Why my life is good, and how the bush fights modern absurdities

This is what I wake up to, hiding in my patch of jungle in Airlie Beach.

The sound of wilderness. The mighty black cockatoo with its ooh-aah, lonely, rusty gate call, the loud shreiking of the sulphur crested cockatoo, the feeding frenzy noise of the lorikeets. The once despised but now comforting laugh of the kookaburra. This is my alarm clock, these sounds tell me the weather without my having to look, these sounds fill me with peace.

All for "free". Only 50 metres from the main road. In a tiny patch of virgin rainforest between the parks office and Fantasea mass-tour operators. It's not paradise, but it's sure as hell more sensible than being a tiny, tiny little non-entity in the "market". I write in my little tent when it's raining. I look both ways and disappear into the bush with my bike. I respect the bush for what it provides. I am free.

Truth/Happiness

If I was more interested in happiness than the truth, I would have started believing in god a long time ago...

www.venganza.org

Adolescence

I was just thinking yesterday that adolescence for me has not been a period of firstly thinking I know everything then finding out I'm wrong; rather it has been a process of confirming things I had suspected to be true. (Suspected, but shut up for fear of thinking that I thought I knew everything.)

And then to insist on not being treated like a fucking idiot!

Confused messages

I just love how some politicians use moral relativism when arguing against moral relativism.

The case in point: drugs in Australia wrt 'harm minimisation'.

The politician's argument: Harm minimisation sends a confused message to the community.

In my experience, drug-taking is, in part, justified by this wonderful argument: "well, I want to do it, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you and you can't judge me because you're not me."

On the other hand, politicians are often heard responding to harm minimisation advocates like this: "they are entitled to their own opinion" and of course going on to boast about the wonders of free speech.

The point is, this sends the truly confused message of partial relativism without identifying clear boundaries. I would argue that poor and unjustified ideas are, on the whole, more dangerous than recreational drug use per se. I think that if moral relativism was removed as a justification, then we might actually see a reduction in drug usage. (Of course, people will always find excuses to get high, but it's just harder to do it with a moral framework in tact when you are forced to accept direct judgment...)

Besides, the argument that harm minimisation sends a confused message relies on the assumption that users are idiots. I didn't observe this trend at all, especially among the 'rec' users.

In fact, politically, the real issue is that the voting public is adverse to the approach of harm minimisation. This has some parallels with rehabilitation of convicts in the criminal justice system. What politician is going to try to broaden the horizons of ex-cons? Even though I would imagine the public would end up benefiting more from this approach rather than the more popular tabloid newspaper approach.

Like this example, zero-tolerance is a cosmetic, impractical, mostly ideological response. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples where we don't condone a person's activities but seek to minimise harm to all involved. Domestic violence counseling springs to mind. How retarded is it to argue that because counseling exists, we send confused messages about domestic violence?

Yes, there is a heavy political price to pay for supporting harm minimisation, but it only makes things worse when politicians insist on invoking relativism of ideas while rejecting relativism of action.

The new evolution

The experiments are no longer each individual of a sentient species, but the ideas and practicalities of their inner world. It is in these conditions that transcendence over seemingly biological imperatives is possible, subject to the intention/action gap.

However, because of the recursive nature of interaction between individual and society at large, problems and obstructions within third party individuals are shared by society and therefore by you as an individual.

I argue that this holds on not only for deep philosophical ideas, say in a conversation between two friends, but on the apparently trivial daily interactions - with the checkout chick, for example.

Therefore, in this 'second enlightenment' of ours, it becomes imperative to raise the welfare of society as a whole in order to benefit the individual. I refer to welfare here not only in the sense of one-dimensional economic wealth.

We ought not to be ashamed of pursuing individual interests. The current misinterpretation of Darwinism, applied to society, excludes the strategic advantage of cooperation. (Read some Richard Dawkins for more on this) Hence we see Ayn Rand followers like the incredibly destructive John Bolton in power in the US.

I think altruism exists, but even if does not simply satisfy greater needs in the donor, it is an unstable paradigm in the long-term.

Loving relationships of all kinds are examples of situations where mutual emotional investment is more rewarding than shallow self-interest. This isn't, and should never be seen as, a cold transaction - on the contrary - these needs should be celebrated, and I would argue that they are a force adding to the common good.

You may argue back that this is just where I want society to go. Here are my rebuttals:
1. Well, firstly I concede that in the short-term, it is unlikely we'll end up with a society geared towards common-good contribution and social fabric building for these purposes.

2. If I am right that the new evolutionary currency is ideas, then this viewpoint indeed forms part of the selective pressure, and I'll let your imagination run wild as to the possible recursive effects!

3. At any rate, it's better than plunging headlong into this strange, inhuman, cold economic rationalist future we seem to be hurtling inexorably towards. First we need to suggest alternative options!

4. I agree, for once, with religious leaders who proclaim there to be a spiritual hunger out there. I can think of no better example of a high need innate in our biology that plugs back very strongly into society. Now that we seem to have finally outgrown the somewhat childish idea of benevolent omnipotent deities, perhaps in future the 'replacement' will be the very act of searching. Searching within humanity - our closest sentient peers - for ideas and stories that most honestly satisfy this common desire.

If you think this is a rather airy-fairy metaphysical goal, you should read what Adam Smith had in mind when he wrote Wealth of Nations! More on that one in another post....

The placeholder entry.

What's this blog all about? Its about edgy ideas, saying what I think to be true but haven't got hard evidence. It's to get my thoughts together without the constant nattering of people who have long since jumped off the cliff of reason. For some reason we seem to be more organised with ideas if we have to present them to an audience -- even if we're not sure an audience exists.

This is in part a response to my change of thinking from - "everything you have thought has been thought before" to "well, maybe so, but not in my head, as far as I can remember!"

Therefore if you are a wizened punter, this may bore you. Boo hoo!