Being artsy, techy and auntie next door

Do you think technology brings us together?
 

If you are thinking about the Internet and its applications, such as e-mail, blog, social networking sites, the answer is yes.

Don't you think that the extremists can now find each other and strengthen their cause because of the Internet?
 

You mean, they would have been isolated and contained in the old times?

Kindred spirits can support each other, and thus, feel legitimized. People at the ends of the spectrum are now much more confident than before.
 

I suppose some ends are good ends...

What if the destructive types get together thanks to the ease of communication and search? As a coherent group, they could instill fear and make us distrust each other.
 

We are more divided, paradoxically because of the greater possibilities to be united?

Let me present a different case. When we did not know how to record audio information, the only way we could listen to music was by being at a place where a performer was.
 

All music was live back then.

It was important to know people who could perform, preferably well, or people who knew such people. Put differently, it made great sense to try our best to be in good terms with people in that arena.
 

I bet that the ability to play music instruments used to be a big bargain chip in arranged marriages.

Before Johannes Gutenberg, most manuscripts needed to be copied by hand. That limited the number of copies available.
 

Which meant that if you wanted to read something, you had to know and be in good relationship with the owner of the original or one of the few copies.

Connections matter for story telling, too. You have to know a story teller, and that person must agree to your request of telling a story. The same holds for artisan talents. Suppose chests could be made only by hand and you were very good at it. People will try to be good friends with you so that you would agree to make one for them when they need it.
 

Whereas today, you can go to any store, be nasty to the store personnel, mess around with the display and still get the item.

You can purchase almost anything through the Internet, so you can live without getting in contact with a human being.
 

Except in cases where the presence of your body is essential, such as having illness treated, hair cut, and tattooed. Dancing and kissing, too.

I'd say we are getting more and more alienated. Driving personal cars is a contributing factor in that regard. It is very convenient for doing weekly grocery shopping, traveling under bad weather, reaching remote places, etc., but we don't come into contact with fellow travelers, drivers and conductors.
 

We are free to curse loudly and as much as we like about other drivers on the road, because they wouldn't hear us. We may want to apologize for not giving the right of way when we should have, but there is no way to do so, either.

Technology has allowed us to live without maintaining good social networks. At the same time, it has provided us with the means to overcome the physical distance and to shorten the time required to exchange information. Think about the era when the letters were carried by a running human being.
 

Or a ship... Can't we say that we now have more control over with whom we mingle? We can ignore the owner of the corner grocery store whom we don't like, because we can go to a further store by car or order through the Internet. We can also become a member of all sorts of groups and get to know the members.

It may be a good thing to be among the people that you get along well with, but that poses a problem, too.
 

Again? What's wrong with staying away from people that we don't like? Most likely, the feelings are mutual.

We can't choose our family members, neighbors, classmates and colleagues. We have to deal with people whom we do not like, even abhor, in this age as well.
 

What about telecommuting?

You still need to interact with people who pay for your skills. Besides, if you don't like someone, electronic communication is not necessarily a good solution.
 

I thought you would prefer that, because you could hide your eyes shining with anger and contempt. Plus, your hatred can become more intense just because of the fact that you have to see the person.

That's true... But I think there is art in dealing with people whom we dislike.
 

So?

The more we practice, the better we become at it.
 

I'd say that's the best-case scenario. Some people may just explode. Don't we know a very good example around here?

Stop that thing with your elbow, please... Honestly, I think we are losing numerous hands-on skills because of technological progress. As recorded music has become widespread, we don't need to practice playing a musical instrument as preparation for hosting a dinner with music.
 

We can invite Vladimir Ashkenazy, if we wish, and that without knowing him personally.

No need to procure a piano of his liking either. The same goes with other skills that I referred to---story telling, chest making---and many others.
 

Isn't it good that we get to listen to first-class music with so little money?

Yes and no. Enjoying the very best art performance is no longer the prerogative for the rich and the powerful. It also means that we have much less need for second-, third-, and fourth-rate performers.
 

I see why you are so passionate about this issue.

I think you got it all wrong. Continuing with the case of recorded music, technology has democratized music by making it inexpensive to be exposed to top-notch performances, but also de-democratized by making us much less appreciative of amateurs and second-class professionals.
 

Winners take all... That's also the case with sports.

You got that one right. Because of television broadcasts, we feel less need to go see a real match by mediocre players.
 

Don't you think anything live has value because of that?

If it were not for that, so-so performers in any field would have been long gone. I'm inclined to single out digitization as worrisome development.
 

Comrade, you are one of the people who would be worse than hopeless if it were not for a digital camera.

It's not only photography, but also in other visual arts as well as in music, computer literacy and dexterity count for a lot nowadays.
 

Digitization enables easy entry into the field, and hence, it's democratization. However, in order to make full use of the tools, we are required to have skills that are beyond artistry. Is this where you are going?

Bravo, bravo, bravo...
 

I remember seeing you having a hard time locating an on-off switch of a television.

Come on, when I was three years old? Modern technology replaces much of what was unwritten and considered intuitive. It formalizes and verbalizes such knowledge and skills.
 

That is a necessary step to invent instruments meant for people without good intuition and feel for the art. Can't we say that, as a result, everybody is on the same playing field irrespective of such qualities?

I'm not so sure. The other day, I attended a demonstration session for photo-editing software, and it dawned on me that most attendees spent a tremendous amount of time on editing. They were mostly retirees, so that may have been the reason, but still...
 

What were you doing there?

To learn about this new software, of course. After sitting in the lecture room for a while, I realized that mastering all the new features as they come out is not part of fun for me. For many, photography seems to be about editing, editing and editing. Some at the demonstration talked about how excited they were when they found out that the shots from long ago could be improved with the latest software. For others, it is about clicking when they come across something visual that touches them.
 

Isn't that the difference between pros/semi-pros and others?

Henri was also not keen on developing films, mind you. Occasionally, he would leave them rolled up for years. The act of framing and capturing a fleeting moment, that's what thrills us.
 

Us...? But isn't that a stretch as a description of your endeavor? Buildings and statues do not exactly fleet, you know.

Don't get lost in personal details, comrade. My point is this: technology has made being artsy and techy interchangeable to a great extent.
 

Does that make you uncomfortable?

By definition, the artsy type has few words to explain what they are doing. In contrast, the techy type can overwhelm you with all the jargons, and that includes when their art work is not so great.
 

Well, even before digitization, we had similar problems. Ones who can play the violin well versus others who are better at music theory. Ones who can paint well versus others who are steeped in art history.

I'd say the problem has slightly changed, because the techy ones now have the means to create something that would have been impossible for them. Getting back to the issue of technology and people connections, I also know that before the advent of specialized magazines, books and eventually the Internet, we used to rely much more on connections for information.
 

Are you talking about totalitarian regimes which tend to be challenged in that domain?

Not necessarily. I remember my mother tapping the right person for each kind of information. If you want to know very good restaurants without limits on budget, talk to Monsieur A. If you want to know good-value-for-the-money restaurants, talk to Madame B. If you are looking for a place to have a drink near the theater, talk to Madame C, and so on. Naturally there was a don of information and connections in the neighborhood, and if you had no idea whom to ask you turned to that person.
 

The risk was that your inquiry may be relayed on the string phone, and turn into a big rumor.

Sure, there's always that possibility, whereas you can do any search on the Internet and erase your browsing history. But you must agree that the value of maintaining good personal relationships has gone down.
 

All right... But aren't you happy that you don't have to flash many insincere smiles in order to obtain what you want?

Swimming in the fish bowl

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.

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...

Being is light, perhaps unbearably

We may admit that cultures are incompatible with each other, but we tend to ignore their enormous power to shape who we are.

If I had been born among people whose custom is to grow and braid hair, I guess I would be doing so.

Suppose the longer the braids, the nicer looking you are, and yours are considered among the best. Now if you go to a country where everybody is supposed to have her/his head shaved with an intricate pattern, what do you think is going to happen?

If I did not know anything about their practice, I will be greatly shocked. In their eyes, I will be an item of curiosity. They may think I am a complete weirdo, or it could be that they think I am a long awaited savior.

It is much more likely that you would be deemed a barbarian and be despised.

What if the Skin-head people come over to my Braid country?

You will be laughing at them.

So, we always win home games?
 

Culture is a set of unwritten codes of conduct; the more people adhere to it, the more powerful it is. Headcount matters, and that is one of the biggest reasons why Benedictus is against contraceptives and homosexuality. Going back to your trip to the Skin-head land as a Braid person, you would be disturbed and hurt by scornful reactions to your braids, instead of praises and respect that you have been used to.

Will I have a crisis?

That's certain. If you are destined to go back to your Braid country after a short period of time, you would endure the humiliating situation without doing anything to your braids. Once you return, you would hasten to tell your family, friends and colleagues how uncivilized things were in the Skin-head country.

If I had been deeply wounded by the disrespectful treatment, I will have every incentive to do so. I may even exaggerate, just to get even.

If you have to stay in the Skin-head country for a while, however, you may opt to cut off your braids and shave your head.

God forbid...

Do not despair, comrade. It will be a wise decision on your part. Suppose you keep your braids and try to do whatever you wanted to in the Skin-head country. It's going to be awfully time consuming and frustrating. In fact, it can take forever.

Are you telling me that I will not accomplish my mission, however noble that may be, simply because of my braids?

Yes, because you stand out so much that the focus will be on your braids. It will require quite a bit of time and effort to make the Skin-heads see beyond the strange appearance of yours. Your difference on surface is so big that it may be a fatal barrier against making yourself understood.

I shall blame them for judging by appearance alone!

It may be justified to do so, but as I have been telling you, we are so influenced by looks and there is not much we can do about it. Anyway, if you are practical enough, I am sure that you will be going to the barber's before too long.

And the Skin-heads will think that I am finally enlightened, liberated, emancipated... The bastards!

Shhhh, it's all hypothetical, comrade. Besides, the worse is yet to come.

You mean they may not accept me even when I do away with my beautiful braids?

That also. What I had in mind is the dilemma that you would face when your date of return to the Braid country nears.

... Quelle horreur ! I have to get my braids back, but I can't grow my hair to full length just on the day before my departure.

If you start letting your hair cover the nice pattern made on your skull, the Skin-head people are going to talk about it.

"We thought it was a miraculous case of assimilation to our refined culture, but alas, it looks like a barbarian is forever a barbarian." That kind of talk?
 
You got it. Plus, when you are back in the Braid country, you will find inconvenient aspects that you did not notice before: the trouble of washing your long hair and making it into braids, the fallen hair that you notice everywhere in your house, the attention you have to pay so that the braids do not get caught between elevator doors...

Oh no, will I be missing the Skin-head country?

You may even find the near religiosity that your people have for braids slightly ridiculous.

My stay among the Skin-heads has changed me...
 

We are very much influenced by the communities and the societies that we live in. Of course, there is a great variation in the direction and the degree of influences.

We often think ourselves independent of our environment, but that's not quite true. There is no definite 'I.'

It is a rather scary thought, but I have to agree with you. I happen to be who I am because of the places that I lived and the events I experienced, and the vast majority of those has been beyond my control. In turn, it means that I am a product of chances.

Are we getting into the nature-versus-nurture argument?

No, because I am not saying that our traits are formed either by nature or by nurture. I am simply underlining the importance of the nurture component. My main proposition is: who we are cannot be discussed without reference to our surroundings. When we examine our identity carefully, we discover that the bulk of it is about how we position ourselves in the community or the society that we are part of.

The smart one, the pretty one, the funny one, the complaining one, the nagging one, the bragging one, the one who runs fastest, the one who is good at fixing things around the house, the one who trips over everything, the one who...

Usually, we think as if the attributes were absolute, but for accuracy, we should be adding the word, "around."

The smartest one around, the prettiest one around, and so on?

Have you heard about a village prodigy who goes to the city to attend school and experiences great shock, because s/he is mediocre compared to other students?

We hear that story all the time. In movies, they are the successful ones in the end, though.

Have you thought about why they are shocked?

It's simple. There are many more competitors than s/he imagined earlier.

Another way to phrase it is: the village prodigy can no longer be identified as the smartest one because s/he is in a new environment.

It's an identity crisis, then?

You see, her/his idea of who s/he is hinged on how other people fared compared to her/him. Think about a teenager who aspires to be radical. If s/he lives in a rural area, how radical s/he can be and still be accepted by family and friends would certainly differ from the radicalism allowed to her/him had s/he lived in one of the biggest cities in the world.

It is possible, though, that a radical will be a radical wherever s/he is.

Certainly. But for most of us, our tendency to go in particular directions is measured against how the rest of the society goes along those paths. Our identities are built on where we are in relation to the whole society.

That is why there is no absolute 'I.'

I was brought up by leftish parents in rightish places, and I took pride in being progressive. But at some point in my life, I became friends with leftish people from leftish places. Imagine how shocked I was to find out that I was not a true progressive in this big world!

What did you do?

I was horrified to find out that I was experiencing myself the feelings that I knew the rightish people in rightish places had when they heard of my opinion. I was also surprised to discover that the label of 'left' or 'progressive' was so important to me. I had sleepless nights before I could fully subscribe to the new ideas that I was exposed to, but I managed. I was propelled by the desire to stay progressive, and not become backward by any measure.

So you are now an 'all-region left'?

I know many people who describe themselves left, right, center-left, center-right...

For some reason, no extremists call themselves extremists.

What those labels mean is deeply dependent on where they grew up and have lived. As with any aspects of identity, they think that their adherence is to the ideas and not to their place along the local, political spectrum that they inhabit. On some occasions, I have pointed out that they would be thinking differently had they lived or had lived elsewhere. They would be taking the same political seats in any society---one to the left, to the right, or in the center. However, where that whole assembly room is situated varies, depending on the community that they belong to.

Did you manage to convince them?

They didn't believe me... I have also met quite a number of people in the West who have abandoned Western religions to embrace the Eastern ones, and quite a few in the East who have converted to Western religions. I am certain that had their birthplace been the reverse, their beliefs of choice would be reversed as well. In other words, what matters is the fact of conversion rather than the content of religions that they convert into.

Rejecting what we were imposed upon, and accepting what is presented as an option. Denouncing the institution whose unsavory aspects we have been exposed to, and embracing one whose ugly side we are yet unaware of. I trust that you didn't point these out to them...

The analogy would be taking a seat on a boat on a river. Each of us has a preferred seat: facing upstream or downstream, closer to the center, to the bow or to the stern. We usually choose the same spot of a boat, regardless of which river or where in the stream we are.

Things tend to be all right until we encounter another boat, correct?

It's the same as purchasing the latest model of whichever gadget you are crazy about. You think you are in love with the latest one, but that is true only as long as there is no newer model. In most cases, once another version becomes available on the market, that becomes your passion.

The attribute of being the newest is not absolute, but relative to other existing models.

People who go back and forth among different cultures, thus face a delicate task of balancing their fidelity to certain ideas and their desire to maintain a fixed set of adjectives for their identities.

It will be awfully confusing if you are progressive in some places and backward in others.

Alas, a person who is a true amalgam of red and blue cultures and has turned purple will be considered red among the blue, and blue among the red...

At the bottom of our rational choices

Your point was that logical analysis is more reliable than intuition, because logic can correct feelings, but not vice versa. What if two logical systems collide?

You are right. I realize that sets of logic that cannot be reconciled exist side by side. In fact, that is what cultures are all about.

If we operate within one culture, it all makes sense. But once we come into contact with another, we face contradictions.

One may tell us to be assertive, not to be stepped over, while the other may urge us to be self-deprecating so as to show our confidence in ourselves. There would be no problem if we know which rules prevail.

Things get tricky when we don't know which, because we don't say such things like, "I know that we come from incompatible cultural backgrounds, but I firmly believe that we should go about based on the Triangulum protocol."

What we leave out is, "I am from the Triangulum Galaxy, and I think we are culturally advanced than you guys from the Andromeda Galaxy, ha!"

While the guy from the Andromeda Galaxy is thinking the reverse.

 
Again the winner is the one that manages to be more brutal and ruthless.

We shouldn't act by the Gentlemen's Code, then?

I don't know why we should be bothered with it at all. Think about all the historical events. The ones who did away with such codes have always been the winners. Who said that the fighting should be on the ground only? If we realize that we can attack from the sky, we don't ask the enemy whether it is okay to do so. We just start dropping bombs from airplanes.

But isn't it self-destructive? If you take a no-holds-barred approach, the other party is going to retaliate with the same. The response could be more dramatic than the original acts, because they would be fueled by sense of defeat and revenge.

It is self-defeating only in the long run. What if the more brutal party annihilates the other? There is no point in our acting gentlemanly if the price to pay is our very existence.

If the tougher guys are going to win thanks to their toughness, why are they destined to self-destruction later?

When the culture is characterized by brutality, they can turn to each other with the same cruelness that they applied to their enemies. We know that once the first enemy is eliminated, the rest would split themselves to create enemies. With all regret, I have to say that it is human nature to do so.

We keep on destroying who is left until there is no one.

It is the course of fate that governs too many aspects of our lives. Think about price wars. They may benefit consumers, but not if the workers are insufficiently rewarded for their work to produce the goods. And the workers are consumers, too... Back to the issue of colliding logical systems, if we are to decide which to believe in when not threatened by immediate danger of annihilation, the choice will be dictated by our feelings and emotions.

We cannot logically compare logical systems that are incompatible in terms of logic.

Hence, if we are pressed to choose, it will be based on how we feel about each one against others.

You mean our decisions are more emotionally charged than we'd like to admit.

All of us try to present our arguments if they were the only ways that the discourses can reasonably unfold, but that's not true.

I know that one. Parents versus children, political left versus right, religious fundamentalists versus atheists, and more.

Sometimes we are brought up with one way of thoughts and do not deviate from them, because deviation may lead to reexamination of the fundamentals of what we believe in and how we are. We want to avoid that at all costs. But other times, we are given the freedom to choose.

Downhill versus cross-country skiing, sci-fi versus suspense novels, classical versus rock music...

Those are easy, because we may indulge in both without any problem. It becomes more interesting when it comes to political systems, for example. Nobody can say that s/he supports both democracy and dictatorship. The two cannot coexist.

Or, capitalist and communist economies.

The decisive thrust for one over the other comes from our feelings for them.

And the feelings originate in our experiences with them, right?

If your hard-earned assets have been forcibly confiscated by the communist party and that in front of your eyes, there is no way you are going to be a staunch communist. Likewise, if you and your parents have been exploited by a big landowner, there is little chance that you are going to be a capitalist.

That is irrespective of the logic behind the capitalist and communist systems.

We have to be careful not to treat the two systems as if our attraction to the two were the same. For the sheer reason that the capitalist system appeals to our base instincts to consume and own, it has a stronger draw.

In the case of the exploited peasant, s/he may strive to become a landowner her/himself instead of abolishing the unfair landholding scheme, then.

Exactly. It is our personal feelings generated through personal experiences that serve as the dice for the final selection among incompatible choices. However, when it comes to defense of that choice, we argue as if we had arrived by logic alone.

Well, not many people are going to be convinced by saying that your parent's castle was ransacked by the thuggish party members and that is why you hate the party and its doctrines.

That is why we build up arguments for our decision devoid of such events. Such behavior is not confined to our private thoughts and affiliations. It holds for various views in professional arena, including academia. Contrary to popular belief, we do not start with a clean slate of mind in deciding what we believe in. Rather, we start from our beliefs and build a fortress around it in the name of logic and science.

I bet that's why we seldom manage to convince the other camp.

Most of the time, we ourselves are even not aware of what is at the very bottom of our seemingly rational convictions. If we are, we are loathe to admit it, because we know that the material is not something that makes the other party to change sides. A variation of this theme is found in our appreciation of art.

We know what we like first and then try to find arguments as to why?

That is true, but it would be of the same theme. What I meant by a variation is that the knowledge of the personal aspects of artists affects how we appreciate their works.

Whether the painter was near starvation or living comfortably with the inheritance money should not matter when we judge how good a painting is.

I know an artist with paralyzed limbs who manipulates the brush with his mouth. I was greatly surprised to learn his handicap, considering the level of accomplishment. The question is: are we supposed to, or is it correct to, be more appreciative of his art now that we know his hardship.

If we are to publish one book of paintings, should it be his or the other's whose artistic value may be higher but without such difficulties?

In terms of pure profit, I am certain that the publisher would choose the former. But in terms of artistry, I am not certain if we should appreciate the handicapped more. It is like giving a student a better grade just because s/he suffers from learning disability. The implicit agreement is to evaluate the results, but we take efforts into account as well.

It is true that we are often curious about the artists' private lives, and we tend to like their work more if we are familiar with their biography.

Sometimes it can go the other way, too. If we find out that the artist is awfully conceited, that puts off quite a number of people and make them dislike her/his art. Similarly, our own personal events associated with a certain work can determine whether we like that particular piece.

It is hard for me to listen to the music that I heard when my dear pet beetle passed away. I was digging a hole in the backyard to bury it...

I know that Francisco Goya will forever be a very special painter for me. His exhibition was the first one that I remember attending as a child. It's amazing how vivid the memory has stayed. The crowd, the atmosphere, the weather, the changes in the dominant color in paintings as Goya aged, asking my mother about it, seeing his painting shortly afterward as a poster and recognizing it as his right away, and so on.

A piece of music suddenly means more if a story is attached to it, right?

It is not that I think about the story as I listen, but somehow the music becomes alive. Art begins to mean much more when a bit of context is given. In fact, the story or the context only serves to make me truly listen or see.

Without a story or a context, you pay cursory attention to art?

It seems that I often---not always, mind you---need a story that allows me into the world that each piece of art creates. Once I gain access to that world, I don't need to go back to the story or the context. Sometimes, they even become bothersome during the moments when I appreciate the more abstract nature of art.

Who said that we are rational beings?

The Obligations of the moderate

Life is hard if your brain happens not to be of great quality.
 

I'm glad you've finally realized your predicament.

Think about the constant fear and stress that you feel from not comprehending the situation that you are involved in.

Smart people get stressed out, too, you know.

Many of the smart ones are aware of their stress, and that is the starting point for knowing from which factors the stress has originated, as well as to which actions it has led.

In other words, without that awareness we are incapable of resolving the stress.

If you are not smart enough to know that you are under pressure, it is impossible to get rid of that pressure. 

I disagree. We are usually quite certain about our unhappiness. We can and do simply walk away from it all, and that without going into the analysis of cause and effect, or separating the unhappy aspects of life from the rest.

True. But in most cases, extracting yourself from the mess is not an option, or at least, not the most productive one. Consider a 15 year old who is failing in school. The only people who have finished school in her/his circle are the teachers. If s/he does not like the school environment and realizes that it is because s/he is not trying hard enough to learn, it may prompt her/him to study in earnest. After all, it creates the possibility of obtaining a better job and a better future. 

That's a better plan of attack than running away from home and school, you mean.

I have had some unpleasant interactions which made me wonder whether the strong, negative emotions from the other party was totally justified. It took some time before I realized that their acts were due to their fear, insecurity, etc. In order to get out of the unpleasant and/or unfamiliar situation that they faced, they would find something and someone that could take the responsibility. Since they are in fear, the choice of the responsible object/party is often unreasonable. What is quite amazing in the incidents that I have been witnessing is that the same pattern may persist. 

Thus, you have come to the conclusion that their brain is of quality that has much to be desired...

First, what they think is a conundrum is often not so. Second, they do not seem to realize that if they encounter the same situation often, it pays to give it a careful thought and devise a tactic so that they do not panic every time. 

Do you really think many people are that bad at the art of living? I am sure that we collectively knew how to live well long before all the self-help books were written, even before the oldest religion in the world was established.

Many of us do not have the capacity to analyze and devise a detailed plan, but most of us have the capacity to mimic. It is not a coincidence that the word, to ape, means to copy.

It allows people to act as if their brains were of greater quality?

Precisely. We have the powerful capability to internalize what other people do through observation. That is, without fully understanding the causes and the effects. If we focus on a particular person to emulate, we could say that s/he is a role model. If it concerns the way established by the society, we could say that it is culture. 

What distinguishes the brains of great quality from the not-so-great, then?

I would say that the high-quality brains have less limitation in terms of the breadth of issues that they can cope with ease. The better the ability to analyze is, the bigger chances s/he has to extrapolate what s/he already knows and has experienced.

Doesn't it all boil down to consciousness?

Yes. The problem with crediting consciousness is that...

We should be conscious that consciousness alone is not a panacea. 

Bravo, comrade! 

I must say that I am getting a bit too familiar with the pattern of your thoughts.

But it's true! Haven't you had the experience of being chastised by someone who you thought was not so smart?

"You think you're so smart, but you're dead wrong that..." That kind?

And they reveal what is important to the problem at hand, but you have somehow neglected.

Isn't it something that a snooty youngster experiences vis-à-vis an old hand with less formal education? ... Time to confess, comrade! 

My point here is that we shouldn't underestimate intuitions and instincts.

A snooty youngster has turned into a New Age guru?

It doesn't have to be anything spiritual, or even moral. One time, I saw a video showing the manufacturing process of macarons d'Amiens. It was important that each piece weighed the same so that the baking time will be identical; it would be inefficient to keep a watch on the cookies and take out the ones that are baked faster than others. The pâtisserie had a machine that weighed and sorted out the macarons that were either too small or too big. The owner stood by that machine and picked out the under- and over-weight ones after the machine had made the sorting.

He was filling the gaps left by the machine, then.

When they measured the macarons that he had chosen as non-qualified, indeed, they were of the weight that should have been rejected. So you see, sometimes our instincts are more robust than machines. As a related example, I can measure one cup of water without a measuring cup. It is not that I trained myself to do so, but after having done it so many times, I found out one day that I can put one cup in a bowl in one try. 

Hmmm, I know a person who consistently puts water for ten cups of coffee or more in the kettle when only two cups are to be brewed...

I did not mean to claim that our instincts are superior to our logic, but it will be a mistake to dismiss intuitions and instincts altogether. We often hear about intuitions, instincts and luck playing a big role in great discoveries and inventions. Their paths to success cannot be explained by application of logic alone. Intuitions and instincts are not formal knowledge, however, and there lies their inherent weakness. 

It is difficult to convey the information or confirm the understanding of it.

Or, even to establish its existence. 

"I feel it, right here in my guts!"

Anybody can make that kind of a claim.

In order to be convincing, I bet that you have to be a good actor.

That leads to another problem. You can be more convincing when you can make yourself believe in it. It means that the moderates, or the persons who take into account various viewpoints, will never appear as strong as the extremists. Add our penchant for sensational stories to it, and it is clear that we have a very toxic mix. 

The loonies, who have no doubt about themselves, govern the world!

Sadly, that is the state we drift into too often. Think about all the terrorist acts going on. They are what we are mainly informed of and what we react to. I know that there is more than our affinity to sensationalism that gives support to terrorism, but it is certainly part of the story.

If the extremists have such built-in strength, is there any way that we can stop them from charting the course of history?

The moderates have the obligation to condemn the extremists. It is an uphill task, because the very definition of who the moderates are could be taken as a sign of weakness. But without their expression of opposition against the very far-fetched, there is no hope for humanity.

Back to the requirement of consciousness in dealing with our life problems, can't we say that the people of higher quality brain have similar obligations, namely to show the preferred ways to cope?

I agree on the condition that they need to be cautious of arrogance.

Brainy people have the tendency to walk over the less articulate, and that even when they know that they are wrong, right? 

Obscurantism, elitism... I believe that many of the famous philosophical works could have written more simply and concisely.

That's what everybody says about anything that is beyond her/his intellectual capacity, comrade.

By the way, I know a number of religious people who are very devoted or in the profession of religion and are hypocritical.

They run greater risks, because they preach how we should behave. But they are just like the rest of us and cannot be perfect.

Some time ago, my brother helped organize a conference for professors in ethics. He told me that it was quite remarkable that they were all, well, ethical.

So the professors in ethics can do a better job than the monks and the priests?

I would like to draw a more general conclusion.

All right...

Do you agree that the professors are better than the monks and the priests at analyzing human frailty in a methodological way?

That's what they are supposed to do, while most monks and priests need only compassion.

My conclusion is that analysis is superior to intuition. We can overcome intuition by analysis, but not the other way round. Intuition can only raise red flags to faulty logic.
  

Without such warnings, analytic minds can more easily engage in manipulation and abuse. But knowledge does not guarantee that we will act accordingly. Besides, your evidence is purely anecdotal. 

True. But it's my hunch, you see...

Can't we have good doses of both, the logical and the intuitive minds? 

Most of us are better in one than the other, and naturally, we would like to think that the one that we are better at is more important. I'd say that there is a tendency among us to polarize. 

Ah, humans... But then, don't the ones who can balance the logical and the intuitive have the obligation to promote their way?

The Proof is in the packaging

Look, my crème caramel today has a rather big hole in its side.

Let me see... It sure does, but I'm certain that it will be as good-tasting as the one you ordered last time.

...

Come on, aren't you complaining about something insignificant here?

It's true that a hole does not affect the overall taste, but in terms of presentation, it has failed.

... Comrade, I just decided to enter your name in the King and Queen of Crankiness Contest.

It's not a matter of crankiness! If you are thinking that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, you are gravely mistaken.

What if the pudding looks nice, but tastes bad?

All right, you have a point, too. But, the presentation, the packaging and the like play a much bigger role than we usually are aware of.

It's your urge to dig out the unsung heroes and bring them to the limelight...

The problem is bigger than that. We tend to underestimate the value of appearance, because we are taught to judge anything by its content.

It's good, because it means that we are acting as we are supposed to.

It's bad, because we are under the wrong impression that we attach little importance to the way things look.

I don't judge a book by the cover, either in literal or figurative sense.

I'm sure that you have bought a book, or at least took one in your hands, because the cover looked interesting. It could be that the title was intriguing.

Am I supposed to be interested in a book with awful covers and inane titles, and not others?

I didn't say that, but that given a choice, we would pick one with the presentation that arouses our curiosity.

I may take a look at a book that goes against my aesthetics in a far-fetched way. In other words, I would examine a copy because its unpleasantness makes me want to know its creator or source, but would not purchase it or read it carefully.

You see, you are greatly influenced by the appearance.

I thought you have been telling us that we shouldn't be.
 

We shouldn't be if the appearance has nothing to do with the qualities that we seek. However, the looks have the tendency to sneak into our decision making in an inconclusive way. Suppose we have two candidates for the job of a receptionist. One is competent and emotionally stable, but does not come across as your long-lost uncle. Another is less competent and panics rather easily, but has the looks of a Mr. Triangulum Galaxy. Which candidate would you choose?

Would Mr. Triangulum Galaxy have three eyes or two?

Let's say he comes with the features of normal homo sapiens, and they are of a high grade according to our criteria.

I think it greatly depends on the culture, because the case we are discussing could be cast as a question of long-term versus short-term interest. I bet that the societies with longer-term views would choose the former, and the shorter-term ones the latter.

We eventually get used to nice looks, so I'd imagine that the companies which put more weight on the looks wouldn't mind getting another receptionist when the current one quits after a short period. ... Hey, I think I figured out why we get bored with pretty faces easily.

Some of us burn ourselves out with jealousy, before getting used to having nice-looking people around.

Jealousy from not being as beautiful ourselves, jealousy from their attracting so much more attention than we do... But why do you think we get bored with beautiful people?

Are you sure we get bored with someone if s/he has the personality of our dreams and happens to have the looks of Ms. or Mr. Milky Way?

I told you, we get used to their looks! The problem is that they have one handsome face and no more. Suppose your lover is a nice-looking being, whose feature changes from day to day. You wouldn't get bored so easily.

It will be confusing if James Dean goes to bed and wakes up in the morning to find a John Wayne in the mirror instead of James.
 
Aren't you grateful that we are spared of such confusion? But it also means that we can get awfully used to good-looking persons.

I think we get used to any good quality, unfortunately.

True, but personality differs from looks in that it manifests in many different ways, depending on the circumstances.

Whereas an attractive smile is just that, you mean? Doesn't it imply that we get less bored with people if they are more expressive of their emotions?

We know that many occasions call for moderation in that department if we are to act as mature members of the society.

... We'd better get back to the discussion of whether appearance matters at all.

As the receptionist case shows, we may well take the appearance of a person into account, although the job description would not stipulate so.

I don't think any modern society would allow us to write: Good looks may be substituted for lack of competence and/or experience.

Exactly, but it does not mean that we avoid such decisions. "Oh, Candidate No. 1 may be able to field a wider range of questions, but Candidate No. 2 has such a happy smile that we would get more visitors to the company if he sits at the entrance."

The conclusions is...
 
While we are taught not to be fooled by the looks, our emotional states are affected by them. We do make decisions in which the looks play a much bigger role than we are willing to acknowledge.

That's one. What about your original proposition that the proof is in the packaging?

Have you ever tried to give a rather inexpensive gift to someone because you don't want to spend too much money?

You shouldn't talk about your experience as if it were mine!

You agonize over it, because you don't want to look too cheap...

That's you, not me!

Have you ever succeeded in making the recipient happy with a sub-optimal gift by putting it in a pretty box and wrapping it nicely?

It sounds like your friends are extremely lenient with you.

Don't you have the experience at the receiving end yourself? When you think about it carefully, the content is not great, but it gave you good feelings because it was presented artfully?

Is that what you were trying to do with a box of apples in gaudy paper that you gave to me the other day?

My principle in gift-giving is to aim for either practicality or pure entertainment. Somewhere in the middle is awfully troublesome. Suppose you want to give a present to an art loving friend. You want to give her/him something artsy, but preferably something unknown to her/him and yet to her/his taste.

We know how odiously difficult that is. Is that your excuse for your choice of apples?

By the way, art is all about packaging.

Are you trying to tell me that even C grade photographs could become B grade by presenting them in A grade frames?

What I meant is: art itself is nothing but repackaging of reality. Think about the Impressionist paintings. The objects and the sceneries that they chose to paint were not very different from their predecessors', but their innovative manner of painting has allowed us to see them differently from the previous schools and also from what we see with our own eyes.

The Monastery of Saint-Paul-de-Mausole is pretty in itself, but it has much less impact to me than Vincent Van Gogh's paintings of it. The same with Claude Monet's garden in Giverny and its paintings by him.

Similarly, we can say that the photographs capture the images that we may have seen, but never stopped to observe and admire. They tend to alter the reality much less compared to paintings, but still the photographers have the freedom in choosing the object, the angle, and the lighting, etc.

What about narratives?

Some time ago, I read a non-fictional account of a Resistance fighter during the Second World War. The story was not trivial; many people disappeared or got killed, and uncertainty and fear were always there. I was not familiar with the events described, and the writing was not bad either. But I felt so bored, and couldn't wait to get to the end so that I could start reading another book.

You take it as a piece of evidence that the presentation of events matters.

I do, although I still can't tell what was exactly wrong with that book. I even felt guilty for being bored with it.

What about performance arts? They provide us with something we do not see or hear on a daily basis.

Those could be called extensions of reality, perhaps. We do see and make bodily movements as well as hear and create tunes in our everyday life. The extraction of their finest elements and the extrapolations of them are what we know as dance, theater and music.

Can we say that they show us the distilled versions of reality?

"Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth./L'art est un mensonge qui nous permet de dévoiler la vérité."

Pablo, again...

Most communication, too, depends on how you say it. Politeness may be something on the surface, but it counts.

We can turn hypocritical, though.

Yes, but genuine attempts for politeness have the ability to change our thoughts accordingly.

... Hurray, it's the surface, the packaging, the wrapping, the ribbons, the bubbles in your crème caramel, the...

You know that not-so-nice looking people can be awfully attractive by properly packaging her/himself. I don't only mean clothes---and those do not need to be expensive---but the attitude, the outlook, the mind...

Wait, wait, you are now talking about the contents of a person.

The attitude, the outlook and so on are how we see and present the whole world to others. Our views are the results of our filtering and rearranging of what we see and hear; we repackage the reality.

... Hurray... it's... it's... the end of the year!

And we are so different, because we are so alike

We harbor about the same amount of nastiness inside us, but it is subject to modification by training on how to express it.

That is more or less where we left off last time, but I can't quite agree with the first part of that statement. Some babies are go-getters while some others are slackers, and that without any urging from the grown-ups.

True. But compared to the differences that we see later in their lives, aren't they more alike than ever?

Come to think of it, personal variations tend to increase as we age. Then, they start diminishing as we reach our old age, particularly if we become senile.

Is that meant to scare me---it implies that we revert to what we had been. Now I remember my grandparents wanting to eat more and more of what they used to eat in their childhood as they grew older.

If your strengths lie in physical activities, your prime time will pass early. As an athlete or a dancer, you can stay involved in the capacity of a coach or a choreographer, but there is no denying that you will be delegated to the backstage.

You can't blame me that I am an ageist, can you... Back to the topic of personal variations, our environment cannot plant in us what we are not born with, but they have tremendous influence in attenuating and accentuating what we do possess. Not everybody can be a professional tennis player, but respect for others, for example, can be inculcated.

Well, we need some people to organize tournaments, manufacture rackets, and so on.

Personal events have great power to shape who we are, while that power wanes as we age. In other words, there are two sides to maturity. You may be mature enough not to be disturbed by certain happenings, but it may also mean that you are too rigid to be corrected by them.

Is that meant to scare me---you are saying that there is a very fine line between maturity and inflexibility.

Genuine maturity should come with the ability to sort out meaningful events from others, but again, we have the tendency to become too selective in this regard over time. Let's turn to another factor that constitutes our environment: culture. Various cultures have their own ways to cope with our ugly side. Some condone it more than others.

Are you ranking cultures here?

I wish I could, because then, life would be easier.

Isn't it better to condone what we are born with rather than suppress it?

I didn't know that you are one of the people who consider anything natural is good. Well, it's not so unnatural of you to think so, because we are in that phase in history. After a flurry of activities to go in one direction always comes another in the opposite direction.

The technological progress in the past two centuries had the aim to subdue nature so that they would be of greater use to us. Lately in the developing world, we are seeing movements to live more along with nature. Recycling and composting, organic farming, local procurement of foodstuff, electronic cars, solar heating, power generation from wind and geothermal sources, search for wonder drugs in exotic plants...

Anger and hate come to us naturally without any instruction. Do you think it is better not to do anything about them?

I'd say that it is necessary to be angry against and hateful of certain things, for instance, discrimination based on attributes which are secondary to the question at hand.

That reminds me of a classmate who said that women should not major in chemical engineering.

Huh?

That was my reaction, too. When I asked him why, he said that it was because women could not haul by themselves the gas tanks required for experiments, and thus, were burden to male students.

Doesn't that imply that all disabled people should be killed because they are burden to the society?

I shall not disclose where he received his prior education... In any case, being angry about injustice can be destructive, too. Our anger shocks the other party and directs their attention to us, but it also tends to invoke anger on their side. If we are to make good use of anger, we should have control over it.

It should be measured and to the point, you mean... What about hatred?

I'm afraid that there is not much use for it.

Can't we show our commitment to justice by hating injustice?

Perhaps, but I think it only alienates people who engage in injustice.

I agree that we need to be under control in order to take advantage of our negative emotions inherent in us. But doesn't it deprive us of spontaneity in the good sense as well?

Bravo, comrade. If we are in control all the time, it makes us boring or unattractive.

Good news for a change! We should let ourselves go once in a while. We don't have to watch over ourselves every second.

One problem is how to select such moments.

But that itself takes away the casualness!

Another problem is how to remain spontaneous after choosing the moments to be so.

Comrade...

Did you expect life to be easy?

Not for you, obviously.

Isn't it amazing how much our cultural and personal environments can shape us to be so different, starting from the same basic material? The situation is further complicated by the fact that we greatly differ in how susceptible we are to such modifications.

Comrade...

I know a set of siblings who are close in age and grew up together in several continents because of their father's occupation. Some have become a true motley of cultures that they have been exposed to, while others are as if they had never left their home country.

... They must be looking forward to their old age when they become more alike.

Did you know that susceptibility to change by environment can be strengthened or weakened, depending on the environment itself?

...

Have you noticed that the more alike we are, the more we try to differentiate ourselves?

I know that one. Each country is often subject to its own fads, but within those fads, people try so hard to stand out.

If showing your tail is considered cool, almost everyone would be doing so, but some would show only the tip of it, some would tie a ribbon around it, some would tattoo it...

Tails...? A tattoo on a tail...? Are you talking about your friends from the Triangulum Galaxy?

We don't have to go that far. The Jews and the Arabs, the Hausa and the Yoruba, the Hutus and the Tutsis, the Welsh and the English, the Croats and the Serbs, the Georgians and the Russians, the Indians and the Pakistanis, the Japanese and the Koreans, the Americans and the Canadians, they are more alike than they care to admit, but if we mistake one for the other...

Unless they find it beneficial to form a united front.

As is the case with the Orthodox Jews and the conservative Muslims in the East End of London. Facing the outside world, they realized how much they share in terms of way of life.

After all, one can be Lev, Essad and Kurban, all at the same time.