Feeling SUPER LAZY - TED conversations

I already posted over five thousand characters on these three TED conversations earlier today, check them out!

http://www.ted.com/conversations/18455/a_deceptively_simple_question.html
http://www.ted.com/conversations/18230/what_theological_implications.html
http://www.ted.com/conversations/18402/what_does_your_utopian_future.html

I recommend everyone make a TED account and join in on the 'conversation' boards!

Transpsychology; Existential-Pragmatism Inference of the Mind-Brain

We as a human species can be best described [in reflection of mainstream philosophy] as natural 'existential-pragmatist' or 'pragmatic-existentialist.' Besides the fact either traditional school cannot be dismissed as inapplicable for explaining normative models of thought - their most basic arguments and premises for philosophy are timeless (although their terminology is modern/contemporary, the origin of thought is ancient). With regards to pragmatism and existentialism, basic maps of psychology can become an individual practice for anyone. Although there could be a procedure-stipulation; which concept should come first: do we have more naturally start with the 'self' or with what 'works' in decision making? 

Our brain already 'functions' and 'behaves' with inference towards exist-prag: "What works for myself - and - how I view the world - provides the best reasoning to know I am justified in doing what it is I think is best for myself, and perhaps even others."

Because of this above statement, I am inclined to suggest existential-pragmatism is the more proper phrase to use in philosophy of mind and transpersonal psychology. 'We start with ourselves to figure out what works best for ourselves and others.'

This position provides a solution to the phenomenal realism which exist between mind-body relations of supervening on one another: "I have argued that the content of phenomenal concepts and phenomenal beliefs is conceptually irreducible to the physical and functional, because this content itself depends on the constitutive role of experience. Does this sort of irreducibility extend to other concepts or beliefs? Is the content of concepts and beliefs irreducible to the physical and functional quite generally?" (Chalmers 2003) Drawing concepts + conceptions (or conceptuals) from existentialism and pragmatism is that first step to understanding how reduce 'idea-states' of mind and apply them to the 'real-states' of the brain. The phenomenal part of the mind-body problem is how to discuss what we see physically with what we notice abstractly as a part of the thinking process or cognition. That communication can only come from the consensus which is accepted by communities as being able to be consistent. Until the brain sciences become more unified (in theory), layman must still have a grasp of where to begin thinking about other people, to develop their personal social cognitive abilities (the way in which we view others - social cognition).

**There are terms, concepts and beliefs that do well to explain the relationship between mind and body, but no other like those that come out of evolutionary + cultural psychology. Therefore they recognize the very holistic nature one must come from in order to begin to reduce human behavior, personality, intelligence, etc. into categories, schemas and/or mechanisms.

The best way to plasticize the mind-brain would be greatly benefited from reflections of exist-prag as being the natural procedure in which we think and react.  Neuroplasticity is 'the brain's ability to reorganize itself by forming new neural connections throughout life.' When recognizing our brain works by figuring out what ourselves need to succeed, we can 'meditate' on such ideas to grow our physical brains in the directions we so choose.  This process is not 1-2-3 but overtime your mind-brain can change the physiological systems of your brain (meditation has proven to expand grey matter in the brain, and more). While we may naturally be an exist-prag, at the point in time where we decide to practice existential induction and pragmatic deduction, we will be equipped to better plasticize our minds into what is most desire to the individual... by extension communities, cultures and societies.

Existential induction - holistic categorizing usually involved with divergent thinking (more philosophic)
Pragmatic deduction - atomistic categorizing usually involved with convergent thinking (more scientific)

Both categorizing procedures are necessary for developing an individual's abduction with transpsychology; taking various disciplines (and their conceptuals) and applying them to the objective study of the human mind, in order to transcend one's own mind and the assistant of others to do the same.

Works Cited

The Content and Epistemology of Phenomenal Belief - David J. Chalmers

neuroplasticity definition - http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=40362

No Such Thing as 'Pure' Altruism

Humans are egotistical, but can be taught to be socially altruistic. A central feature of most Asian countries is the idea of family orientation as being a primary value or virtue to any humble, good or proper persons - something culturally installed, heavily. However, one does not stop their egotism when they are performing good deeds for their family.  Although this is "altruistic" in nature, in usual consequence there is no other choice but to help one's family. Social altruism is 'realistic altruism' therefore the concept understands 'most people will not be charitable without pretense to do so' such as rewards, incentives and/or status from a social group; community, society, family, etc. "Why would I ever do anything without some type of benefit? Even if it to make me feel goods and/or to please God, I know it's right and it makes me feel good to do what is right." But why do we desire any feeling of 'altruism'? A series of answers: helping others, charitable desire, capability to do so, grouped animal, instincts, higher reasoning, and more. No matter the reason to why people want to either exploit or explore altruistic practices, there will be no 'pure altruism.' When one performs an act their is consequence (whether good or bad) and from how their actions turn out is how they rationalize and feel about the consequences.  A young woman who does nothing but charity work is not entirely selfless, she knows/accepts/feels her efforts are necessary to perform (rationally + emotionally) and thus satisfying her obligations to herself and those made in light of helping others.
An example: Mother Teresa would do her life's work in the name of God, her obligations to the Lord are enough to suggest there is at least bare minimal selfishness in actions and behavior - she did it to spread the love of God, the love that she harbored and desired others to know. To think even the most recognized Saint of the 20th century can be in some degree 'selfish' is useful to suggest one simple truth: 'there is no self without relations' who we are is dependent on those who surround us. There are many M. Teresa's in the world today, who want no more than to help others. They would still have became that saintly image because of conditioning from others, the trials they endured and the lessons learned from the former.

In another explanation: Without others recognizing your charitable actions (which is paradoxical to suggest) then perhaps one may be a pure altruist - having performed faceless donations to organizations of money.  Even then, the individual would realized the above (and does not want to be deemed selfish* in any fashion). And since others do enjoy recognizing those whom have been charitable to them, and they would not get to meet their contributor... The faceless person is also guilty of minimal selfishness by not allowing others to see the face of their contributor - to thank them in some fashion. The personal anxiety about being recognized is at a higher volume (value) of stress than the social concern of being recognized. The person's privacy is more important than allowing others to know who has helped them.

*Rather - socially recognized for her charity, to be rewarded by others, in some way

Altruism and selfishness should be seen as something variable (1-100 scale) - the lowest being totally selfish and the highest being totally altruistic, but not pure - because the times where one is altruistic and/or selfish is momentary and dependent on the environment.  Thus thinking of altruism in a social limelight is far more benefiticial than thinking it to be universal.

The Overwoman; Feminist Philosophy (continued)

From the insight of the two following philosophers, a position that 'Feminist Virtue Ethics' can be construed as universally practical for scholar and layman alike. While both authors have different influences of reasoning – Korsgaard using more modern figures and Baier more contemporary philosophers – their overall moral themes reflect the same general principles: 1. feminism - the need of diversity in the acknowledgment of ethics, because it is virtuous -or- 2. the right and most good thing to do is be the best human one can possibly be, and question how one should care for others. Since to be virtuous is to question one's own virtue. By some comparison and contrasting this paper will briefly cover their differences in approaches, but heavy highlighting of their thoughts which expand virtuous themes in reflection to FVE.

The discussion of 'ethics of care' from Baier, compliments Korsgaard's reflections of egotism:

Baier's use of and the idea of care (the concern for another) is essential for reasoning about how to be ethical. She immediately notes the 'ethics of justice' as counterpart to the 'ethics of care' in gender-thinking (as termed by Gilligan). Her major position requires the division between the two types of ethics, justice and care, in order to recognize the current division of gender-based thinking AND how to overcome such thinking. Ethics is ethics, no matter how one approaches the topic of morality – they come into a debate with experiences, knowledge, information, arguments, examples, etc. So, innately, we have a 'care for justice' but the divide exist with where the emphasis is placed; the CARE for justice, or the care for JUSTICE – the former being more feminist and the latter masculine by natural arguments of gender-based foundations in thought; caregivers v justice-seekers.

Baier gives great explanation why women should, essentially, accept the cliché of caregivers: “A moral theory. . . cannot regard concern new and future persons as an optional charity left for those with a taste for it. If the morality the theory endorses is to sustain itself, it must provide for its own continuers, not just take out a loan on a carefully encouraged maternal instinct or on the enthusiasm of a self-centered group of environmentalists, who make it their business or hobby to be concerned with what we are doing to mother earth”. The cliché of 'female orientated thoughts' developed from historic, cultural and societal perspective and should be scrutinized as a common exercise, therefore these ideas would be the 'normative reasoning' that people divide themselves with. What helps with with reacting to normative reasoning seems to be the ability to naturalize epistemology, which Baier does with psychological data and theory. Examples of fraternal instincts give evidence to women being the cliché caregivers in natural thought, but this philosophical dictation is noted in respects to how the contrary type of thinking is more popular. Making Baier's central argument premised on finding balances of 'female' and 'male' (care and justice) forms of thought to be virtuous.

Korsgaard's discussion of virtue ethics is guided by normative questions of objective morality in [naturalistic] forms of obligation: “We all know that reasons must be met with reasons, and that is why we are always exchanging them” therefore “... human nature as the source of our values is itself a value...[that notion] is what gives rise to moral obligation” AND the next virtuous step would “For our capacity to turn our attention onto our own mental activities is also a capacity to distance ourselves from them and to call them into question.” Obligations result in a person being an 'overwoman' or a highly virtuous individual dedicated to being objective in knowledge [of ethics]. Korsgaard reflections of the 'egotist,' (as defined by Nagel) “the egotist think that reasons are a kind of private property. We each act on our own private... for taking the reasons of other into account,” is a myth, therefore the goal is to be objective and that goal is something in human nature.

The distinguished egotist will suggest human beings are 'special' in nature and Korsgaard is one to argue the contrary belief; since we all want to naturally know objective truths, we must realize who we are as a species when trying to be objective. She defends this notion with Wittgenstein's argument of no private language being possible; “picture a yellow spot!”. Unless you are not an English speaker there is little ability to not imagine a picture of a yellow circle – demonstrating we all have the same internal capacities to cognate information. An egotist accepts diversity as a factor of judging human actions, the non-egotist or the nonanthropist* rejects that notion and would counter argue 'diversity are factors of what we think we do not have in common since we can identity the differences as diversity.' By rejecting egotism, in Korsgaard's sense, we are able to something similar from Baier; understanding the division of thoughts allows one to understand where they are exactly the same – general human consciousness or nature.

How naturalized caregiver mentalities can provide non-egotistic pursuits of thinking:

Both authors question the autonomy of individuals. Korsgaard dictates Kant's thought of “...our autonomy is the source of obligation” by declaring “The reflective structure of human consciousness requires that you identify yourself with some law or principle that will govern your choices” Baier stresses, while there may be universal autonomy for individuals, what is dependent on making those individual 'contracts' is still heavily influenced (by emotions and reasons) from environments. These two compliment each other greatly as Korsgaard does a classic job of isolating the issue (egotism) and Baier attempts to challenge issues by naturalizing arguments of requiring 'female attitude in thought' or feminism in a constructive way. Baier with her own arguments is setting the way for individuals to realize the already made systems, and how they can be seen differently – while Korsgaard expands the already perceived ideas of philosophy in virtue context.

*Nonanthopist is a person who rejects the idea of anthropocentric attitudes as being applicable to general thinking

Korsgaard demonstrates that moral obligations are something innate in all people, and therefore cannot be rejected as an objective trait of ourselves being universal, thus there does exist the premise for objective morals. “We do not seem to need a reason to take the reasons of others into account. We seem to need a reason not,” this inference is remarkable because it suggest the human capacity for social cognition – how we view and react to others – that is not only universal but creates an ego-based question of “what is good reason to not be tolerant of others?” Baier may not have an answer necessarily, but could provide guidance with wanting the reevaluation of values; “A more realistic acceptance of the fact that we begin as helpless children... more and the less powerful.” Hardly do we question what we take for granted... In another sense, do we normally question the lesser powers that allow us to exist? A school building, or a house is generally accepted entities to one who lives in a first world nation; children of these nations will not question what a house is or a school building does. To break this attitude of not questioning the normative is essential to being the overwomen these authors want others to be.

In the end, both authors suggest group reflections as being vital to the feminist practice of virtue ethics. As for Baier we do not simply need the 'old man' to marry 'the newly articulated female insights' but rather 'ego-driven boys' should marry the 'sophisticated older women' – the former suggest diversity-based philosophy is new rather it is merely just overlooked (the inference of the latter). Korgaard dictates “I believe that the myth of egoism will die with the myth of the privacy of consciousness,” implying an already dictated argument: human beings are basically the same vessel and diversity is the difference between being an egotist or a non-egotist.' Both women give examples of where diversity is a factor in thinking throughout their works, but do not pinpoint the exact necessity of isolating diversity-based issues. This, to me, is where great divergent mindsets can be build on, the idea diversity (age, sex, sexual preference, education, demographics, etc.) as being a reason we divide, but not a reason to divide one another.

End thoughts: There is a virtuous mindset that is performed by these women. And basically the position has no choice but to contemplate and question the diverse understanding of normal human thinking in order to expand thoughts about human thinking, in order to be ethical and proper. There is no choice in this position because the question of virtue involves questions of ethics and knowledge and self (general philosophy). By contrast of diverse reflection, one develops values not only premised on one's immediate communities, culture and society. But, on those which stand up to reflective scrutiny and criticism. The point of trying to understand 'normal' and the 'normative' is to understand what is universal to humans, what is objective. By not having diversity in all facets of thought – we are left with innately biased perspectives. And that prevents the true element of care, which all humans have and should exercise, 'the care to know what -and- how other's think about what they think and I think.' Which is, what I believe, both authors' monastic theme stems into as an unitary thought of humanistic virtue; we have to exploit what we already have in common and break down the diversity, consensually, in order to know what is objectively true.

Works Citied

The Authority of Reflection – Christine M. Korsgaard

The Need for More than Justice – Annette C. Baier

A random thought

"With moral questioning comes the understanding of human nature"

1. We are the only animals that can communicate in sophisticated verbal language - we can propose problems and answer inquiries of others
2. Morals are universal, even if we cannot agree on what are the universal morals
3. The question of morality or ethics is as ancient as written text, in any facet, majorly literature
4. Human nature is difficult to narrow down, as we are the animals observing ourselves but not as animals, but as "human beings" - a thought which innately satisfies an idea of specialness.
5. Understanding general conceptuals* of 'evil' and/or 'good' is vital to understanding universal morals - religious, cultural, societal environments effect and alter notions and ideals involving ideological structuring and practice**
5.a. Remembering 'evil' and 'good' conceptuals are subjective innately***, but can be argued to be objective in light of human value systems - communal consensus exist which all societies/organizations accept as pliably universal and thus benefiticial to use for practicality.
5.b. Conceptuals involving ethical behavior are socially and environmentally designed
6. Questioning anything is proper. But, "human nature" kind of involves objective understanding of what it is be human, and where does one gain any short of knowledge? What is human's nature?


*Concepts + Conceptions = Conceptuals
**Actively training and building of virtues
*** See next post

Human Studies: Two Opposing Frame Works

Is it proper to exfoliate what it is to be 'human' when looking at another person? To dehumanize, in a sense, in order to understand the entire human? To ignore the 'specialness' of a person and only worry about instincts, mechanisms and cognitive faculties?  
___________________________________________

Anthropism - the position humans are intrinsically unique/special

Nonanthropism - the position humans are not intrinsically unique/special // the belief people are all innately the same machine 

~~These opposing ideas are at the same time philosophical and psychological, and anticipate anthropocentrism as a part of the human psyche:

ANTHROPOCENTRIC (Webster):

1: considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe 

2: interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences

_____________________________________________

Do you think it is more benefiticial to think of yourself as no different than anyone, in order to understand yourself, or vice versa: does your thinking of yourself as different give more benefit?
____________
The question of ethics could possibly arise when one suggest we look at humans by removing everything that is not the essence of humanity. The question of the exact essence is a constant debate, and as cognitive/mind sciences develop, there is more ability to see what the essence is like. This post is not about that question of essence but the question of whether or not to ignore everything else besides the idea of the essence of humanity.  The essence of humanity being what it is to be HUMAN. The ethical dilemma involves whether to keep the essence of humanity as a vital part of the equation of 'human' or not.
____________
A question which divides the opposing ideas: "Should we, for theoretical and practical (clinical) purposes, try to observe a human being like we would any other animal in nature?"

To say yes is more of the 'cognitive' approach to psychology and to say no is more of a behavioral approach. To suggest a middle ground is a difficult task, and as an advocator of always finding the nonextreme position, this is where even I would be more so extreme to look at the nonanthropist perspective.




___________
To be continued with emphasis on strong, weak and other parts of the opposing sides:
  Example: A strong anthropist tends to have the opinion that man is essentially different from, in contrast with, everything else in nature. Also observing the universe in a humanized lens (anthropomorphizing), is justifiable. The fundamental anthropist will argue the natural world was made for humanity, perhaps, even the universe. 

___________
I enjoyed what s/he had to say here: http://libcom.org/library/anthropism

Hare Krishna, The Lord and Human Nature

We are all born with metaphysical questions embedded in our developing psyches. I would argue one of these questions is a divine creator and his/her/it's role in our existence.  When a religion gives you this answer of what is 'God' that answer becomes a dogma which prevents us from growing as a spiritual being. A good religious practice will take their traditional dogmas and expand (reject, rebuild, reconstruct, etc.), because if that fundamental image of God is true (like any other absolute truth) it can stand up to the constant scrutiny in faith-based practices. Indeed, if your faith is worth being called 'faith' and you as an individual are not constantly questioning it, you are no closer to God than one who rejects the idea of God. In fact those who reject God may be able to be with the divine Lord all the more easily, therefore they will question their own nature (which was given to them by the Lord).  And since our life is meant to revive one's eternal relation with the Lord... recognizing what 'religion' is and does, will allow one to understand why that type of system/institution is so powerful... The relationship we share with others in order to be with the Lord.  In essence... Krishna dictates here we need others to truly understand the Lord and our own nature, not merely the metaphysical drive to know (and question) is enough to know.