Daily Archives: April 9, 2020

Notably, during these times of self-isolation, it should be a near-requirement to use our time to delve into certain subjects.

It is my experience that it is rather more difficult to recapture directness and simplicity than to advance in the direction of ever more sophistication and complexity. Any third-rate engineer or researcher can increase complexity; but it takes a certain flair of real insight to make things simple again. And this insight does not come easily to people who have allowed themselves to become alienated from real, productive work and from the self-balancing system of nature, which never fails to recognise measure and limitation. E. F. Schumacher in Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered

Immanuel Kants eminent 1784 essay Answering the Question: What Is Enlightenment? begins with an introduction of the Enlightenments motto: Have the courage to use your understanding. Many recent intellectuals, such as Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, and Richard Dawkins, have advocated for bringing back the Enlightenments values in an era supposedly lacking in the courage to use [our] understanding. Whether we actually live in an era lacking this courage is debatable. It, nevertheless, is not harmful to evaluate the degree to which we, as a society, currently choose to exert ourselves and engage with difficult ideas. Notably, during these times of self-isolation, it should be a near-requirement to use our time to delve into certain subjects. Unfortunately, compared to the contagiousness of the Coronavirus, the fun of engaging with certain challenging ideas is much less communicable.

In what follows, I will try to make the case that immersing ourselves in complex ideas is anything but natural to us. In addition, several internal and external influences often seek to suppress actual engagement with complexities. (I define complexities as ideas, subjects, concepts and theories with a higher than average difficulty and that are mostly discussed in non-fiction literature.) However, I will argue for engagement. This is in contrast to those, who seek to stifle engagement, often for political purposes. As such, certain populist politicians, including in my home country of the Netherlands, have sought to capitalize on the difficulty that some people have when it comes to engaging with complexities for their political gain.

One important method to gather information about complexities is the technique you are using right now: reading. Reading (for pleasure) about a complex subject is, as Jordan Peterson rightly noted, a speciality market. Some might be inclined to see the similarities with school work, which might induce less than stellar memories of being forced to read complicated books. Yet, I disagree with Petersons unconcern regarding the decline in the number of people who read for pleasureand in the amount of time they spend reading. As reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in 2018, the average American spent just over 15 minutes a day reading for pleasure. According to the BLS, this number has been steadily declining for the last two decades; it was 23 minutes per day in 2004, for example. The rise of audiobooks, podcasts and Youtube videos seems to Peterson to be the second-best approach for gathering knowledge, following reading.

The beneficial element of engaging with ideas though these digital mediums cannot be disputed; for this reason, I wont attempt to either. What can be disputed, however, is whether these means have the potential to substitute for the decline in reading consumption. However, there is some evidence to support the large demand for both audiobooks and podcasts. The same goes for the ability to comprehend ideas via listening, instead of reading. Education professor Beth Rogowsky studied this issue with her colleagues in 2016. To begin with, Rogowsky and colleagues assigned each of the 91 participants a group their own technique to absorb a non-fiction text (reading, listening, or both). Rogowsky and her colleagues could subsequently compare the effectiveness of these techniques by handing out identical tests that measured both their retention and comprehensibility. Surprisingly to me and Rogowsky herselfthe findings concluded that there were no significant differences in retention or comprehensibility, depending on whether the text was read or listened to. Case closed, you might say.

Despite this evidence, Im still skeptical. Not about the degree to which people interact with informationbut rather about the degree to which people interact with difficult information. We are well-aware that scientific complexities (and the engagement with these ideas) are not for everyone. Arguably, we should not judge people by the degree to which one engages with these complexities. There are numerous factors that come into play when assessing the likelihood of engagement (many which are not in the power of the individual to control or alter in any way). As a 2016 Pew research found, the people who are less likely to have consumed a book (audio, digital or printed) in the last twelve months tend to be to be less educated (high school diploma or less), live in a rural area, be non-white or non-Asian, have a relatively low income (less than $30,000 annual), and be an adult male. Findings show that 27% of American adults have not touched a book in the last year.

As such, what seems to be unclear to some, who neglect reading, is the actual benefit of engaging with complexities. Perhaps some perceive such exercises as a chorenot leisure. When we measure what economists call opportunity costs, most of us (not frequent readers of journals like Merion West, however) put engaging with complex subjects on the chore side of the equation. Keep in mind, this is, of course, subjective. Many also find issue with this activity because of its direct compensation, which is mostly non-existent. Compared to actual labor, we do not obtain any (relatively) short-term monetary reward by, for instance, reading an article or listening to a podcast. Yet, there is an opportunity cost, of course, and, unfortunately, many nowadays prefer not to pay this price.

The lack of observable benefits makes engaging with complexities, at best, evidently undesirable. Yet, we observe complexity all around us. And because of its large continuing availability, it could be said that we are born to be scientific. However, Steven Pinker asserts in his book How the Mind Works that natural selection did not shape us to earn good grades in science class or to publish in refereed journals. The involvement with complexities is not included in mother natures list of qualifications, unless it actually shapes us to master the local environment. Besides that, Pinker describes how science is a costly (and enduring) endeavor. Thus, [f]or the provincial interest of a single individual or even a small band, Pinker argues, good science isnt worth the trouble.

Instead, our (nearly) second nature, according to Kant, lies in our nonage: the inability to use ones understanding without anothers guidance. This means that we would rather rely on other people telling us what information is important, as opposed to constructing our own narrative by immersing ourselves with complexities.

If this is the case, holding onto the scientific attitude might be as difficult as Kant described. Consequently, we will have people who mock science. In Enlightenment Now, Pinker talks about how science, which consists of many complexities, is increasingly and beneficially embedded in our material, moral and intellectual lives. However, many of our cultural institutions cultivate a philistine indifference to science that shades into contempt. The distaste for the scientific complexities is not solely derived from cultural institutions.

Presently, there are numerous politicians or journalists who take part in fostering or furthering this contemptuous stance towards science itself. They, furthermore, make use of our dependence on the information they provide us by being well aware that most of us will not do the work for ourselves. This lack of engagement gives room to transmit any information with the minimum amount of disbelief. In other words, the largest share of society would not have done the research to invalidate (or be skeptical about) the claims these politicians or journalists are making. One of these individuals fostering a mistrust of science is a Dutch, right-wing populist by the name of Thierry Baudet. He is the chairman of the party Forum for Democracy. During the last four years, Baudets party has increasingly been receiving a larger chunk of the voters of Dutch citizens. Last year, Baudets party received just over 17% (more than any other party) of the overall votes during the provincial state election. When we observe the traits of this partys average supporter, we identify similar traits that Ive mentioned when discussing the rates of people who are less likely to read books. That is, they are predominantly male and less likely to be highly educated. (It should be noted that the Dutch left-populist party, besides having predominantly female supporters, has almost identical statistics). Nevertheless, Baudet is well-aware of the socio-economic features of his supporters and uses this advantage to inform his supporters about his views on climate change, the dangers of the media, but, most of all, he emphasizes the decline of Dutch identity currently accelerating in the country.

Baudet often refers to Roger Scrutons meaning of oikophobiathe felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably ours as a way to characterize (for him) the hellish nature of the European Union. He applies this also to modern art and multiculturalism. By the means of his party, Baudet tries to restructure the Dutch identity back to the Golden Age. Pinker explains how these figures see problems not as challenges that are inevitable in an indifferent universe but as the malevolent designs of insidious [in Baudets case] foreigners. Forum for Democracyand parties like itnot only diminish the tremendous amount of progress we have made as a nation; they additionally ridicule scientists and the complexities they engage with. Likewise, Baudet spreads lies to seemingly denigrate his own country. In a May, 2019 essay in American Affairs, Baudet discusses how in the Netherlands suicide is facilitated to ensure that here, too, no constraintssuch as the duty to care for your parentsare placed on the individual. With much confidence, I can tell you that we, in the Netherlands, do not let our parents kill themselves to relieve us of our responsibilities. The word Baudet should have used is euthanasia, not suicide.

All and all, populist politicians seem to make use out of the nonage of men and women. They set themselves up as intelligent, competent leaders. But, instead of encouraging intellectual freedom, populism is occupying itself with scorning, as Pinker puts it, the rule-governed institutions and constitutional checks that constrain the power of flawed human actors.

Weve already settled on the idea that engagement with complexities has been (almost by definition) a minority occupation. However, Im rather optimistic about the extent to which people are able to integrate complex subjects into their daily livesirrespective of the forces that suppress this engagement. In his February Quillette articleOn the Study of Great Books, Andrew Gleeson asserts that booksprimarily Great books can be simplified when we give into, what Gleeson calls, the academic fallacy. That is, the notion that the most important reading is the highly specialised type found in academic journals. According to Gleeson, because of this fallacy, we overshadow the actual complexities that are part of great literature.

Similar to needlessly inflating the difficulty of simple ideas, we should dwell on the notion of overly simplifying complexities to the extent that these complexities lose their name. That does not take away from the fact that people might start off at the bottom (at a reduced level of difficulty) and gradually move up. This process is where part of the fun lies. We should bear in mind that when a large number of people get involved with scientific complexities, this might result in a phenomenonIve called the Curse of Interest. This bias tells us we are susceptible to the intense need to share the information related to our interests. It has the possibility to affect our social interactions because of peoples common disregard for the interests and occupations of others. Essentially, this describes the opposite of nonage; in this scenario we only rely on the information we gather ourselves after engaging with the associated complexities. Even so, we keep informing others about our findings.

Nevertheless, we probably will not get to this pointprecisely because politicians like Thierry Baudet wont let us. No matter how great my optimism might be, most of us will keep their dependency, and most institutions or individuals who benefit from the dependency of others will continue this trend for political gain. Whether this is changing (in the long term) as a result of our large-scale isolation is hopeful, but unlikely. The cost of exchanging your leisure time for an activity that is more cognitively demanding seems, at first glance, a terrible trade. However, its benefits are numerous. This might be the change in mindset we need to win over people who doubt the benefits of engaging with complexities. For some of us, this activity comes naturally. For others, it is a challenge to figure out who actually possesses the courage and thereby, as Kant put it, Dares to know.

Alessandro van den Berg is an economics teacher in the Netherlands.

Read more here:

Reading in the Age of Coronavirus - Merion West

Happy Wednesday one and all.

We are halfway through another week of quarantine and things are definitely hitting the monotony.

That is okay, because the NFL is primed to save us from that, as in 15 days we have the weirdest NFL Draft in history.

For that and all the news from around the web on your Arizona Cardinals we have your morning links.

Enjoy.

Larry Fitzgerald, Patrick Peterson, Chandler Jones Named To All-Decade TeamHall of Fame selection committee picked best from 2010-19

After 2019 Breakout, Jordan Phillips Ready To Show Staying PowerFree agent addition confident he's not a one-year wonder

Kingsbury: No Concern DeAndre Hopkins Trade Will Be Done Before DraftPlayers in deal need physicals before official completion

Challenge Of Virtual Draft Doesn't Intimidate Kliff KingsburyCoach confident in technology and Cardinals' process

No Hard Knocks For CardinalsArizona Cardinals Official Team Website I Arizona Cardinals AZCardinals.com

Phillips On New Contract: 'I Was Made For This'DL Jordan Phillips talks to the media about his three-year deal with the Cardinals.

Recapping The Cardinals On The 2010s All-Decade TeamRelive highlights from the Cardinals who were named to the 2010s All-Decade Team.

Cover 2 Clips - Justin Murray SignsCraig Grialou and Mike Jurecki discuss OL Justin Murray and what the offensive line position looks like before the draft.

Kingsbury Want To 'Be Better" In Year TwoHead Coach Kliff Kingsbury meets with the media and talks draft preparation, free agency and entering his second year with the team.

Kliff Kingsbury - Arizona Cardinals' trade for DeAndre Hopkins will be official by draftCardinals coach Kliff Kingsbury said Tuesday that he has no doubt the trade that landed wide receiver DeAndre Hopkins from the Texans in return for running back David Johnson will be completed before the NFL draft begins on April 23.

Cardinals WR Christian Kirk expected to see fantasy football dip in 2020Arizona Cardinals wide receiver Christian Kirk might see his fantasy football production go down following the arrival of wide receiver DeAndre Hopkins.

3 Cardinals make The Athletic's 'best to wear every jersey number'Larry Fitzgerald was joined by two past Arizona Cardinals who were named by The Athletic as the top players to wear their respective jersey numbers.

Trio of Cardinals make NFL, Hall of Fame 2010s All-Decade teamArizona Cardinals receiver Larry Fitzgerald, cornerback Patrick Peterson and pass-rusher Chandler Jones made the 2010s All-Decade Team.

Really weird prop bets for a remote 2020 NFL DraftHow many dogs or cats will appear in the first round of the remotely produced NFL Draft? This is a thing you can put money on.

NFL Draft: Teams told to prepare to pick virtually because of coronavirusA league memo advised teams to prepare to conduct the NFL Draft virtually, with team personnel at home instead of in the facilities.

Five things to know about new Cardinals DT Jordan PhillipsCardinals DT Jordan Phillips discussed his fit on a new team, his bowling talent and a hectic past few weeks that included the birth of his daughter.

DeAndre Hopkins calls Cardinals 'classy,' asks for Arizona food staplesReceiver DeAndre Hopkins answered questions from fans and asked for food and sight-seeing suggestions in the Phoenix area during a live Instagram stream.

Kingsbury: Cardinals' remote operations for NFL Draft not all that badThere are bigger problems in the world than a remote NFL Draft. There are even streamlined parts of the process, said Cardinals coach Kliff Kingsbury.

9 Arizona Cardinals offseason questions, answered by Kliff KingsburyWhen will DeAndre Hopkins officially be a Cardinal? Is the team working on a deal to re-sign free agent center A.Q. Shipley?

View post:

Bird Droppings: Arizona Cardinals preparing for virtual draft, Jordan Phillips looks to build on career year - Revenge of the Birds

I dont know who discovered water but I doubt it was a fish. ~ Marshall McLuhan

Astonishing! You mean that you learned all of this JUST through physics? ~ The Dalai Lama to Anton Zeilinger upon completing a tour of his Innsbruck laboratory, as recounted by Alan Wallace.

Linconscient, cest le discours de lAutre. ~ Jacques Lacan

One mountain, many paths. ~ Buddhist adage

To sin: to miss the mark.

Eric Weinstein and I both studied at the University of Pennsylvania in the 1980s, but I doubt Weinstein was as interested in Professor Philip Rieffs work as I was. Nor did Weinstein appear particularly interested in the sociologist when Rabbi David Wolpe mentioned him during an episode of The Portal. Weinstein is what Rieff would call a bagels-and-lox Jew, a cultural Jew, but not a philosophical Jew. And this is where Joe Rogan and Eric Weinsteins latest three hour podcast missed the mark: for the synergy between the two men was conspicuous in its absence. During the final 30 minutes of the episode, when Weinstein discussed his 14 dimensional theory, Rogan should have wailed, You should try DMT, man! because that would have landed them firmly on common ground, or rather in common ethers where physics intertwines with spirituality. Until Weinstein meditates on how Sefirot relates to and interacts with Ein Sof, and maya relates to and interacts with Brahman and sunyata, he will not be able to construct the formulas he is so yearning to create.

So is space travel (without rocketships) possible?Absolutely.Is time travel possible?Absolutely.But first you have to concede that space and time are illusory; they are constructions of human consciousness, the way we happen to make sense of phenomena.

Physics is one subset of science; it is an hermeneutics, a theory of interpretation, a lens. Biology is another. Economics is another. Painting is another. Music is another.

Human consciousness is influenced by the systems of thought that human beings have created (or that have evolved or emerged, however you care to frame it). Such systems include science, capitalism, American democracy (wherein 2 of the last 5 presidents lost the popular vote), the arts, education, property ownership, competition, sports, travel, transportation, work, banking, currency/money/credit, the future, government, justice, law, history, race, sexuality, media, entertainment, religion, freedom, authority and as I discuss in my bookHow to Survive Your Childhood Now That Youre an Adult: A Path to Authenticity and Awakening,The Myth of Romance.

And then under the above systems fall additional subsets: for example, medicine would fall under science, pharmaceuticals and surgery would fall under medicine, appendectomies and heart transplants would fall under surgery, and so on.

Weinsteins first episode of The Portal was riveting and brilliant because he and his friend and employer Peter Thiel agreed that all systems have been corrupted.

So the common ground that I imagined watching unfold between Rogan and Weinstein would have been as such:

What is the nature of reality?

Weinstein could have offered a perspectives such as Kants: There is an objective reality out there but we can never be certain of our subjective understandings of that reality. And then Joe could have offered something more pedestrian such as, The nature of reality? Thats a stupid question, man! which would have been a humorous update of the Buddhas usage of the word (translated in English as) unprofitable. Yes, maybe a lot of Western philosophy is composed of unprofitable questions. It is distinctly possible.

Then, they could have discussed

What are the limitations of human perception?

To which Joe could have offered that fractals remain invisible to the human eye without enhancements such as DMT for himself and artists such as Alex Gray, or absinthe and other spirits for artists such as Braque, Picasso and Duchamp.

Then, they could have discussed

What are the limitations of human consciousness?

Can you imagine infinity or is the best your mind can offer are placeholders for such unfathomable concepts?

And then they could have delved into philosophy of mind and discussed

What are the categories of consciousness? Or, how does human consciousness chunk reality? Spatially? Temporally? How else?

Then

What are the systems of thought that influence the way we think?

Or as Joe might phrase it

Why do we think the shit that we think?

Wherein Eric could ask Jamie to pull up Foucault and systems of thought on Wikipedia and then Lacan regarding the unconscious.

And then

How have those systems of thought become corrupted?

We already know why those systems became corrupted: because power corrupts and human beings primarily will choose satisfying their own ephemeral hedonic treadmills than looking out for the greater good. This is why regulations ensure secure yet limited freedom while the neo-liberal free market is self-terminating, as Weinsteins friend Daniel Schmactenberger so astutely observes. And if many of the above systems have been corrupted and are amidst self-terminating or imploding, then the final questions would be

What are the next systems after capitalism, currency/money, property ownership and how can we help facilitate a smooth as possible transition to the next way human beings interact?

I love how Thomas Piketty phrased it the opening of his new book: Every human society must justify its inequalities: unless reasons for them are found, the whole political and social edifice stands in danger of collapse. Every epoch therefore develops a range of contradictory discourses and ideologies for the purpose of legitimizing the inequality that already exists or that people believe should exist.

Pimps up, Hos Down. Welcome to the Jungle.

Is human consciousness with all of its quirks and foibles capable of creating sustainable, incorruptible, compassionate, equitable systems?

One fundamental problem is that human consciousness appears to be primarily an either/or system. Weinstein goes into several binary possibilities about his theory late in the podcast. He starts Either Im crazyORI have something (of note) either either. Eric, its a particleANDa wave. You are BOTH crazy AND you have something. So this seems to be a tremendous foible or propensity of consciousness: constantly juxtaposing. Black and white. Sun and moon. Male and female.

And this foible manifests as dialectics both within science and in common discourse. Thesis plus antithesis equals synthesis. But what if reality is more akin to a Jackson Pollock painting and human consciousness inflicts order onto chaos by imposing artificial dialectics? And are their psychological ramifications to perpetual oppositions? R. D. Laing thought that schizophrenics had the most accurate perception of reality.

The mandate of science to ascribe causality; as I have stated elsewhere,ignoramuses conflate correlation and causality, which is one reason that science has become fatally corrupted. A brief search on the Internet will show you that people believe they can prove virtually anything scientifically; however, most scientific studies can be and are eventually refuted.

According to Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle we cannot measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time. There are infinite variables that compose the matrix of reality; it is impossible to hold enough variables constant in reality to accurately measure anything. Yes, on paper and in graphs we can make if/then approximations but if you deconstruct the field of economics it is easy to discern that it is more of an art than a science and most economic winners are luckier than they are smart.

Including the dimensions of percipients and measurement instruments in 14 dimensional theory is an act of post-Einsteinium genius, but Weinstein is at his best when discussing his brother Brets discovery that the mice used in laboratory experiments are genetically disparate from mice in the wild and may have therefore corrupted a good deal of the results when experiments were conducted using those mice.This is exactly the type of exegesis for which these irreverant podcasts shine: dismantling the old regime and legacy media by exposing hypocrisies, contradictions, and lies and offering new, more accurate, more authentic narratives, narratives that do not depend on anyones bottom line.

Which is why both Rogan and Weinstein undermine their own causes by pumping and pimping sponsors. Both are sufficiently wealthy to never earn another penny and live at the same level of comfort they and their families have become accustomed to for the rest of their lives. By accepting money to advertise products for others they become part of the problem.

Funny, both Rogan and Weinstein respect Tulsi Gabbard because she cannot be bought. Do you not smell the hypocrisy? Or does this betray jealousy, ladies?

In my article,The Problem with Ayahuasca,I argue that ayahuasca is not a hallucinogenic; using Vedanta I argue that maya everything we perceive through our five senses and chunk into narratives is the hallucination. We are seduced by the blue pills of our Matrixs fictions such as, that we live in a meritocracy and will be rewarded for working hard. What folly!

Heres my wishbone to pick with Joe Rogan: I am saddened that the universe/mystery/Brahman/God/sunyata/Eif Sof has not yet allowed you to become one of the animals you have murdered at the second your arrow pierces the unsuspecting animals heart. I appreciate the commitment of a murderer who eviscerates his own victims, in the same way that Bill Maher said, Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, its not cowardly. However, there are consequences of living in a society that murders 50,000 cows per hour, and billions and billions of other animals per year. Ever hear of climate change?

While their discussion of professional wrestling was a great analogy to unveil the intentional theatre of Donald Trump, I propose that Rogan and Weinstein have sinned by missing the opportunity to enlist a wide audience in a methodological new narrative regarding how we attain the next society -preferably before we blow ourselves off of the planet or the earth hemorrhages the cancer known as humanity from itself via tornadoes, tsunamies, hurricanes, volcanoes, plagues, viruses and myriad other problems for which Weinsteins matzah offers neither escape nor solace.

As opposed to say Native Americans who lived as part of Gaia, Christian-Scientific-Capitalism (or the way it has evolved) has placed a primacy on humankind and thus licensed us to be sanctimonious apex predators, conduct grotesque experiments on fellow people, murder billions of animals for meat and fur, pollute the oceans, drill and frack, contaminate the ozone layer, and make the earths climates unstable, as well as continously justify the exploitation of others under the guise of bullshit meritocracy.

And where Weinstein is correct in being contra equality of outcome, he should recognize equality of outcome as a straw man propped up by myopic self-righteous blowhards such as Jordan Peterson. What we should agree on is Equality of OPPORTUNITY. So while reparations for slavery may have unintended psychological ramifications and be useful primarily in assuaging our collective guilt for slavery, as a society we need to figure out a way that all people start on more-or-less equal footing and Warren Buffets lucky gene pool and its requisite nepotism are minimized.

Weinstein is right; human beings are terrible shepherds of the planet earth.

Trump is a symptom; not a cause.

Weinsteins 14 dimensional theory appears to include both McLuhans aforementioned fish as well as Schrdringers Cat, but The Portal will remain a cul-de-sac until people like Rogan and Weinstein admit that white males and the systems we built such as capitalism are the cause of most of our addictions and the planets afflictions.

Einstein said, No problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it. Through his use of DMT, Joe Rogan has had insights into other levels of reality beyond human consciousness; however, he possessed neither the erudition nor acumen to discuss them intelligently with Weinstein. So the next time your hanging out with Eric at the back bar of the Comedy Store, Joe, please tell him that youve already visited Jupiter and Neptune and you didnt need his fellow Penn alumnus Elon Musk to propel you there.

Maybe human consciousness remains in the maya part of the Matrix and trapped on earth because we have become addicted to the taste (of power)? Our predatory proclivities and will to power allowed us to crawl out of the primordial stew, learn how to farm, build glorious cities, create miraculous inventions and channel magnificent music and art. At this pivotal moment in history, lets put searching for the source code on the back burner and instead develop new systems of thought that hinder and alter the predatory and ultimately self-terminating impulses of human consciousness.

Read this article:

How Joe Rogan and Eric Weinstein Sinned - Thrive Global