly on something that will help us find value and meaning in life and guide us on "how best to live"? These are issues I hope to explore more in the future here as your Houston Humanist Examiner. Please subscribe and check back here for more exploration, where we'll be looking into some possible treasures for living, from ancient philosophy to modern science.

Why be Good? A Systemic Approach

One of my pet peeves with a lot of ethical philosophy is that it either weakly addresses, or entirely skips the question of "why care?" For this reason, I've tried to keep in mind that foundational issue as I've proceeded. In the past, I have written some reasons on "why be good", such as in my Principles of Socio-Personal Humanism, 2.4 "The Basis of Secular Ethics", I give a lot of answers to the question. But the basic approach I take there is this: Here are some reasons, listed from the most shallow, to the most profound, and as you practice ethics, you find the more profound reasons become more important to you, even if they seemed unimportant at first. I recall Kurtz's listing of stages of moral development.

The problem with that approach is that I basically present a lot of reasons, some of them obviously advantageous to those who might ask 'why be good', and the rest of them irrelevant to such a person - and then I go about 'shaming' them into the more profound reasons by telling them it's part of being more ethically mature. Not a really solid line of argument.

But then the realization happened, which is the purpose of this post...

That realization has made me understand how each of those different reasons work together in a system which links them all together. Basically, it starts with a simple odds assessment:

1) We can see that bad actions, if discovered, will lead to bad consequences for us socially, legally, or otherwise. We might try to get away with it once, but ultimately over a lifetime of performing bad actions, the statistical likelihood of being found out approaches near certainty.

2) Given human psychology, it only takes one or two such discoveries to 'pigeonhole' us for a long, long time in the minds of peers.

3) We might think we can perform bad actions only once in a while, or only when being really careful, or only when our emotional urges are exceptionally strong. However, even the most extreme of temptations are likely to happen several times to us throughout life, and no matter how careful we are, we are talking about many decades of life and statistically, we are going to have all sorts of trouble with any kind of bad behavior even slightly approaching 'regular'. Worse behaviors require only one flub to forever generate consequences not worth the aim of the original behavior.

4) So, the wise course is to set about a long term plan of behavior which, even over the long term, will yield statistically good results. But here's the catch: human beings are not typically strong enough to resist all of the various urges and temptations they may encounter while having a nature so coldly calculating. The task would seem to be a near impossibility.

5) This is where character development comes in. If we begin a program of molding our character in such a way that is more inclined to good actions and disinclined toward bad actions, then it becomes much easier to live according to a rational plan of behavior. It is easier to resist temptations and habit building makes it easier to perform more actions which will be admired by peers.

6) At that point, we will begin to enjoy deeper more fulfilling relationships. This feedback, plus the character development, will nurture a certain subset of our instinctive emotional responses, such as empathy and compassion. This will happen automatically as we set about habit building and the fruits thereof.

7) As these instincts are nurtured, and as our intellectual and behavioral norms change, we eventually become open to other lines of argument for being good, which the basic beginner asking "why should I be good?" would find irrelevant or unimportant. At this point, we are living so in tune with our full nature as social beings, that we can enjoy a contentment that is scarcely available to the surface-level agent who makes materialistic and short-term calculations for each individual action as it comes up.

8) There is an intellectual thread that follows in all this, whereby hardships are approached with greater skill and fascinating concepts enrich life and make happiness possible that is independent of material circumstances. This would include things like Stoic and Buddhist teachings and, more importantly, practices.

All of this must be experienced to be fully understood or appreciated by the surface-level agent.

Anyway, that is the general concept. I just rattled it off the top of my head to get it into my journal here for future reference, but I thought the idea of how these things connect and interrelate was worthy enough to make note of.

Of course, we are rarely so able to perfectly enact this process. We are forever facing the temptations of a particular moment or action, and our characters are never perfected completely. Nevertheless, to whatever degree we achieve this process is the degree to which eudaimonia becomes possible.

But suppose someone traveled this path with perfection from the beginning of life. Such a person would be indifferent to the material. Is it really possible to have eudaimonia without experiencing any of the delightful individual-level experiences in life, materialistic as though they may be? If a person could have such experiences, would it be worth a few interruptions of their perfect path to eudaimonia to at least enjoy them here and there? Maybe a little hardship such materialism may cause might be worth it to really live?

Of course, I'm in no danger of living a perfectly ethical and stoic life, try though I might. But the thought experiment of the perfect practitioner does give me pause and wonder about the absolute validity of the stoic approach.