Revealing the true nature of baby talks

In your opinion, a person who behaves nicely only toward her/his lover/s cannot be trusted. Correct?

Yes, and there are many such people!

Again, in your opinion, a person who behaves nicely toward her/his superiors, but nasty toward her/his subordinates cannot be trusted.

Absolutely not, and there are tons of such people!

Once again, in your opinion, a person who evaluates others' capability based on their looks cannot be trusted.

An emphatic no!

And, in your opinion, a person who manipulates others to her/his benefit unless they show resistance cannot be trusted, right?

I'm getting nauseous.

Also in your opinion, a person who assumes that others are idiots until they prove otherwise cannot be trusted.

No, no, no and no!

Oops, one more. In your opinion, a person cannot be trusted if s/he derives comfort from informing you of her/his judgment that you are inferior to her/him?

The scary thing is that someone who claims to care about you may engage in this very act.

Is that why you have been dwelling on this topic?

...

Tell me all about it!

In my opinion, a person who values satisfaction of her/his curiosity more than respecting others' sense of privacy, however strict that may be, cannot be trusted.

In my humble opinion, one is less convincing if s/he cannot provide the details.

I disagree. Thoughts in general terms are often more powerful than those on individual incidents. By definition, they are supposed to be about commonalities and not anomalies. Generalization also allows us to be less emotionally attached and more objective.

Sweeping generalizations can get quite absurd, though... Anyway, did I miss any case of no respect in everyday life?

Before we get into what has been left out, let me say that people who belong to any of the above category do not understand the concepts of respect and human dignity.

The principles of respect and dignity apply universally to all human beings. Is this what you mean?

Exactly. These are the concepts that should not depend on the characteristics of each person, but only on the fact that s/he is a human being.

But isn't it natural that we are nicer to people that we like?

In terms of being considerate and forgiving, etc., we should not treat people differently.

Are you sure about that?

I am. It is not on such moral issues that we should differentiate the ones whom we care for from others.

You wouldn't deny, though, that you are nicer to people whom you are fond of.

The problem lies in the word 'nice.' Suppose I know all the rock bands that my lover likes. I can keep an eye on all of them: when a new album is going to be released, which magazine interviewed them, and so on. I cannot do the same for others, simply because I do not know their music preferences. As a result, I end up being nicer to my lover than to others. This is an example of what you have categorized as 'being nice'; applying different sets of moral codes to various people is something else.

Put differently, save such actions that require specific knowledge of that person, your lover should be treating everyone the same, and that naturally includes you.

Only then, I feel I can trust my lover.

Really? How can you tell that a lover is actually a lover in such cases?

I can't, and I like it that way.

I knew there was something grossly strange about you!

What we are focusing here is morality. Remember, we should regard interactions that necessitate moral judgment separately from other interactions. On moral issues, we all should be treated the same. On other issues, such as taste and temper, people who are closer to us have more information about us and would interact with us differently.

Do you think your assertion above applies to forgiving as well? Proximity can make forgiving more difficult or easy. I have seen both cases.

When we see the same person day in and day out, her/his small habits can get on our nerves.

I know that I cannot stand certain ways of gargling.

You see? On the other hand, you are more likely to forgive someone who is close to you, because you do not want to lose that closeness.

In short, we should judge an awful way of gargling by the person who happens to share the bed with us as if it were someone whom we saw once a month. Do you also think that we should judge infidelity of our lovers as if it concerned some other couple?

In principle, yes. Whether we are capable of exercising such detachment is another issue.

Your attitude can be abused, I think. For example, my lover may stick to a particular manner of gargling, knowing that it drives me nuts, because I am supposed to tolerate it according to your principles.

Just like any relationship, efforts should come from both sides, and your lover should try to make it easier for you to stay in the relationship.

Lack of such efforts is a declaration of war, then!

It may not be that aggressive, but I agree that it amounts to admitting that the relationship is of little importance.

By the way, you had in mind another type of people who disregard dignity.

They are the ones who engage in baby talk.

I thought baby talks were signs of endearment.

You are wrong! The subjects are treated as if they were morons.

Isn't it true that children and pets do not understand adult conversation?

That does not mean that we should talk down to them. You shouldn't say anything to a child that you wouldn't to an adult.

What about the kind of encouragement that children need?

We praise adults for work that is sub-optimal for the purpose of encouragement, and we can do the same for children. That is, in a manner that respects children as persons.

What kind of attitude is of concern to you, then?

Exaggerated reactions that become condescending, including loud voice. I don't know why, but in some cultures, mothers jack up their volume when they talk to their children. And it's mostly non-sense that they babble.

Do you think they should discuss P = NP problem instead?

Honestly, I think that is far better than something like, "THERE GOES A RED CAR! WHEEEEEEE! THAT WAS FAST, HUH? DO YOU THINK THAT WAS FASTER THAN THE MINI CAR YOU HAVE AT HOME? ... WHAT DO YOU THINK? PROBABLY FASTER, HUH? A LOT FASTER, HUH?''

You know, I think you are more bothered by the loudness rather than the content.

There is an intelligent way to make an observation about the speed of a car, and as far as I am concerned, the monologue by a mother that I just reproduced for your benefit does not fit the bill. The real problem is not the lack of intelligence, but dumbing down.

Perhaps that mother is stupid.

If so, that is also a problem, because I see too many of them around. Anyway, I am more than certain that she would relate the same incident differently if she were with a friend of her age.

You think the world is filled with such mothers, simply because they annoy you.

In some other cultures, it is rather the opposite; mothers are dismissive of everything children do.

No carrots and only sticks?

In the extreme, indeed that is what happens. They believe that telling the children how clumsy and stupid they are is the most effective way to motivate them to acquire skills and knowledge. I'd say no respect in such cases, either.

In your world, it is awfully difficult to find people who are capable of respecting others.

Who said it was easy? I only said that respect and dignity are the most important aspects in our lives...

Familiarity poses a limit to Operation Mosquito Sting

Humiliation by a stranger is easier to handle than by someone we know.

I suppose you are thinking about a dirty look or name-calling on the street.

Most likely we will not see the "aggressor" again, so we don't have to worry about what to do then.

We tend to treat people whom we know with kid gloves anyway.

Are you sure about that? I'd say it depends on the culture. Some cultures mold people to be more polite to strangers and some other the other way around.

The rationale for each strategy is...?

For the former, you take the safest approach not to offend the person whose hotspots are unknown to you. For the latter, you take extra care, because someone is closer and matters more to you.

You said last time that we can maintain our dignity by acting as if the humiliating act were a mere mosquito sting; whether the "aggressor" is a stranger or an acquaintance should not matter.

The problem is a bit more complicated if we are more or less forced to have close relationships with the person in question. Neighbors, classmates, colleagues, friends, family members...

Relationships with such people can vary widely, but they are certainly closer than strangers are to us. You were of the opinion that people who are closer to us have a much bigger chance of hurting us, and we are also prone to hurt them more easily. Doesn't that depend on the culture, as you implied earlier today?

I think not. Even when culture codes instruct us to be more careful with people whom we know than with people whom we do not know, proximity makes hurting more of a profound nature.

You also said when someone hurts us badly or frequently, it becomes difficult to trust that person.

It is also very difficult to spend more than a few fleeting moments with a person whom you cannot trust.

I guess I can keep a courteous distance from her/him, if s/he were a neighbor, a classmate, or a colleague.

You guessed it right. It becomes a problem for a family member or a very close friend with a long history, whom we are obliged to see at family or social gatherings. If we skip such gatherings, there will be some blaming going around.

What if the personalities are such that, despite the legal and/or biological relatedness, the parties involved simply do not get along?

Ah, so you have noticed how much people complain about parents, children, spouses, in-laws...

What should we do when our dignity is damaged by one of those people? Your suggestion was to stick to the mosquito-sting interpretation.

I am beginning to think that it may not work with these super-close people. They think they know the other party so well in these relationships, while Operation Mosquito Sting works only if the "aggressors" are observant enough.

These relationships will endure come what may in the foreseeable future, and that makes us less careful and observing about each other. In some cases, people know that they have committed an offense but ignore it, because they know that the other party will come back.

You see that it is truly a toxic mix? Because we are closer, we have more information about each other. Because we are closer, our psychological barriers are lower. Because we are closer, our efforts to restore our dignity may not even be recognized. And, because we are closer, we have plenty of instances in which we are obliged to come face to face.

Do you think Bill ever apologized to Hillary?

Do you think it could have made any difference? Anyway, I do not want to be a serial victim.

Or a serial offender!

When we cough up the courage and finally tell the offender, who happens to be super close to you, that s/he has hurt our dignity, the reaction is usually to play it down.

Not only that. The offender can get angry.

Isn't that curious? Sometimes, we are even told that it is our problem if our dignity has been damaged.

Nobody likes to be criticized, and if a criticism comes from someone they felt comfortable with or they thought were "on their side," it becomes something like a proclamation of betrayal.

By the way, we tend to think that the smaller the number of members involved in the group, the more intimate and the stronger the relationships.

Why not? The vast majority of deep conversations is tête à tête.

We forget that there are occasions when we have to cool off. If it is a big group, we can turn to others whom we do not have conflict with, and that often prevents us from being driven to an irrevocable split. We can stay in the group for the sake of other members, even if we cease to communicate with the offender.

It is not good to belong to a big group that satisfies all our needs because we would stop trying to reach out to more different types of people---didn't you say that?

My focus here is a kind of group to which we have no recourse but to belong, e.g., family. As we all know, "[h]e who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god." It holds not only for society, but for family as well.

Good, old Aristotle.

When the membership is compulsory and for a lifetime, it is best if the group contains diverse members and has the capacity to let off steam. Even as a child, I could see that there are benefits to be part of a bigger family.

How so?

My parents, my siblings and I lived with my grandparents, my two aunts and my grandparents' housekeeper for a while. When my mother denied me ice cream on a hot summer day, I knew I could turn to my grandmother.

It's all about ice cream, then!

Not only that. I could tell that there does not exist anything like "the correct" way for anything, because when I posed the same question to different adults separately, they gave me various responses. I believe that it gave me a more balanced view of the world.

That may be true, but haven't you heard of Aunt We-Are-A-Good-Family and Uncle No-Arguing-In-the-Family-Please heading factions and dividing the big clan?

"Man is by nature a political animal."

Aristotle strikes again!

Treacherous trinity: trust, dignity and proximity

You've been suggesting that dignity is the most important aspect in our lives.

I'm not the only one to think so. The very first Article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations says, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

The Declaration talks about human dignity, but it never defines what it really is.

We can say that it is about inherent worthiness of each person.

What does that mean? It surely shouldn't mean that an idiot deserves less respect than other people.

What is the respect that an idiot deserves? The concept of human dignity says that idiocy should not make a difference in how that person is treated.

Suppose that there is a person who is easily offended. Won't it be more difficult for her/him to protect her/his dignity than for others who are less easily offended? If so, it suggests that we are not uniform in terms of dignity.

You are talking about dignity in a sense slightly different from that in the Universal Declaration. The Declaration is more about how to set up social institutions so that human dignity could be systematically protected. Examples would be intolerance of torture, slavery and the like.

Dignity can be taken away by personal injuries and that is where our focus has shifted, I see. The shift probably suggests that we---you and I---do not see with our own eyes any systematic damage done to human dignity on a daily basis.

Are you sure that you do not witness dignity challenged in our everyday lives? It is possible that such instances are so prevalent that we have become blind to them. I think the kinds of discrimination touched upon by Article 2 of the Declaration happens everyday, everywhere.

That article is rather lengthy. "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

Do you remember talking about forgiving---that the burden of coming to terms with what happened is on the victims? I'm afraid the same principle applies here.

That is...?

When someone does or says something that deprives of your dignity, you cannot obviously go back in time and undo the doing or the saying. Your dignity is taken away for the moment.

And, you are saying that the best is to forget about it?

We can restore our dignity by responding or reacting to the incident in certain ways. To act as if it were nothing may be indeed the best way in some cases.

We should not act as if the offense was effective. That is, we should not take their bait or play their game. Is this what you have in mind?

Yes. You may reveal that you have noticed the offensive action or remark, but never show explicit anger or shock caused by it.

That will be easier for a verbal one than for a physical one...

Certainly. It is again up to the offended whether something can be done to the damage. It is possible to protect our dignity by firmly believing that others cannot possibly do something like that to us, in other words, by staying calm.

It will be best if the "aggressor" admits or realizes that they have not succeeded in humiliating. Does it come so easily?

Most likely, it will take a several rounds or more. It is possible that it never happens. But compared to preserving one's dignity, establishing and maintaining trust may be more difficult.

I remember that you run away whenever someone indicates that s/he does not trust you.

I don't actually run away! I just feel like it.

You also said that trusting a stranger, or acting as if you did, is against what biology dictates us to do, and that is what civilization consists of: defiance of biology.

The trust issue is more difficult on that account than the dignity issue. After all, our dignity is about how we think about ourselves.

Can we say that safeguarding dignity is part of our biological mechanism to survive?

I think so. On the other hand, the most primitive survival instinct says it is best not to place trust in someone casually. Trust is more about how we evaluate other people; it depends much more on others' behavior than in dignity.

Didn't you say human relationships are based on reciprocity? If so, you do have control.

The reciprocity principle works in many cases, but not in all. Trusting others would not make them trustworthy, at least, overnight. I can think of many complicated examples.

For example?

A person may be very nice to you, but nasty to others. Should you trust that person?

I've seen such relationships. Some couples are like that; they are only nice to each other.

You have stepped into yet another territory. Even devils become angelic when in love.

Doesn't that suggest that we should all be in love with each other?

Fortunately, we can't be forced to be in love with someone. Anyway, you implied that closeness in relationships brings trust. I think you have mistaken predictability as trust.

Predictability comes from observed consistency of past events, and so does trust. However, you can also be untrustworthy and consistently so. I know that predictability and trust are not the same.

When we are close to someone, you have more opportunities to observe that person and s/he becomes more predictable than others. Closeness also means that you are more likely to say to each other what you would not to people who are less close.

And that includes all the bad things about each other, right?

Yes, I knew I could trust you!

Let's say you have become predictable.

Closeness does not necessary mean belittling each other, but the possibility of exposing dark emotions and thoughts is certainly larger.

The dark emotions and thoughts could be about your partner in the relationship, but also about yourself and everything else in the world.

The problem is that it is difficult to maintain dignity when you let out your fear, anger, jealousy in unedited forms.

Proximity is a difficult ground for dignity, then.

How can you have trust, if dignity is damaged, now and then? That means the sources of comfort can be self-destructive by their very nature. But we all need our own coterie, a group of people who, we think, understand us well.

I knew it! It's treacherous---trust, dignity and proximity.

What you read is a double-edged sword for the chicken and the egg

Birds of a feather flock together.

Let's say our meetings are the exceptions that prove the rule.

I thought we could start the new year with a more positive note.

Why do you think that different minds' getting together is negative?

True, Adam Smith saw the danger of like minds convening in one room.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." That one?

Yes, and do you remember the cliques in high school?

Their aim was to create birds of a feather by focusing on what could be labeled cool.

We need a sense of togetherness or belonging, but that often comes at the expense of the excluded.

Don't you think there are people who are happy to be excluded?

Oh no, do you want to start the year with a Unabomber-like note?

I don't want to be part of my grandmother's bridge circle, for sure.

Or, my nephew's Teletubbies fan club.

You see, there are groups that you'd rather not join. But in most cases, we need to belong to more than one group to satisfy our diverse needs and interests.

Family, close friends of similar interest/history, local community, student/professional associations, etc. come to mind...

The dark side of the psychology to belong is that it comes from the realization that we feel less at ease with people outside the groups.

As long as we don't go out to hurt the non-members, I would say forming groups based on feeling at ease is not bad at all. On the contrary, it happens because the population is not uniform. If it were, there would be no need for various groups. Diversity is a good thing, I thought you said that.

Only if it were so simple! Haven't you ever met people who give you an "are-you-one-of-us-or-not" exam, immediately after you are introduced to each other?

Where I was born, which schools I attended, which subject that I majored in, where I live, whether I have children, what I do on my days off, what is my favorite cuisine, whether I prefer coffee hot or cold in summer---I've been asked these.

Didn't the conversations come to an awkward end when it became clear that there was nothing in common between you two?

I remember the silence when I confessed my hatred for all iced drinks. But that's only natural. We have closer relationships with people who are similar to us. When people are similar, they don't even have to get to know each other through explicit means; similar and close are almost synonymous.

We seek validation of ourselves in others, and that leads to the desire to belong to a group. That group could be a couple or an extended family, too.

What's wrong with that?

When we belong to a big or solid enough group that all our different needs and desires are satisfied, we do not bother to get to know people outside the group.

One of your double-edged swords, again!

I'm afraid it is. Only when we are still in search of people that we could feel comfortable with, we are open to different types.

I suppose the open-mindedness of youth comes from that.

I would also say that long-established couples and tightly-knit families are---not always but usually---less outgoing due to the same reason. By the way, I think it is the same with the novels that we choose to read.

Do you mean to say that we tend to read a wide variety of fiction when we are young?

Most of us discover the kind of fiction that we like quite early in life. I only know of sci-fi fans who became so when they were teenagers and never changed.

Indeed, I haven't heard of anyone being transformed into a sci-fi fan from a romance fan.

We read what satisfies our desire and assures our existence, as far as fiction goes. I always happen to choose fiction whose protagonist I can identify with.

You read horror stories, I didn't know that!

My concern here is that the reading habit amounts to seeking validation of myself and not much else.

Surely, you cannot embody all the protagonists of the novels that you read and liked.

You are right, but it remains true that reading fiction for me has become reaffirming who I am, instead of expanding the possibility of whom I could be.

Isn't it something like a tight hug or a gentle tap on the shoulder? We need them.

I agree, but it is our duty to be able to understand increasingly divergent people as we continue to live on.

I've never heard of that one.

We shouldn't get old for nothing. You would agree to that, wouldn't you?

You mean, we should compensate for the loss of outer beauty with a gain in inner beauty?

If you could relate to people on the other side of the globe as much as you could relate to your neighbors, there would be more interest in world affairs. I believe that will lead to wiser political decisions.

What is your recommended strategy for greater understanding among people from different backgrounds?

You have to like them first.

You have to like them first to understand them? That doesn't make sense!

I know, but that's how our psychology works. If you detest something or somebody, it is guaranteed that you are not going to make sense out of it.

Isn't it the other way around---because it does not make sense, you don't like it?

If it does not make sense and if that is why you don't like it, you have to force yourself to like it so that it starts making sense.

First it was a double-edged sword, and now the-chicken-or-the-egg problem!

A wonderful way to start the new year!

Direct democracy to the rescue

Your ideal state of mind is an individualistic one, correct?

With willingness to compromise when necessary.

Can we say that it is often the crowd psychology that spoils well-intentioned social systems?

Take democracy. It drifts toward populism because of the if-you-say-so kind of laziness in us.

Sure, laziness is to blame for everything. By the way, when is the last time you cleaned up your place?

It's not only populism and fascism that the crowd psychology leads us to. Bank runs, too, are caused by it. Any kind of run is nasty, because it is the expectation of a big enough group that creates the real phenomenon.

Runs can be over sugar, rice, petro---anything people believe would be very scarce.

Crowds are responsible for fads which are all about following the so-called trend-setter without thinking much. It has also contributed to the making of winner-take-all societies. Think about the contracts that sports players, singers, kiss-and-tell authors sign. We value the very few as if there were an abyss between the top and the rest.

How can we avoid such undesirable consequences of our innate nature to follow the leader? In other words, is it possible to make even the most thinking-averse ones to think on their own?

I'm afraid some of us are die-hard followers, but I know a way to make the majority of us think more. It is direct democracy.

Like the one practiced in Switzerland? I suppose your line of thought is that we act only if the consequences are dire.

To some extent, yes. But unfortunately, if we think we have no power to influence the system or our daily lives, we turn apathetic and do not exercise our rights to participate in politics. That is, we may cease to act, even when our action can prevent dire consequences to fall upon us. Eventual depletion of petro may be one such instant.

Let me rephrase it then. We would act only if we know that our actions have real consequences on our everyday lives.

Yes, we are much more likely to take action, if not doing so would inconvenience us tomorrow. Our mental capacity is so limited that we need direct feedback to feel responsible for what we do. Consider hazardous waste, for example. As long as it is taken to a far away place, we do not think much about its treatment and effects on the environment.

Waste that is hard to treat is often shipped to developing countries, because they are in need of cash.

And only when the toxic material makes its way into the food system in the developed countries that people who generated it start worrying.

As long as you don't see, hear, or smell, anything goes.

Sadly enough, that is our natural behavior. It is one of the reasons why gated communities are not a good idea. They allow the rich to isolate themselves from the rest of the world, but it is the rich who have the power to make changes so that gated communities would not be necessary. Some are opposed against universal health care, because their family and friends do not need it.

If it is about people whom you could not relate to, you care much less.

The same with income redistribution. If you don't know anyone suffering from bad luck of having no father and an alcoholic mother, you think it unnecessary.

What about the case of parents dying in a car accident and no relatives with the financial means to take care of the children?

You know, a single, alcoholic mother was simply one of the myriad possible cases...

I know another one. Political refugees with no linguistic skills to survive in the host country. Or losing your limbs while working in a factory, or...

The first world is dependent on the low prices of primary resources and simple manufactured goods from the third world. Not all, perhaps, but the vast majority who are employed by such industries work in dismal environments for a pittance. And, that is a big contributing factor in the affluence in the first world. The consumers in the developed countries, however, do not see the abhorrent labor condition or the absence of proper waste treatment; it encourages them to be careless and wasteful about what they purchase.

Anything cheap is good, although they are made possible by underpaying for labor and material.

The important point is that all of us on the globe are connected and support each other in one way or another. You may not be interested in Amazon Rainforest, but we all benefit from its mere existence as natural wonder, not to mention its biodiversity and function as a carbon sink. We owe to the people of the Rainforest for the knowledge of plants and animals unique to the area.

I heard that many companies have turned to the forest as a hunting ground for new drugs.

We have called the enlargement of the definition of human beings as progress. We have managed to relate to more and more people, even if we do not share the same biological attributes---such as skin color and gender---or beliefs and life styles.

If you are incapable of sympathizing with types of people whom you have never met or come in contact with, such as starving babies in Darfur...

Or, if you cannot treat the person whom you despise with basic respect, you are going against what civilization should be. Given the latest gross wealth of the world, universal health care is possible and sufficiently progressive tax systems are musts.

After all, it's a piece of cake to be nice to people whom we know and like.

A socially formal system for supporting the disadvantaged allows us to be more business like, compared to reliance on informal support system, such as extended families.

A formal system is more convenient, though, because there would be cases in which we have to say 'no more support' due to abuse.

At the same time, it is inconvenient, because there would be occasions in which we would like to extend support, but bureaucracy does not permit it. Getting back to the issue of direct democracy, it will make us more aware that nobody but ourselves are responsible for government actions.

We often accuse governments of their abuse of power, including corruption.

In some countries, people with the most resources have decided unilaterally to govern others. In such cases, we cannot say that the masses are responsible for what the government does. But, if you claim that democracy is working well...

It's a generic 'you,' I hope!

Of course, ahem! If you think your country is governed by well-working democracy, you are responsible for the body that you happen to elect.

It's a generic 'you,' I hope!

I told you so! You are responsible for government actions, under either type of democracy, but I am sure that the point would be driven home better in the case of direct democracy.

Our government is not 'them,' but 'us,' so to speak.

Most of the time, people complain about certain government decisions but do not do anything to change the situation. If we were truly serious about it, we would take to the streets.

Ah, your revolutionary streak, again. But you know, we can't be out on the street everyday.

That is one of the reasons why student protests are powerful. They have the time to engage in protests and not much of a job to lose.

For people whose daily bread depends on how your boss views you...

Direct democracy to the rescue!

Handle with care: individualism

Individualism is not a step forward, but backward.

Really?

You implied so in our last meeting.

No, not really...

I also remember your saying earlier that self-help books are bad, because they have done the necessary contemplation on our behalf.

Zero thinking on our own is surely a gigantic step toward totalitarianism.

Why should you be negative about individualism, then? Isn't it about being individualistic in thinking?

Alas, individualism comes in many guises.

I see, you're taking a cheap escape route by claiming that several types of individualism exist.

Several versions exist for everything. Think about a national dish of any country, Nasi goreng in Indonesia, for example. We all know that no two persons make the same Nasi goreng.

Suppose the society tries to identify the artist to whom a highly valued work could be attributed, and gives that artist elevated social status and/or financial rewards. You called it individualism last time. No doubt, it could lead to competition, but I don't see anything wrong with that. On the contrary, it motivates the artists to strive for better quality.

I wouldn't deny that. However, it could also lead to petty competitions, resulting in waste of energy for all involved.

Stealing and obstructing others' work?

Yes. Incentives always have the potential to be misused or abused. Suppose you reward a child for reading as much as s/he can, and you measure that amount by the number of pages read.

Naturally, s/he will go for books that are easier to read and with fewer pages per word. Was that your strategy when you were in elementary school?

Shhhhh! Individualism should not mean putting oneself above others at all times.

If everyone puts her/himself above others, we will have nothing but hell.

Individualism is not equivalent to isolationism, either.

Do you think it is possible for every one of us to think on our own? I thought you suggested that it would be difficult.

There will always be people who prefer to follow the most vocal and strong-sounding person.

We have herd instincts.

And we must resist them.

You said that we should overcome our me-me-me urge, and now you are saying we should not succumb to our if-you-say-so desire.

Again, the best lies in the middle. But that does not mean we are allowed to be egotistic some times and apathetic other times. By the way, the famous case of Gottfried Leibniz and Isaac Newton shows that even brilliant minds can be alike.

They invented calculus separately, without collaboration... We belong to the same species and have access to similar sets of information. So it is natural that some of us come to think very similarly.

In my opinion, the best state of mind is an independent one which never fails to examine the problem itself carefully.

I take it that the ideal is not to let personal likes and dislikes interfere when forming our opinion.

All of us are under the great illusion that we are the very best human beings around, at least to our friends and family. So, I would be extra careful to voice an opinion that does not go down well with one of them.

Did anyone tell you that you drive people crazy? I'm getting totally confused.

Do you remember, Natsume Soseki, Blaise Pascal and all that? I know another line by Pascal, which serves us well here. Deux excès : exclure la raison, n'admettre que la raison.
Two excesses: to exclude reason and to allow only reason... You always find a way out of a tight corner!

I have a better way out.

Let's hear it.

You should form your opinion independent of who are for and against the issue, and also of how you feel about them as persons. Reason should prevail in this part. However, in making public the conclusion thus arrived, you should take personalities and personal histories into account. That may entail tweaking your conclusion a bit.

If there is a need to consolidate various opinions, as in the case of deciding what to do in order to prevent the city of Venice from going under water, we will be asked to compromise.

Certainly. It would not help to have everyone pushing her/his own idea. Note that this is the kind of instance where leaving the principal agent unnamed is a very wise plan.

All want to bask in the glory of being the one who rescued Venice, and clashes of such desires can well lead to adopting a plan that is not the most effective in terms of technology and finance.

As for the Golden Gate Bridge, Joseph Strauss managed to appear as the principal designer for seventy years after its construction, contrary to what actually took place.

Do you think it possible to suppress the me-me-me urge? I think it would be rather counterproductive.

I agree. We cannot totally eliminate such primary desires and they have to be taken care of one way or another.

Let me guess what you have in mind. It's an "Employee of the Month" scheme when there are exactly twelve workers...

Regress is in the signatures

Bon anniversaire, Claude !

Hé, Claude, we visited le musée du quai Branly last year. Tant pis, we didn't see you there.

We?

Let me think, perhaps you were with someone else, not me. But I know that it's nobody other than myself who told you that the museum was inspired by Claude Lévi-Strauss.

Lately, you have been making remarks as if you had been with me, but...

Minor details shall not get in our way, my dear comrade! I should have asked you earlier---how did you like the museum?

It was very nice.

And?

Very well done.

Anything else?

I just can't get too excited over an anthropological museum. The objects that they display were not made for that purpose, unlike Western paintings and sculptures.

That does not diminish their value.

Certainly not. However, they are in the wrong place, because they can be fully appreciated only in situ.

A set of bow and arrow shows its greatest functional beauty when used to hunt a deer, for example.

You got it. Buddha sculptures did not interest me much, until a few years ago when I saw one in the center of a very small temple. Before then, I saw them mainly in museums. It shone subtly in the darkness. It was sublime. That experience convinced me that the so-called anthropological objects removed from their original environments are akin to fish out of water.

The sculpture made sense to you in its natural habitat.

It came with its context, which I think is important. In contrast, paintings and sculptures in the West are produced under the assumption that they will find permanent homes in sitting rooms.

Wouldn't you say museums, instead of sitting rooms, in the case of Damien Hirst, Takashi Murakami and the like?

Or, the Nth spare room of obscenely rich collectors. None of their works is meant to be used in ceremonies or in everyday life, and that is what differentiates the art in the West from the traditional art in the rest of the world.

I have seen Chinese vases adorning rooms with no flower in them, though.

I would say their principal function is still to hold flowers.

What about Chinese scroll paintings?

Those function in the same way as Western paintings, I admit. Let me rephrase "the rest of the world" as "the part of the world in which houses were traditionally not decorated as in the West." Anyway, when Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse and others encountered the art from Africa, they were astonished.

By the abstract nature of it?

Yes, and also by the fact that no record existed as far as the names of artists and the dates of production were concerned.

Can we say that the emphasis is more on the utility of objects than who toiled to create them?

I think so. If a sculpture reveals extraordinary artistic value, the artists/artisans who were responsible would be appreciated by the community, but the object is seen more as something that the community as a whole produced and owns.

It must also mean that there would be support for the artisans during the production period.

I imagine that the community provides food and other necessities so that they can devote all their time to making objects.

There used to be a similar system in the West. Musicians and painters, even mathematicians, were employed by rich patrons.

Such arrangements are not quite the same, because the parties involved had some kind of a contract, an agreement between two individuals. And more often than not, we know who paid and who did what work in return.

In other words, the West came up with individualism the earliest and the trend is spreading around the world.

Individualism is irresistible, because it legitimizes the me-me-me desires in us.

If so, we are moving from systems which suppress such biological and primary urges to one that celebrates them.

It's a regress, don't you think?