We Aren't Really Here

As I lay on my couch watching a talking head on the projection TV, I noticed the pundit had on a blue and red tie.

On the lapel of the jacket was a pin.

It wasn't a flag, like so many wear.

It was difficult to make out what the pin was, so I stood up walked closer to the wall to see more detail.


Approaching the wall, the image of the pin blurred like some impressionist painting from the hand of Van Gogh.

It wasn't possible to make out the detail on the pin because the shimmering dots reflected upon the wall were too few to see the pundits pin clearly.


The pin and pundit were not really there.  The pin and pundit were my minds conception of so many waves of light streaming from the video lamp, bouncing of the wall and landing on my eye.


The universe is like this.

We think in terms of there being an image we can see on the wall.




Our brains resolve reality into models of what we want to believe.

Our mind divides the world into what is inside and outside of us.

When we zoom down from the world of every day experience into the exceedingly, immensely small; we find that the universe is composed of ripples in a field.  A field of existence that extends everywhere.

Like the pundit on the wall, when we look closely, we find that it is not what we think it is.  The pundit and pin are extensions of our own world views.  As are all objects.

Suddenly from the distance I hear the sound of my neighbors Harley.

Its conversion of matter into energy create ripples in the fabric of reality that strike ear drum, sending signals to neurons.  Neurons compare these ripples to previous ripples and yield a model that suggests my neighbor has come home.  Experience layers and reinforces our model of the world.

The bike is not there.

The bike is compose of billions of little ripples in space. The bike is a pattern in space.

Every electron, proton and neutron in the Harley are not little tiny balls of matter moving around.  They are tiny waves in the cloth of space.

The interactions of these waves reach across space and become apart of my mind.

The pin and pundit, TV and bike, even me and you, are patterns of waves.


Our minds trick, very useful for survival, is to categorize these things into discrete objects.  Our pattern tries to maintain its vibrations in space. This is what it means to survive.

I, you, the motor, and pin are mental models, metaphors that help us to exist in the world.  They do not exist separate and apart from one another.

We do not see the fabric.  We see the patterns in the cloth.

At the fundamental base of reality, we are all apart of the universe.  The division between things is not real. Everything is a part of the same thing.  The division between me and you is an illusion.

We are the complex patterns of the cloth, able to understand some small part of the other ripples in the fabric.

Our isolation from one another, from the objects around us, when we look closely at the light reflecting from the wall, do not exist alone.  It is all the same cloth.

Everything is apart of everything else, there is only one thing, the universe itself.

Of course, none of us are able to throw off these ideas of things being separated.

We are unable to see the universe as it is.

We need our story of separateness so that we may live, love, and die.  Stories give us a context, a means of dealing with existence. Our imagined model helps make sense of the patterns that are.  It is in the very fabric of space that we perceive this way.

"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." ~ Carl Sagan

American Exceptionalism and Self-Esteem

We citizens of the U.S.A. seem to have a cognitive disconnect between our ideals and our image of ourselves.  We think we are uniquely special and deny how this view limits our potential.


American Exceptionalism

We Forget The One on the Bottom

Many citizens of the United States believe that their country is different, special, and better than other states.  Claiming the revolution of the colonies into a new nation gave it advantages over all others. Stating that the United States has a special place among all nations.  This conclusion is based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, populism and laissez-faire.

Some see this country as the "shining city on the hill", a lighthouse of liberty, immune to the failures of lesser nations, uniquely advantaged to bring knowledge, peace, and stability to the world.

This idea has become to be known as "American Exceptionalism."


Self-Esteem

What we think about ourselves effects who we become.  Our concept of our own strengths and weaknesses places limits upon our actions.

Self-esteem is a mental model which represents our judgments of our own worthiness.

Self-esteem grows from accomplishment against obstacles.  When we are met with a challenge and overcome it our senses of our abilities grows.  Self-esteem shrinks when our actions fail their purpose.  Defeat can lower our views of who we are and what we are capable of.

People who have high self-esteem believe they can do more.   Individuals with low self-esteem see themselves as unable and try less.  Self-esteem has both positive and negative feedback loops into our actions.  The more we accomplish, the more we try and the easier it seems.  The more we fail, the harder it becomes to try again.

Artificial self-esteem is dangerous.  When self-esteem is not grounded in a reality of accomplishment, it allows us to repeat bad behaviors or take higher risks.


Our View of Ourselves

America has a dysfunctional relationship with its past.  We tend to down play our failures and over focus on our successes.

Many citizens consider pointing out bad actions in our collective history as a nation is an unpatriotic act.  This comes from the belief that admitting error lessens us, makes us appear weak to others.  Showing weakness of any kind has a risk that others might take advantage of.

Yet ignoring our mistakes permits us to have a collective self-esteem that is unrealistic.   It is also easy to err in our views of our own accomplishments, giving us an over inflated ego that stops us from seeing our real limits.

Individuals and nations can not grow if they do not admit their mistakes.  We admire others who can admit their mistakes and become better for it.  We disrespect those who pretend their mistakes never happened.

Selective Imagining of How It Was

Cognitive Disconnects

Over and over we point out to ourselves that we first placed a man on the moon.  Yet we let our efforts towards leading mankind into space dwindle, thinking that they are too difficult and expensive to continue.  In this act, we forget the motivations that led us to greatness and continue to assume we are great without further effort.

Most citizens believe the United States was the main actor that ended Nazi Germany.  Yet most of the fighting and winning was done by Russia, China, India, Britain, Australia, and many more.  All these nations struggled mightily significantly, reducing our opponents ability wage war.  Yet our majority view internally is that we won the war single-handedly and all others who helped matter only on the fringes.

We have repeatedly and frequently manipulated the governments of other nations to meet our own economic aims.  In Chile, Iran, Vietnam, the Phillipines, to name but a few, we have removed those peoples right to self determination.   Usurping their lives for our own selfish wants, desires and needs, we seem surprised when these peoples act against us by revolution, terrorism or even simple disrespect.

It is pleasant to believe that through a quick build up of arms and single speech by one President telling the U.S.S.R to "tear down this wall" we beat communism.  We tend to ignore that the people inside the communism were tired of it and wanted it gone regardless of what we did.  It is against our ego to admit they did the bulk of liberating of themselves for themselves.

We frequently ignore the conditions that permitted us to succeed, preferring to think ourselves as more important than we actually are.  We tend to ignore or gloss over our failures, blaming the victim or other actors.

These failures to admit our mistakes or over blow our accomplishments lead us to a false sense of self-esteem.

Not Everyone Can Win This Race

Raising Children's Self-Esteem

From experience we know that children who get artificial self-esteem are less likely to succeed.  When everyone wins, winning loses its meaning.  Some must win and some must lose for all to grow.

Parents and educators best build high self-esteem in children by guiding them to overcome the obstacles in front of them.  When we help them to see their mistakes and correct them, they do better and achieve self-esteem by their own acts.  This act of guidance yields realistic self-esteem in children.

If we allow children to always think they are special, then they will tend to an over-inflated senses of self.  Helping them to build self-esteem by our opinions and rewards rather than their own overcoming of obstacles betrays the lessons they can learn.

Further egoism, an over estimation of ourselves, trends to unwarranted aggression.  Not only does too high a self-esteem allow us act foolishly, we tend to act more violently.

False Patriotism

Better Child of Our Nature

We ought apply this knowledge that self-esteem should be earned and not just given out freely to our nation as well as ourselves.

While it is pleasant to assume our children are perfect in every way, so to is the idea that our nation is exceptional.

We must earn our national self-esteem so that our views of who we are reflect our reality.


A part of overcoming obstacles is to first admit they exist.

We must come to terms with the idea that it is Patriotic to admit failure or weakness.  We must come to terms with the idea that admitting weakness can make us stronger and not weaker.  By learning from our mistakes we will adapt and grow.  Those other nations who see us admit weakness will err to their own peril as we adapt and achieve more.

As our self-esteem grows through performance, perhaps we can then earn the place of being special among other nations.  To continue claiming it as the natural order without further accomplishments can lead us to decline.

Who Pays for Education?

Some have put forth the theory that by charging money for school, individuals will value it more, try harder, make better educational decisions.   This idea supposes that the individual, if self reliant, will do better for themselves.

If this theory is true, then all schooling, from daycare to high school graduation should be paid for by the person being educated. The earlier a person would start to have debt for education, the better.


Self Financing Education?

This self financing theory of education has several issues to overcome which, to date, it has been unable.

First, ignorance breeds ignorance. Those who are uneducated make poorer decisions. Allowing the uneducated to self direct their education will reduce the net knowledge of the society.

Second, those with unfair advantage will pass it on. If we wanted to build an aristocracy of wealth, then allowing the richest to educate their children better and the poor to educate their children worse will be self reinforcing. In a few generations a society that allows extreme differences in education will cease being a democracy and evolve into oligarchy.

Who Spends on Education?

Third, education is not just about money. Knowledge about art, philosophy, morality, ethics, etc. provide value to us which can not be quantified. Education is about becoming a better person, not just a better earner of dollars. The side effect of being a better person is one ought to be able to earn better too. Money is a side effect, not the primary purpose of education.


Who Benefits from Education?

The entire society benefits when one person graduates from college. Education of each of us contributes to the whole. 

Oppositely, ignorance by one drags us all down. 

It is in our own best selfish interest to have as many people as highly educated as possible. 

Which Economies Do Best?

When I was a child, many states provided college educations for free. Those states that did so boomed; the entire state flourished.

Not all human activity can be reduced to financial currency. The tragedy is that we have allowed it to become so.

The countries with the most social and government support for education do far better in measures of happiness, length of life, and individual prosperity than those who allow education to be market driven.

Clay Dreams Dust

A pot
wanting a potter 
is not a potter 
wanting a pot.

We find self
seeing a pot 
wonder and wish
for a potter.

In the wishing, 
we dream 
feel joy
in clay's moment.

The knowing
assumes correlation
the dream
desires cause.

Our desire
controls mind
experience becomes
the dreaming.

Dreaming wishes
wishes dreaming;
circular thought's
temporal trap.

The pot is
The pot is not
The pot idea itself
A dream of what is

Mistaking dreams
for reality
the dreamer
stays trapped. 

Eden's Economy

Let us pretend.  Let us pretend about an ideal economic utopia. 
What kind of people would we wish to be?  What would be our means of organization?  How would choices about resources be made?

A Thought Experiment

Imagine some future world where we have built robots.  

Lots of robots.  
Robots that act cleverly.   
Robots that crunch enormous amounts of data but do not think.  
Robots that can solve problems. 

Robots clever enough can build other robots.  
Robots clever enough to design other robots to do things.  
Robots clever enough to gather resources.  
Robots clever enough to transform those resources into goods and services.  

In this thought experiment, robots would do all the work.  
A human would never need labor except when she desired.
Every human want could be met.
Most human desires could be served.
In such a world, our desires would be limited only by the amount of resources available.

Economic Utopia

In such a Utopia words like "profit", "inflation", "wages", "debt", and even "money" would have no meaning. 
In such a utopia hard work doesn't mean much, as human labor would be unneeded. 
In such a system education would not be needed.
Some could say that the mythical Eden might have been like our imaginary economic utopia.   

Finite Resources

The only limits to our needs and desires would be resources.
The planet is only so big, the solar system has only such much matter and energy.
Like all eco-systems, eventually people and their desires would overwhelm the energy and material available.
Some kind of decisions would need be made to who gets the energy, who gets the material, how the resource is distributed.

Distribution Dilemma

So how then would we distribute the finite resources?  
What moral value system would we use to determine who gets goods and services? 
How shall we balance between need and desire?
What limits shall we place on humans?

If hard work has no meaning, what reason could be used determines who gets medicine?
If education is irrelevant, what reason could be used to determines who gets food?
Is how beautiful a person is the right way to divide resources?
Is how strong or fast or agile a person is the right way to decide who gets what?
What moral value system shall we use to achieve a just distribution?
What basis shall we use to determine what a "good life" is and reward it?


Economy Morality

While this thought experiment could probably never happen, it does illustrate what I think is a fundamental problem with many economic theories.

We, as human beings, seek each to have a "good life".  
Each of us may view what a "good life" is differently. 

Economics systems are only tools used by humankind to allow its individuals to seek "good lives".

Concepts about hard work, education, beauty, or strength are arbitrary ways to distribute resources, they are not necessarily the most moral means of distribution.

What ever economic system we seek, we should first and foremost have a moral code that values humans above all else.

The value of each human being ought outweigh the circumstance of their birth.
The value of each human being ought outweigh their beauty, strength, or lack of opportunity.
No system of economics which does not place morality at its core will serve its participants well.

It is in the best interest of the entire population of humankind to ensure a distribution of resources that works for the majority of the population.


Dismal Reality

To date, no one has come up with a moral economic system that actually works.  
Instead we trend between the extremes of "I got mine" or "Everybody gets the same".  
Both of these polar opposites are only vague approximations of moral distribution of resources.

I do not know the answer to how a moral economy could be achieved.

Capitalism, socialism, communism,laissez-faire, and objectivism all are only poor attempts at a moral economics.

Although many pretend; no one, in fact, seems to know the answer to this ancient puzzle of Eden.  

Values Healthcare

Self reliance.  No cheating.  Free markets. These are core values most of us share.  

We need a health care system that works this way.

We have it right in front of us if we only reach out and take it.

Self Reliance

Everyone should take care of themselves. 
Self respect comes from self reliance.  
Self control comes from self respect.  
Each of should responsible for our own health care. 

No Cheating

People who don’t have insurance are stealing health care from those who do.  
Freeloaders without insurance are mooching on us in the emergency room.  
Everyone needs insurance to pay their fair share. 

Free Markets

Health care should be in a marketplace.  

A market where buyers and sellers can meet and do business.  
We need a market square where each of us can go to buy and sell health services.  
It should be fair and have open competition between businesses out in the plain site of all.
Free markets are not socialism or communism.  Calling a free health care market a "socialist takeover" is factually wrong.

Policing Required

Some people won’t pay for insurance unless some one else forces them.  
Someone must have the authority to intervene and stop this theft.  
We need a force that will police people to ensure they insure.  
We use government to do police work.  
Government should police healthcare too.

Where Can We Find This?

It is the basis of the Affordable Care Act, passed by Congress, signed by the president and upheld as law by the supreme court.

It is that law that we have come to call “ObamaCare”.

Self reliance.

No cheating.

Free markets.

These are value based conservative principals.

This is the core of "ObamaCare".

Ruin Our Country?  

Why do so many hate ObamaCare?  

How many would hate it still if it was called “RomneyCare”?

Taxed Enough Already?  Shutting down the government doesn't change health care.  Shutting down the government stops government spending.  Stopping government spending is about reducing the size of government.

Our current budget fight is about debt and taxes and freedom.  The decisions we make on health care should not be cornerstone of our budget fight. 

Playing with citizen’s health care as a political tool to win a budget fight is cynical and dangerous. 

The dislike for Obama is part of what is happening.  He is a black city democrat, a difficult pill for white rural republicans to swallow. 

Many do not like Obama and are searching for reasons to show why.  For five years there has been a general hope by some that Obama would fail.  Every opportunity for failure is explored in detail by TV, blog, and radio personalities. 

Dislike of Obama is not a wise reason to stop health care reform. 

Trashing the Affordable Care Act means we stay with the broken, un-policed, wealth destroying system we have now.  Does anyone seriously think this is a good idea? We as citizens must use our government to ensure our freedoms.  Some type of health care reform is required. 

Don’t Buy New, Fix It Up!

Health care’s runaway costs are a huge drag on our economy.  Allowing the current system to continue on will force more people into emergency rooms with responsible people footing the whole bill of the freeloaders.

Starting over from scratch with new senate and house bills would put a solution to our health care crisis out a decade or more.

Does the act have some problems?  Absolutely.  They can be fixed.  That is what we elect our lawmakers for; to keep markets free, to police bad people, and to enable self reliance.  These things keep us free.

Making laws is messy, difficult and even sometimes disgusting. If you stick with it good things can come at the end of your labor.  Throwing away the work done so far would be lazy and foolish. 

A Conservative Response to Liberals

Mitt Romney’s state governmental health care system in Massachusetts is an example Reagan’s “laboratory of the states” in action. 

Governor Romney’s plan is the basis for the Affordable Care Act.  His law was a conservative response in a liberal state that DID NOT PLEASE ANYONE when it passed. 

As time went by, modifications where made to the law and their state government system created a law that worked. 

It can take a couple of years of back and forth modifications, but elected government lawmakers CAN get it done.

That’s shocking let’s repeat it.

A Conservative law got passed.  Liberals modified it.  The law worked for the good of its citizens.

The opposite can happen too.  Liberals can pass a law that Conservatives modify that do good for citizens.

Drama For Obama

Hate for Obama has co-joined with a fight cutting spending to result in even good ideas being trashed.  Our anger and frustration is muddling our collective view of who we are and who we can become.

Is dislike for Obama worth trashing our country for?

Is the budget battle so important that we should not do basic policing functions?

Where have the rational adults gone?  

Where are the mature reasoned responses among our leaders? 

Our government has become a soap opera of political entertainment.

Some how we need to move beyond the fear, anger, hate, anxiety.  

We need to stop the artificial drama and move on.

We need to find our core values:

Self reliance.

No cheating.

Free markets.

And make it so.

An Open Letter to Bill O'Reilly

Mr. O'Reilly,

The O'Reilly Factor has been watched by me and mine for many years.  Gradually bad manners and uncivil discourse have become more common on the show.  These actions are hurting the body politic.

Ratings are important for the business of op-ed journalism.  Disagreement, drama, and theatrics are tools to maintain a viewership's attention.  Such actions get ratings, but easily become abuse.  There is a trend on The O'Reilly Factor towards disrespect for both people and truth.  Each time these tactics are used, a deeper wedge is driven between our citizens.  The public discourse is dragged down and our ability to work together harmed.  

Can not The O'Reilly Factor's causes be better served by other tactics?

Please stop calling people names. Robert Reich is not a "communist", liberals are not all "pin heads",  David Silverman is not a "fascist", and  Ron Paul is not "dumb". On the playground, children call each other names. As we mature we should grow out of this.

Please stop interrupting people.  Talking over people has become such a habit that it even disrespected the Office of the President, without any regard for proper decorum. Close minded people interrupt those they disagree with.  A healthy democracy requires that even a fool get chances to express themselves.

Please stop the ad hominem attacks.  Attack the idea and not the person.  Attacking the person disrupts healthy discourse and is a logical fallacy.  Ad hominem attacks on speakers are rarely warranted.  Belittling people when we believe them wrong belittles all involved. 

Please stop cherry picking facts.  When one looks at data and then comes to an opinion, one is searching for truth.  When one has an opinion and searches data that prove it, they disregard information that may show the opinions error.  Cherry picking data hurts ones credibility. A wise man struggles to find the truth.  A foolish man seeks evidence to prove his prejudice.

Is the money really worth tearing us apart a little each day?  Is that to be The O'Reilly Factor legacy? 

From this viewers perspective, it appears that the emotion of the moment too often overrides good sense and manners.  A TV host has a greater obligation to be master of their feelings and to search for truth.

   

Please sir, govern words with your mind and manners and not by emotion or prejudice.  

Kindness to people and humility before truth are strengths I hope we all strive for.   You can do better.  We, your audience, need you to do better.

Mark Bloom