Trying to find values and a purpose in a world without a god.

   May I start off by saying this is an idea in progress. That said this is a short essay regarding the state of our modern, godless, mindset. And how to see our world with purpose, if not some more purpose than is currently available. 

   

                                                                 Concreate Gods 

To live in a godless world is by no doubt a difficult place to live.For one to thrive in a world without the will of god one must find an internal will. An internal drive that is capable of creating purpose. A will that is capable of seeing the world as a sacred place. I would like to argue that one can achieve purpose with out the need of free will or control, if that is even physically possible, over ones mind.  

In the contemporary age the idea of a Judeo-Christian god is slowly dying out, being replaced by a growing secular population, its up to 23%* for adults and 30%* in young adults. And with that a growing nihilistic population, by assumption I may add. Although according to current research that I read in the LA Times* this has been shown to be a false, or partially wrong, assumption . The assumption that if you are godless means you have no values, no meaning, and therefore have no morals. This study flies right In the face of Wallace's statement, "This is a generation that has an inheritance of absolutely nothing as far as meaningful moral values" (Wallace ATS 25).  But I digress from the topic at hand. God is not the only religious idea to begin its death in these modern times. The idea of free will is also slowly dying out as well. It is evident in our everyday lives, our industry and our medical fields. Advertisers take advantage of our underlying behaviors all the time, tricking our psyches into wanting material objects that we would other wise have no desire for. Using flashy advertisements of celebrities using devices and other products which make it seem as though everyone wants these products. So people follow suite and want what others have. That is a natural, subconscious reaction that most people are unaware of and are not in control of. When people become addicted to drugs it takes a lot of patience and perseverance to stop the cravings for more drugs, even though the individual is aware that the drugs are bad for them. People that suffering from depression, just as David Foster Wallace had, or other mental illnesses (like manic-depression, schizophrenia, ADHD, Autism and personality disorders to name a few) need to take prescription drugs in order to function. No good doctor would recommend one to will ones way out of the mental illness, because it is not possible. Although training using therapy is effective, it still takes grueling years to master even the slightest improvement. And even then people can break down and revert back to how they were in the beginning. None of these examples support the idea of free will. If one were to be drugged it is nearly impossible, or completely impossible, to will ones way into to sobriety. We are physical, mechanical beings, or machines, to use a more accurate term than "beings", and we adhere to our programing and our internal mechanisms just as any other machine does. This is not to say though that we are completely unchangeable and have no options to what our behavior is. People can learn new behaviors, new skills, and do so all the time. When one is confronted with a challenge the mind may present you with many possible routes of action that one then "chooses" to act with (this statement is a bit contradictory, and although I do not believe it is really up to "us" to "decide" which option to go with [next time you do make a decision ask your self how you came to the decision, I'm sure your process is not understood on a cellular level] it sure seems as though, if not thought about, we are making a free decision). The death of free will is not the death of humanity though. For free will has always been dead and that "fact" has not effected humanity in any way when it was unaware of its nonexistence. So why should it make any difference now that we know it is just an illusion. It is just another fact of life that isn't that motivating, and when it really comes down to it that is the only reason people don't want to believe this to be true. Because it demotivates them, makes them feel caged, trapped in a predetermined world. "Then what's the point of even trying" one might say, assuming that the out come to a predetermined world is negative as well as assuming that because they don't have free will the entire world is locked on a pair of tracks. And that they are as well. But as I have stated, there are options, there are many possible tracks to take. Just because we are machines doesn't mean there are not options or that there is nothing to live for.  

If free will is dead then where can humanity turn to to power its self into the future? As Nietzsche and Wallace have put it humanity needs an internal drive or will to accomplish this new way of meaningfully viewing the world. I say it is still a manner of an internal will but it is not a matter of free will. It will take a kind of will that I'd like to call pseudo-free will; this is a kind of will that to the best of my knowledge has not yet been described. It is an internal force that is not driven by conscious or controlled acts but are of the subconscious, programmed, mind. This is similar to Gilbert's idea of when " the God of writing shines upon her..-the [external] genius- who comes to tell her what to write" (ATS 54). But this is an uncontrolled internal force, not unlike "God's grace... [That dictates to our] passive [bodies]" (ATS 54) but internal as I have said." To put the full quote in for good measure, it goes, "God's grace is literally nothing over which the individual has control. [We are] passive recipients of it [gods grace]" (ATS 54). This new internal "will" is the "will" of our genes and of our unconscious minds. For our waking minds might not be able to logically deduce a reason or a method to stay invigorated, nor able to see meaning or value, but our emotional, programmed, responses to our environment can. Our emotions are a programmed, genetically induced, phenomenon. It is the will, the values, the meaning, the "intended" purpose of our modern gods. Our genes. Even though our minds can not find purpose. Our genes have already achieved a goal and "purpose" that has lasted for billions of years, and will continue to last until the sun explodes. No matter how we feel about it, genes have found our/their purpose. To thrive and evolve, where others have failed, to live, to last, to survive. This "will", to me, can possibly, maybe, power humanity through its journey.        

*http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0115-zuckerman-secular-parenting-20150115-story.html#page=1      

Brush Fire: A brief explanation to why some businesses should be allowed to fail.

Suny purchase

Brush Fire

Burning the Dying Plants

Matthew Ettinger-Curnan

3/25/2014

.

               

  Have you ever heard the term “Brush Fire?” What does this phase instill in your mind? To me I imagine a fire burning out the dead and dying plants in an ecosystem. Burning the plants that could not compete with the surrounding plants, the plants that just could not obtain as much energy as their competitors. Withered from the lack of nutrients and water. Withered and taking up valuable space in a limited environment. Ready to be lit to make room for better competitors. If you could not guess, this is a metaphor. A metaphor for why the government should not intervene in the event of a business failing. What I am trying to illustrate is that businesses fail for a reason and should be allowed to fail to make room for better businesses. When the government intervenes in the economy by providing, for example, bailouts to failing businesses or putting limits on how business can be conducted it slows the development of new businesses and business models and is a mark of crony capitalism. Favoring some over others and providing a few with resources intended for many.

Let’s start by addressing property rights, because it does tie into this. What is a property right? The class text book, Institutional Economics, defines it as a bundle of protected rights of individuals and organizations to hold, or dispose of, certain assets. What this means is that individual people have the right to associate or disassociate with particular, possibly profitable, interactions on their own accord. People are allowed to do whatever they want with this interaction, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other people. What is very important about property rights is not only the right to own the positive effects of this interaction but also take responsibility of its negative effects. That means no direct involvement from the governing forces that give, or allow, you those rights. If said governing forces does favor a particular businesses this upsets the naturally regulating process of an evolving economy that is facilitated using success and failure of said interactions or properties.

Now I will discuss the importance of having a governing system that protects no particular property holder but the idea of having an economic system that supports continuous competition amongst said property holders. Capitalism should be viewed as a constantly evolving system that has no particular business or product at its core. For the capitalistic system to work properly and fairly over a long period of time every property holder must remain in a state of constant uncertainty. I should say that the governing forces making laws should keep a mindset that is aware of the effects of imperfect knowledge on property holders within the market. Is aware of how property holders’ imperfect knowledge, of what is to come in the future as well as what other property holders know, is a driving force behind economic growth and progress. It keeps each property holder in a state of unrest, giving each property holder an incentive to make innovation, to engage in information search in order to compete with their competitor. In no way should the governing forces protect a particular property holder because of benefits that it provides said governing forces. This is corruption of the role the governing force is meant to play. Basically the governing force should set simple rules that allow and enforce the rights of property holders, and then remand indifferent to everything that propagates out of this system. This means having no direct involvement in the interactions of the economy. Ironically most property owners involved in this system will not enjoy such a system of unrest and indifference towards the individual property owner and will more than likely try to impose their own interests on the policy’s set by the governing system. In the hopes of ensuring their own survival over others. When this is done successfully it is known as crony capitalism. To put it simply it is an “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch my back” scenario between a business and the government. The business, in fear of losing their competitive edge on the market, will offer a politician, governing authority, law maker, whichever way you want to put it, a sum of cash to in act a law that will prevent other competitors from entering the market. This action spits directly in the face of true capitalism. When and if this business feels like they may be losing their competitive edge, which should remain be a constant feeling I may add, they should invest their money into innovating a new product or business tactic. They should not invest said cash into the governing authority’s power over the market. The very idea that this is legal and continually occurring is absurd to me and goes against everything that the idea of capitalism stands for. As I have said before, this is not real capitalism, it is crony capitalism. It is a false free market that favors whoever has power over the market at a particular moment in time. Whoever is willing and able to dish out the cash to enact laws that will prevent the market environment from changing.     

                If governmental forces become directly involved in the affairs of the economy, that is by providing limitations on what can be and cannot be done in order to protect a particular way of conducting business it greatly reduces the drive for property owners to create new or durable business models. When governments do impose regulations on the economy it is assuming that it knows how the economy is going to progress through time. As in what technologies and information will be thought of or discovered, respectively, that will improve or create new, previously unheard of ways, of doing business. I will use a couple of examples to illustrate my point. Everyone knows, or has heard of the government bailout of General Motors. General Motors in 2009 filed for bankruptcy because of its inability to turn a profit. For whatever reason General Motors could not compete with other Car producers, maybe due to it not producing cars that its consumer base wanted, maybe because it did not have the profits available to pay its work force their agreed fixed rate. I think it must be a combination of the two. Whatever the specifics are they do not matter for the point I am making. The bottom line is that General Motors, or Government Motors as some have been calling it, could not compete with other car manufactures using its particular business model. General motors should have been allowed to fail, or at least had the option to fail lurking behind its every decision. Think about this, do you think a capitalist is going to try very hard to come up with lasting, long term business models if in the face of failure it can turn to the government and ask for a hand out? I think not. Also if you have been paying full attention this goes against the very idea of what it means to have Property rights! Apart of having property rights is not only being able to enjoy the profits of your risks and hard work but also suffering the loss of the risks you took! This is not what General Motors did, at all. Now we have a business that is still alive with no incentives to change its behavior, as in create innovations capable of competing on the long haul. I am sure it will again and again, if it does not improve its business model, run into issues due to its inability to change to new competitors, factors, information, technologies, ideas in the market.

Some people may argue with this view point and say that the government had to bail out General Motors in order to save American jobs. What these people do not realize is that new opportunities for new businesses do arise once a giant business has fallen. What about this new and upcoming car business that has been getting a lot of attention recently. The company called Tesla, that produces electric cars. If General Motors had failed, like it should have, Might Tesla have had a larger growth then it is currently experiencing? The collapse of any large business leaves a huge consumer market open for new property owners to take advantage of. The collapse of GM would have provided the incentive for people to reevaluate their own business models, their products, and their knowledge about the world. As well as make room for new business to spring up and take advantage of the missing giant. The government should not have used its power, that is intended for the betterment of the public, to save a failing business.   

Risk, Reward and Failure are essential parts of any evolving system. No one, not even biological evolution, has perfect knowledge. Therefore no system can be designed that will survive forever without having to be up dated or eliminated by a better competitor. Allowing currently powerful businesses to lobby, pay off, the government to protect their place in the government is crony capitalism. Governmental forces, powers or authorities protecting particular businesses like hired guards, this is cronyism to me. These businesses are not protected from failing for the American people’s lively hoods, incomes, job sources, they are protected because they have the cash to pay off the government.     Sometimes a fire in the forest is the best thing that forest needs; it gets rid of all the dying trees to make room for the saplings. There is no favoritism in natural, biological evolution, whoever can compete is allowed to compete, so we must emulate this process in our own affairs to prevent a larger collapse that may affect the entire system on the long haul and not just those in power at a particular point in time. This is cronyism; the government did divert resources intended for public use for particular individuals gain. This is not true capitalism.              

 Bibliography

·         Murphy, Robert P. Did Deregulated Derivatives Cause the Financial Crisis? www.FEE.org. March 02, 2009

·         Russell, Dean. GM competition and choice www.FEE.org April 1, 1962

·         Kasper, Wolfgang. Streit, Manfred E. Boettke, Peter J. Intitutional Economics: Property, Competition, Policies. Edward Elgar Publishing, INC. 2012.

·         Baird, Charles W. The Myth of compulsory union membership. www.FEE.org March 1 1998

·         Young, Anthony The Rise and Fall of Edsel. www.FEE.org September 1 1989

   

                

Evolution

Evolution is not driven by a foresight, it does not use human reasoning.

The After Life

There will be an after life one day, but it will not be designed out of clouds by a bearded man in the sky. It will be a cloud of information designed by bearded men.

Paradox of Big Business

Its a funny paradox, big business, during times of profit they want the government to protect their private interests and reduce federal regulations. Yet during times of turmoil they are more than willing to take part in federal handouts.
It would seem that big business does not wish to protect the free market from governmental regulation, it wishes to protect its self using whatever resource it can. As long as the current buissness stays on top, no matter the demands of the market, then they are happy. 
The government should not be in the "business" of protecting certain individuals, it should be protecting the idea of a free flowing, evolving, economy unhindered by any regulation that favors any particular person or business.

The Discovery Channel

What happened to the discovery channel. It used to be about science, now they've got a bunch of red necks making alcohol in the woods.

Pessimism

A person says to his friend
"I wish I could be an optimist"
The friend says "well then be one."
The person says back, "I don't think its that easy."