"The boys'll be home by Christmas..."
If you can get beyond the Judeo-Christian implications: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The problem with this, unfortunately, is that hell now has much better, more accessible ways to get to it than does Heaven. This taps into a sort important issue that plagues even those that claim no religion other than science: inertia. It does, it appears, seem to be easier to do nothing than something. As I've been saying (rather than doing!) I should be proactive, not reactive.
In terms of government, I don't think the issue really is big or large. I think the issue is that the Left does assume that we do need to dictate how people are to live, what to do. The Right does this too, but when they do it it is okay, because it is reclaiming our Halcyon days --days which never happened. Memory is a problem, but I'm not here to discuss cognitive sciences at all.
In contrast to the Left, the Right (which does try to dictate behaviour, too)claims to believe in independence, self-reliance, in doing it to get ahead. This does not happen. As I indicated, people (like objects) do tend toward inertia, toward reaction rather than acting, or being proactive. I know I can vouch for myself and others, from their observable behaviours (what their thought processes are saying is another issue, for another time).
Most people do need a little coercion to do "the right thing." I know very few people who arn't selfish or self-seeking. I think it does, however, start from the basic premise of, as I've heard it articulated from an avowed Right-winger, of you've only got you, so do for yourself. As even those in programs such as AA state, it can be a lonely program.
But what does one do when they've got their affairs in order? Is it then right and necessary to entangle ourselves in others messes? Is anyone now, or ever, truly independent of other people's thoughts and actions? I don't know. Again, it is a tricky balancing act. If one does not have their affairs in order, they seem hypocritical and come off as an aggressor (which they usually are); however, if all one does is work on their own stuff, what good are they contributing to those around them? Are they helping or impeding the society?
These questions transcend time or space or simple historical studies, or as I've alluded to the hard sciences. Normally, most of these issues fall in the domains of the social sciences. I've never liked that term or that distinction, but it is necessary. It adds a nice touch of grey to the issue, moving beyond the paradigm of the arts vs. the hard/natural sciences.
In terms of myself, this is a very important distinction to make. At UCSC, both History and Linguistics/Language Studies were considered part of the "Humanities." I really like and appreciate that philosophical and pedagogical slant. I think it helped me to conceptualize humans, rather than cold, sterile theories. That's not to say that theories are bad (or that they're always cold and sterile), but to say that it humanizes people. Even if linguistics is, even by my own definition, "a scientific study" that doesn't necessarily restrict it.
In terms of history, it also makes sense to me. History can make use of data,which is good and important; however, when one approaches History as a Humanity, it loses that need to hide behind numbers, and moves from quantitative predictability toward becoming what it is --a type of literature which concerns itself with qualitative interpretations.
I suppose I'm getting at this: if all we do is "keep it simple, stupid" doesn't that also miss out on the nuances and the differences of life and the individual? It's a balancing act.
In regards to the title: World War I has been on my mind again a lot lately. And then, of course, I usually loop back to the French Revolution...my mind tries to loop back further, but as the further back I go, the less training and knowledge I have, the less it actually does go back --which is good, I think. Otherwise, the unfortunate reality is, I'd be getting back to the big bang and worrying astronomy and physics. While how we got here is a fundamental issue to work on and establish, it shouldn't necessary be our sole preoccupation.
For better or for worse, this is what we've been dealt. I know I am often a victim of either overly optimistic or pessimistic behaviours and attitudes. This has to be smashed. Extremism is a problem, and it does need to be curbed, but then I think of what Goldwater said at the 1964 convention, and I always come back to JFK and his flubbed attempt to quote Dante.
I don't know. I've gone and vacillated again, far more than I wanted to, and not even what I wanted to write about.
This entry was supposed to be about the cleaning experience I had with a personal time capsule from Santa Cruz from 2008.
So, yes, simplicity is key. I shouldn't over think things, no one should. But how, then, do we proceed without losing the very important nuances of life? I don't know.
I just know that I should have been in bed hours ago, rather than pondering these silly little questions. They'll never be answered; the mind asks things that as far as i know, have no present solution.
But this I do know: as long as I'm willing to approach things with a positive attitude, and as long as I'm willing to do the hard work (being proactive rather than reactive), it'll be okay. The good intentions can and will turn into good behaviours. If I can do it, and we all can, then those roads to hell will start to deteriorate. One can only hope...
In terms of government, I don't think the issue really is big or large. I think the issue is that the Left does assume that we do need to dictate how people are to live, what to do. The Right does this too, but when they do it it is okay, because it is reclaiming our Halcyon days --days which never happened. Memory is a problem, but I'm not here to discuss cognitive sciences at all.
In contrast to the Left, the Right (which does try to dictate behaviour, too)claims to believe in independence, self-reliance, in doing it to get ahead. This does not happen. As I indicated, people (like objects) do tend toward inertia, toward reaction rather than acting, or being proactive. I know I can vouch for myself and others, from their observable behaviours (what their thought processes are saying is another issue, for another time).
Most people do need a little coercion to do "the right thing." I know very few people who arn't selfish or self-seeking. I think it does, however, start from the basic premise of, as I've heard it articulated from an avowed Right-winger, of you've only got you, so do for yourself. As even those in programs such as AA state, it can be a lonely program.
But what does one do when they've got their affairs in order? Is it then right and necessary to entangle ourselves in others messes? Is anyone now, or ever, truly independent of other people's thoughts and actions? I don't know. Again, it is a tricky balancing act. If one does not have their affairs in order, they seem hypocritical and come off as an aggressor (which they usually are); however, if all one does is work on their own stuff, what good are they contributing to those around them? Are they helping or impeding the society?
These questions transcend time or space or simple historical studies, or as I've alluded to the hard sciences. Normally, most of these issues fall in the domains of the social sciences. I've never liked that term or that distinction, but it is necessary. It adds a nice touch of grey to the issue, moving beyond the paradigm of the arts vs. the hard/natural sciences.
In terms of myself, this is a very important distinction to make. At UCSC, both History and Linguistics/Language Studies were considered part of the "Humanities." I really like and appreciate that philosophical and pedagogical slant. I think it helped me to conceptualize humans, rather than cold, sterile theories. That's not to say that theories are bad (or that they're always cold and sterile), but to say that it humanizes people. Even if linguistics is, even by my own definition, "a scientific study" that doesn't necessarily restrict it.
In terms of history, it also makes sense to me. History can make use of data,which is good and important; however, when one approaches History as a Humanity, it loses that need to hide behind numbers, and moves from quantitative predictability toward becoming what it is --a type of literature which concerns itself with qualitative interpretations.
I suppose I'm getting at this: if all we do is "keep it simple, stupid" doesn't that also miss out on the nuances and the differences of life and the individual? It's a balancing act.
In regards to the title: World War I has been on my mind again a lot lately. And then, of course, I usually loop back to the French Revolution...my mind tries to loop back further, but as the further back I go, the less training and knowledge I have, the less it actually does go back --which is good, I think. Otherwise, the unfortunate reality is, I'd be getting back to the big bang and worrying astronomy and physics. While how we got here is a fundamental issue to work on and establish, it shouldn't necessary be our sole preoccupation.
For better or for worse, this is what we've been dealt. I know I am often a victim of either overly optimistic or pessimistic behaviours and attitudes. This has to be smashed. Extremism is a problem, and it does need to be curbed, but then I think of what Goldwater said at the 1964 convention, and I always come back to JFK and his flubbed attempt to quote Dante.
I don't know. I've gone and vacillated again, far more than I wanted to, and not even what I wanted to write about.
This entry was supposed to be about the cleaning experience I had with a personal time capsule from Santa Cruz from 2008.
So, yes, simplicity is key. I shouldn't over think things, no one should. But how, then, do we proceed without losing the very important nuances of life? I don't know.
I just know that I should have been in bed hours ago, rather than pondering these silly little questions. They'll never be answered; the mind asks things that as far as i know, have no present solution.
But this I do know: as long as I'm willing to approach things with a positive attitude, and as long as I'm willing to do the hard work (being proactive rather than reactive), it'll be okay. The good intentions can and will turn into good behaviours. If I can do it, and we all can, then those roads to hell will start to deteriorate. One can only hope...