Have you ever looked at your parents' photo albums, or better yet, your grandparents'?
Once they were cute babies, can you believe it! Later, they were youths smiling with hope. Some were even dashing.
You must have looked at other people in the pictures and noticed that they all somehow look alike.
Are you talking about blood relatives?
Not necessarily. It can be anyone, a friend, a neighbor, or just a passer-by. If they are of the same gender and of about the same age, they must have had very similar hair style and clothes. Depending on the culture, style has also been dictated by class and profession.
We can alternatively say that we are constrained by the society that we live in. Think about the pictures from Europe in the 20s, for example. When we first see them, we think they must have tried hard to be so much alike, but the truth is that it was the only way to be considered stylish. Going punk was certainly not.
Such fashion didn't even occur to them, I bet.
If we had been born in the 20s, we would be dressing like just one of them from that decade, and think nothing of it.
Had it been in the 60s, we would be doing Woodstock.
But had you lived outside North America and Western Europe, Woodstock would have had absolutely nothing to do with you. We are severely conditioned by our own society, although each one of us contribute to what that society is.
I've got a good example. "Le déjeuner sur l'herbe/The Luncheon on the Grass" by Édouard Manet. It was controversial when shown in 1863.
As a child, I was puzzled by the fact that it was something that many had disapproved of. So was the case with the ballet, "The Rite of Spring"---music by Igor Stravinsky and dance by Vaslav Nijinsky. During its premiere, a number of people angrily walked out.
What about "Lady Chatterley's Lover" by D. H. Lawrence?
I remember reading it avidly and having been disappointed at the end that nothing was outrageous.
We have to be told what made them so notorious.
Even then, we think, "Really? What's wrong with this art? What's wrong with people who denounced them?"
And yet, so many were offended when they were made public.
We also talk about some artists, scientists, and thinkers as having been "ahead of their times." They were so unfortunate that their ideas were accepted only after they were no longer alive.
Aren't they the ones who were unconstrained by the social convention of the day?
Yes, but since almost everybody else was, they were not fully appreciated.
After all, it's better to conform to the society, don't you think?
Life would certainly be easier. On the other hand, accepting everything as is could be awfully boring. It may deprive of our energy to improve our lives within the contraints.
Isn't this your favorite case of double-edged sword? It would be best to accept what you cannot change, but do your best to change what you can.
The problem is: who can differentiate the two, or can we agree on any differentiation. It depends on luck, too. We may succeed in something that was impossible earlier, thanks to a tiny, yet positive, turn of events.
You've succeeded in convincing me that we are much more limited than we think we are.
That reminds me that when I was in primary school, I boasted to my father that I can do any conceivable calculation in the world.
Comrade, you've been telling me that you were precocious, but I never thought it was true.
I had just learned decimal numbers and fractions, and I thought I had exhausted all the possible numerical manipulations.
Oops.
He chuckled rather derisively and took out a piece of paper. He wrote down some mathematical symbols that I had never seen and said, "You mean, you can do this, too?" Needless to say, I was quite disappointed. I thought I had already conquered the world of mathematics.
You tend to have megalomaniac illusions, so no surprise, after all...
I have cast a wide net for advice lately, and noticed that people put unproportionately large weight on what they lack as one of the key ingredients to success on that matter.
We are so prone to think that the grass is greener on the other side?
Looks like it. Suppose people who have had the experience of bungee jumping become good at taking risks in life. Those with weak hearts are not allowed to enjoy the sport, and tend to attribute their risk-averseness to the lack of jumping experience.
But there are many other ways to become a risk-taker.
Exactly. But because the experience is out of their reach, they think that it has handicapped them. They also genuinely believe that bungee jumpers are good at risky ventures. This human nature came to my attention, because they were telling me to cash in on my jumping experience, whereas people with jumping experience weren't.
Their advice is a reflection of what they think is their weakness and what has been bothering them.
What we happen to lack is capable of doing wonders, like a magic wand.
While the people with the experience don't think that their lot is better because of it.
You see, something as important as life strategy is influenced by our personal circumstances, some of which are trivial, but most of us are unaware of the resultant biases.
Can we say that discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, looks, etc. does exist, but people who happen to be discriminated against in that regard tend to overemphasize it?
That's a tough one. According to my logic above, the answer is yes, but my experience, my compassion for the discriminated, and...
Aren't you proving here that you are biased, too?
... I was reading an autobiographical novel about the life in an under-privileged suburbs of one of the world's biggest cities. At some point, I realized that they would be quite happy with the same amount of money and material that they possess if nobody had more money or material. Most of them are immigrants; they are better off in terms of material wealth, but with much less dignity than before coming to the country.
Is this related to what we have been talking about?
Trust me, it is... Their relative poverty and lack of opportunity are making them miserable and hopeless. Similarly, the privileged will be awfully unhappy with the same amount of money and material as they have now, had there been a class above them with a gap that is identical to what separates them from the under-privileged at this moment.
They are content due to the knowledge that they are enjoying the best.
All of us are in a small fish bowl, and our happiness is dependent on where in the bowl we are with respect to others in the same bowl. As I said last time, it matters little where that bowl is. This alone is a strong argument for social equality, even at some costs.
And the problem is agreeing on how equal is equal...
The limitations in thoughts that we have been discussing are not imposed explicitly, but implicitly, and there lies the potency. We are unaware of them.
Just as your mother was dressed like anybody else from that time and place, and thought nothing of it then. Aren't implicit constraints better than explicit bans, such as censorship?
I am not sure about that, because we are strongly inclined to react against any rule that forbids us from doing something. We would desire it more than if it were allowed to us.
Anything we cannot get hold of appears more alluring simply because of unavailability.
I told you about bugee jumping already, and the world is replete with such cases. Romeo and Juliet are not the first ones.
I know, almost every culture has a legend or folklore of the same genre.
By the way, I wonder if Billy didn't think it odd to have an Italian named Juliet, instead of Giulietta.
Forget about that one. People would think that you are petty and nothing more. Besides, anglicizing, frenchifying, teutonizing, sinofying and so on happen all the time. Some of us are happy doing so with our own names, especially when we immigrate to a country where the language our names are associated with is not an official one.
What about the most fundamental constraints we face in our thoughts, do you know what they are?
Knowing you, you must be thinking about those imposed by languages.
Well, Ludwig said that he agrees with me, or something to that effect.
Too late, comrade, he said it before you did...
Once they were cute babies, can you believe it! Later, they were youths smiling with hope. Some were even dashing.
You must have looked at other people in the pictures and noticed that they all somehow look alike.
Are you talking about blood relatives?
Not necessarily. It can be anyone, a friend, a neighbor, or just a passer-by. If they are of the same gender and of about the same age, they must have had very similar hair style and clothes. Depending on the culture, style has also been dictated by class and profession.
The look of that particular era, you mean?
I remember asking my mother why they were all clothed in a funny way in the pictures. She said, "That was how we dressed ourselves at that time." When I inquired if she had not thought it strange, she said she had not, because that had been the fashion.
You're trying to tell me that what is normal can become strange over time.
We can alternatively say that we are constrained by the society that we live in. Think about the pictures from Europe in the 20s, for example. When we first see them, we think they must have tried hard to be so much alike, but the truth is that it was the only way to be considered stylish. Going punk was certainly not.
Such fashion didn't even occur to them, I bet.
If we had been born in the 20s, we would be dressing like just one of them from that decade, and think nothing of it.
Had it been in the 60s, we would be doing Woodstock.
But had you lived outside North America and Western Europe, Woodstock would have had absolutely nothing to do with you. We are severely conditioned by our own society, although each one of us contribute to what that society is.
I've got a good example. "Le déjeuner sur l'herbe/The Luncheon on the Grass" by Édouard Manet. It was controversial when shown in 1863.
As a child, I was puzzled by the fact that it was something that many had disapproved of. So was the case with the ballet, "The Rite of Spring"---music by Igor Stravinsky and dance by Vaslav Nijinsky. During its premiere, a number of people angrily walked out.
What about "Lady Chatterley's Lover" by D. H. Lawrence?
I remember reading it avidly and having been disappointed at the end that nothing was outrageous.
We have to be told what made them so notorious.
Even then, we think, "Really? What's wrong with this art? What's wrong with people who denounced them?"
And yet, so many were offended when they were made public.
We also talk about some artists, scientists, and thinkers as having been "ahead of their times." They were so unfortunate that their ideas were accepted only after they were no longer alive.
Aren't they the ones who were unconstrained by the social convention of the day?
Yes, but since almost everybody else was, they were not fully appreciated.
After all, it's better to conform to the society, don't you think?
Life would certainly be easier. On the other hand, accepting everything as is could be awfully boring. It may deprive of our energy to improve our lives within the contraints.
Isn't this your favorite case of double-edged sword? It would be best to accept what you cannot change, but do your best to change what you can.
The problem is: who can differentiate the two, or can we agree on any differentiation. It depends on luck, too. We may succeed in something that was impossible earlier, thanks to a tiny, yet positive, turn of events.
You've succeeded in convincing me that we are much more limited than we think we are.
That reminds me that when I was in primary school, I boasted to my father that I can do any conceivable calculation in the world.
Comrade, you've been telling me that you were precocious, but I never thought it was true.
I had just learned decimal numbers and fractions, and I thought I had exhausted all the possible numerical manipulations.
Oops.
He chuckled rather derisively and took out a piece of paper. He wrote down some mathematical symbols that I had never seen and said, "You mean, you can do this, too?" Needless to say, I was quite disappointed. I thought I had already conquered the world of mathematics.
You tend to have megalomaniac illusions, so no surprise, after all...
I have cast a wide net for advice lately, and noticed that people put unproportionately large weight on what they lack as one of the key ingredients to success on that matter.
We are so prone to think that the grass is greener on the other side?
Looks like it. Suppose people who have had the experience of bungee jumping become good at taking risks in life. Those with weak hearts are not allowed to enjoy the sport, and tend to attribute their risk-averseness to the lack of jumping experience.
But there are many other ways to become a risk-taker.
Exactly. But because the experience is out of their reach, they think that it has handicapped them. They also genuinely believe that bungee jumpers are good at risky ventures. This human nature came to my attention, because they were telling me to cash in on my jumping experience, whereas people with jumping experience weren't.
Their advice is a reflection of what they think is their weakness and what has been bothering them.
What we happen to lack is capable of doing wonders, like a magic wand.
While the people with the experience don't think that their lot is better because of it.
You see, something as important as life strategy is influenced by our personal circumstances, some of which are trivial, but most of us are unaware of the resultant biases.
Can we say that discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, looks, etc. does exist, but people who happen to be discriminated against in that regard tend to overemphasize it?
That's a tough one. According to my logic above, the answer is yes, but my experience, my compassion for the discriminated, and...
Aren't you proving here that you are biased, too?
... I was reading an autobiographical novel about the life in an under-privileged suburbs of one of the world's biggest cities. At some point, I realized that they would be quite happy with the same amount of money and material that they possess if nobody had more money or material. Most of them are immigrants; they are better off in terms of material wealth, but with much less dignity than before coming to the country.
Is this related to what we have been talking about?
Trust me, it is... Their relative poverty and lack of opportunity are making them miserable and hopeless. Similarly, the privileged will be awfully unhappy with the same amount of money and material as they have now, had there been a class above them with a gap that is identical to what separates them from the under-privileged at this moment.
They are content due to the knowledge that they are enjoying the best.
All of us are in a small fish bowl, and our happiness is dependent on where in the bowl we are with respect to others in the same bowl. As I said last time, it matters little where that bowl is. This alone is a strong argument for social equality, even at some costs.
And the problem is agreeing on how equal is equal...
The limitations in thoughts that we have been discussing are not imposed explicitly, but implicitly, and there lies the potency. We are unaware of them.
Just as your mother was dressed like anybody else from that time and place, and thought nothing of it then. Aren't implicit constraints better than explicit bans, such as censorship?
I am not sure about that, because we are strongly inclined to react against any rule that forbids us from doing something. We would desire it more than if it were allowed to us.
Anything we cannot get hold of appears more alluring simply because of unavailability.
I told you about bugee jumping already, and the world is replete with such cases. Romeo and Juliet are not the first ones.
I know, almost every culture has a legend or folklore of the same genre.
By the way, I wonder if Billy didn't think it odd to have an Italian named Juliet, instead of Giulietta.
Forget about that one. People would think that you are petty and nothing more. Besides, anglicizing, frenchifying, teutonizing, sinofying and so on happen all the time. Some of us are happy doing so with our own names, especially when we immigrate to a country where the language our names are associated with is not an official one.
What about the most fundamental constraints we face in our thoughts, do you know what they are?
Knowing you, you must be thinking about those imposed by languages.
Well, Ludwig said that he agrees with me, or something to that effect.
Too late, comrade, he said it before you did...
Posts
