We want you to be one of us

You were adamant last time that we do not, or cannot, change our views of the world unless we experience something ourselves that makes us re-examine our views.

I still am. But now I realize that there are exceptions to that. 

Did you know that you sound just like señor Hipocresía?

Ahhhh, never, ever compare me to him!

How can I not? You laid out the principle rather categorically, and used it to validate your argument. After doing so, you are conceding the existence of instances that do not follow the rule.

Tell me, is there any rule that does not come with exceptions?

Another demonstration that you are like señor Hipocresía.

Honestly, I would not trust a rule that does not have any exception.
 

What about the law of conservation of linear momentum?

All right... it's a physical law, though. Even some physical laws have exceptions. Think about the law of conservation of mass.
 

True, it holds under the condition that speeds are non-relativistic and that no nuclear reactions take place.

Personally, as much as I abhor señor Hipocresía, I hate exceptions.
 

You mean, you are ready to strangle exceptions?

Comrade, I wouldn't. Strangling can get messy, and I don't want to clean up the floor. Anyway, the very existence of an exception invalidates the notion of a rule, particularly because there is no limit to the amount of exceptions that rules may have.
 

What happens with señor Hipocresía and friends is that whenever they do not want to go by the rule, they make the case in question an exception.

That certainly works in this world, where no two cases are truly identical. We can list all the attributes of our case of interest so that no other case would match with it. That way, we can guarantee the singularity of that case.
 

By emphasizing its factors that we did not list in our rule, we can safely claim that it is an exception and that the rule does not apply.

Hmmm... señor Hipocresía may be much cleverer than I thought, because he is practicing all this unconsciously.
 

Let's get back to your exception, bearing in mind that even in physics, there are exact laws and approximate laws. So, what is your exception?

We are more prone to change our minds when we are at an impressionable young age, and for that we do not have to experience what would support our world view.
 

Isn't that because when we are young our minds are empty and ready to be filled with something?

Bravo, comrade! That is why the first experiences, especially when we are children and adolescents, are very important in our lives. It is also quite scary, because we can believe in anything we are told.
 

We lack the experience to judge the value of what we are taught. And that is precisely why we can learn effortlessly the ideas that may appear dramatically alien to the grown-ups.

Another great exception is that we regain that malleability when we encounter someone whom we think we can trust completely as an adult. The curious factor here is that this type of trust seems to come about only through romantic associations.
 

History is replete with wives and mistresses who influenced their husbands and masters...

Robert's current wife, Grace, is reported to be quite different in nature from his first wife, Sally. It has been pointed out that the turning point in Robert's policies came around when Sally passed away. Siti Hartinah, the wife of Suharto, was called Ibu Tien, but apparently 'tien' also stood for 'ten' in Dutch. Ten percent of any foreign aid to Indonesia was rumored to have gone to her.
 

Ferdinand and Imelda are in the similar league, I guess.

It is said that Habib promoted education and female emancipation in order to win Western support during the Cold War, but I have also heard that it was his first wife, Moufida who had great influence in that regard.
 

Going back in time, we would find Madame de Pompadour, etc.

What is funny to me is that they needed romantic attraction in order to establish very strong trust that allows influence at an advanced age, but once it was in place, the power couples became more like business partners.
 

After all, all of the guys that we mentioned here either remarried, had mistresses, or both.

If we move into the realm of philosophy, there is Harriet's influence on John Stuart Mill about women's rights.
 

Honoré de Balzac could write precociously about marriage while he was a bachelor, thanks to his liaison with Ewelina who was married. 

Two treatises on the subject to boot! Anyway, those were my exceptions to the rule. The second one goes to show that you'd better choose well whom you go out with.
 

But if romance is involved, we don't have much control over it, do we?

That is the very illusion that we get from romantic feelings. We feel we cannot do anything about it, but that lasts only as long as we are in love. Many people cannot understand how they could have been in love with a certain person when the affair is over.
 

We also hear about love from years ago that people cannot forget.

I'd come to believe that those are even bigger illusions.
 

You're jaded, comrade...

How we transmit ideas, behavior and attitude is strange, to say the least. We know that child abusers are very often those who were abused as children.
 

We may naively deduce that they would become crusaders against child abuse, but not so. In fact, some brothels are maintained by former-prostitute mothers and prostitute daughters.

The same with in-laws. In many societies where big families are still common, abuse of brides is fairly common. It is almost a tradition. Apparently, people do not think what was so unfair, unjust and cruel should not be repeated. They want to replicate the actions onto others when they are given the opportunity, namely, when they become in-laws themselves.
 

It is a way of seeking revenge, but since the targets are not the same as the perpetuators, we are effectively passing on hatred from generation to generation.

I was horrified when I read a folklore about a clever bride circumventing sexual advances from her father-in-law. 

It means that such abuse by fathers-in-law is, or was, widespread.

It is more hideous because she will never become a father-in-law herself.
 

I thought we were against passing on pernicious practices.

The above cases are easy to observe, as we first become the receiving end. Another case that I come to notice lately is that we expect others to treat us as we treat them.
 

That's also obvious, isn't it?

If we alternate being the receiving end among those concerned, yes. The latest one that I encountered is that bootlickers want their subordinates to act as bootlickers toward them.

They would go along with anything their superiors say, and expect their own subordinates to do the same for them?  

It beats me why we are so good at corrupting others...
 

Do I smell señor Hipocresía here, too?

Let's say it was a general observation about humanity.

The Not-so-secret mechanism of revenge

Comrade... May I ask what you are doing there under the table?

I'm checking whether there is a bomb planted. I've been hearing tick, tock, tick, tock, and I thought I'd better find out where that is coming from.

I think it's your watch. It's rather loud, you know.

Let me see... so it is! I was thinking that a bomb may be following me, possibly with a suicide bomber.

I would not be surprised if the flower pot over there blows itself up together with us. Doesn't it look rather suspicious?
 
I don't know about that particular orchid pot by the window, but I am certain that we do not live in a safer world just because Osama bin Laden is dead. It was a very bad idea to kill him, no doubt about it.

Many are under the impression that it is better that he is dead than alive. Do you remember the crowd outside the White House when the news was released?

I was surprised that it was big. It scared me, too. I did not see a great difference between them and the football hoolig... oops, fans. They were hilarious and aggressively so. Just like in a game of sports, they only saw their side, the other side, and nothing else.

You are one of those people who oppose to cheering one team or one person in any game.

If we are true sports fans, we should appreciate and applaud good play by any performer, not anything by what we arbitrary chose as 'our favorite player/team.'

Most of us are attached to teams and players with whom we share geographical origins. It amazes me how universal that formula is.

What is disturbing is that we allow it even at the international level. Think about the Olympic Games which are considered by many the most significant sports events. It's always a big deal which country wins more medals.

We seldom hear about the marvelous butterfly strokes by a certain swimmer or...

It doesn't mean much if they do not lead to a medal, preferably the gold. And, think about the restrictions imposed on us by the people around us whom to cheer.

If you happen to admire a Russian skater whom a Georgian has lost against...

You will be unconscious the next second if you have been watching television in a café in Tbilisi. That brings us back to our earlier topic of killing whom you consider your enemy.

Your concern was that the crowd in front of the White House was jubilant as if their favorite team had won a sports match.

It is bad enough to be happy because the team from your town, county, region, or country has won. In this case, it is not only bad, but wrong and ultimately self-destructive.

How so?

Capital punishment is illegal in many parts of the world, and if you are against it, you must apply the principle to all persons.

What if the US government had exclusively chosen personnel from Texas for the raid?

I heard that bin Laden was not armed, so you can't justify the action as self-defense.

Can't we say that it's self-defense in the long term?

That is precisely what is not right about this operation. The long-term solution is in eliminating their motivation, namely, the hatred that they have toward the Occident. If bin Laden had been alone in wanting to destroy the West, he would not have succeeded. He could implement his ideas because there were so many people who agreed with him.

Weren't they bought off by the promise that thousands of virgins would be waiting for them in heaven?

If you strongly disagreed with his view of the West as the evil that needed to be eliminated from earth by violent means, you would not take up his call to sacrifice your life even if there were ten-thousand virgins waiting for you.

Perhaps I would ask for their up-to-date photographs before I commit myself, but it will take some time before I go through all profiles if there were ten thousands of them.

Comrade, seriously, it is counterproductive to kill a person who is revered by many, even if that person may cause us harm. Human beings have the natural urge to revenge someone who has inflicted damage on something important to us.

In other words, terrorism could exacerbate rather than attenuate because of the operation.

As I have been emphasizing, our thoughts and motivations are largely shaped by our experiences. What we experience has such power because it evokes emotions in us, and emotions are stronger than rationalizations. It is much easier to motivate a person by emotions than by rational arguments.

It has now become much more difficult to convince them---if it had been possible at all---that blowing up people, planes, trains and so on is not wise; they are more emotionally charged than before.

Not only that, but because the West has killed someone who is important to them, the West cannot tell them not to kill any of its own people. It no longer makes sense.

A friend of mine pointed out that putting bin Laden on a trial would have exposed his fallibility, and thus, much better.
 
Indeed, when we think back to various dictators and the like who had been captured in the past and tried, they looked pretty bad in courtrooms.

I noticed that maintaining a good haircut and wearing clean, well-tailored clothes can make a huge difference... Nobody looks good in a prison outfit and with disheveled hair.

There are many reasons as to why ethnic hatred does not die, but one of them is that the victims happen to be those who are important to the survivors. If someone kills your mother on the simple grounds that she is from Mars, you will want to get back to the killer. It is only a step away in extrapolation what the death of the head of Al-Qaeda means to its members and sympathizers. Plus, we are quite capable of transmitting hatred from generation to generation, and we do so rather willingly.

We couldn't get the guy who killed your mother, so son, you carry on with the obligation. That kind of a thing? 

Right. It was Dubya who said, "He tried to kill my daddy!" and then invaded Iraq, remember?

Why was it called a 'good day for America,' then?

In order to use the event to win political approval of people who think like football hoolig... oops, fans. Every politician wants to manipulate her/his people so that her/his vision is realized. To that end, they want to keep the population like a herd of sheep.

Is that why some countries are reluctant to educate their people?

I strongly suspect that, and it is an extremely costly mistake. Ill-educated people would very often demand short-sighted and symbolic actions.

Like the killing of the head of a world-famous organization, you mean...

Such actions lead to worsening of situations more than eventual resolution, especially when they evoke anger and grief in the other party. I sometimes think that the politicians are worried that there may be no serious problems left to be solved in the world and that is what motivates them.

They want to keep their jobs... They have to be elected, as well as need a cause that gives them an excuse to be a rabble-rouser.

Disgusting as it may be, it would be detrimental to us ordinary citizens if we turn away from politics.

The politicians will run in whatever direction they like, more so than now.

By the way, have you ever thought it unfair that a vote of a farmer in Idaho has more power to influence the world events than that of a nomad in Mongolia?

How we change our minds (or not)

Why do we have different opinions?

Well, you have been arguing that so much of our thoughts are affected by personal experiences. That means differences in experiences lead to those in opinions.

Why do we react differently to the same event? Namely, why do we differ in its interpretation?
 

... Comrade, these are the same as the first question.

Just checking! What about our personalities? Don't they matter in how we view the world?

Haven't we talked about this, too? Already as babies, we differ in how we behave. That is by nature. But who we are at any point in life is an intricate product of nature and nurture.

It seems to me that when we are young nurture have greater influence on who we are or to become. Curiously, we shed some of the aspects that we cultivate through nurture, as we age.

Didn't we talk about this?

In a slightly different context. Come to think of it, when I say aging, I should differentiate biological aging from social aging, or change in social standing that is associated with age.

Which one have you been referring to?

I guess both, but mostly the latter. For example, we abandon much of the virtuous attitude that the grown-ups attempt to inculcate us with, because when we become grown-up ourselves, there is nobody to punish us. It results from the changes in our social ranking.

After we leave our parents' house, there are no more rules imposed on us except for the law...

It is no coincidence that the time we reach our physical peak is when we become a full-fledged member of the society. In many countries, that is when we are allowed to participate in formal politics, plus all other things that are prohibited as minor persons.

As a way of taming them? 'Don't wreck havoc, because you are now part of the establishment'?

Exactly.

Why doesn't it happen a bit earlier? It may not be a bad idea to contain the youth in advance.

Before that period, the adults can outsmart them; their gaining physical strength does not yet pose a threat. University students are often admired and hated for good reasons. That is when our mental capability becomes developed enough to say something relevant to the real world. Add to that the capacity to beat up the old folks...

Because of their paucity of experience, they are idealistic. 

It irritates the older people who have been benefiting from having adapted themselves to the system. First, because they may lose their privilege, and second, because they know that the students have legitimate reasons to question how the society is run. None of us enjoy it when our disciples, so to speak, turn around and use what we taught them as a weapon against us. 

Traitors...! But then, why do we pass on idealistic ideas to younger generations? 

Some of us have strong enough beliefs of how societies should be, even after the co-opting phase, and are motivated to transmit those thoughts so that the future society will be closer to their ideal.

Aren't they the ones who are not getting as much out from the society as they wished? Isn't it a way for them to get back to the powerful?

I agree that some certainly fit that description. It would be hard to pin down why they turned out to be not so powerful: because they never abandoned their ideals, or something else prevented them from becoming one of the powerful and that is why they hang on to the ideals.

They have much less to lose by espousing the same ideals as when they were eighteen. Plus, they can draw comfort from the power-money-dirt equation.

Anyway, observing the big social changes that have happened in the past few months around the world, you must have noticed that it is mainly the people in their twenties who have been leading the movements.

The countries in question have a pyramid-shaped demography, too.

As a society gets better off in terms of material, its birth rate usually goes down and the average age becomes higher. That in turn slows down the social transformation process.

Because there are fewer and fewer of the young who are willing to challenge the status quo.

At the same time, the society becomes more and more burdened with retirees who require financial support by the rest of the population and with infirm folks who require nursing and medication.

Such activities are akin to engaging in safe disposal of hazardous waste...

Irreverence aside, I have to agree with you.

I said it for you, and no word of appreciation, eh?

If civilizations are not destroyed by wars, plagues, or environmental degradation, it would be the aging process that puts them into slow, but steady, decline... Getting back to my very first question of differences in our thoughts, do you think we ever change our opinions?

Sure, isn't that why we engage in debates?

Most of the time, we do not manage to convince the other.

Wait a second, didn't we talk about that?

What we can do is to overwhelm the other party with our emotions.

That's called passion, comrade. How can we buy into something that the advocate is not sure about her/himself? 

The problem is that objectivity discourages us to be narrowly focused. The more objective the advocate is, the less forceful s/he would be.

In other words, the most reasonable tends to be the weakest.

In the short-term, or on surface, at least.
 

If someone is foaming through the corner of her/his mouth, we have all the incentive to say, "Sure, sure, sure." We don't want to get sprayed with saliva.

You seem to know whom I am thinking about... It doesn't have to be a lunatic, though. We usually don't come to change our opinions through a debate. At best, we end debates by a very reluctant admission that the other party may be right in certain things that we touched upon.

As a courtesy, you mean.

Remember, our convictions and beliefs are founded in our personal experiences, so unless we go through events that convince us otherwise, we would most likely not change them. Needless to say, debates do not qualify as such.

Doesn't this point to the utility of fiction work? The mock experience given by reading novels can augment the real-world ones.

I think you are right about that, but we should never overestimate art. As many artists have said already, art cannot change the world.

Perhaps not directly... 

I remember reading about a lecture on racism that Tahar Ben Jellon gave to highschool students. At the end of the talk, a student asked if he had been successful in making a racist change his ideas about race.

The answer was 'no'?

You got it. By the way, I know more than a few who have been transformed from a fundamentalist in one religion to that in another. 

How is that possible, such a big swing!

One would think so at first, but it is rather natural. What such people need is a thought, belief, ethic system that they can follow by the letter. They are the opposite of anti-authority people.

After all, all religions are alike, so it may not be that dramatic.

In my opinion, labeling means a lot to them, too. They want a word that neatly explains who they are.

They love to be pigeonholed, or have a strong urge to belong to a certain group.

What is certain is that a mind well made is better than one well stuffed...

This screen is a smoke screen

Continuing on the theme of technology and human relationships, I see an increased tendency to cling onto old friends.

Thanks to the Internet, we can stay connected even when we move away from each other.

They may be good relationships, but we are prone to make less efforts to get to know the people who are in our spatial vicinities.

Is that bad?

The people with whom we share physical space are important in our lives, solely by that fact.

Such as my next door neighbor who lets his trees overgrow into my garden...

We and our neighbors benefit from the same systems for water, electricity, gas, telephone lines, public transportation and so on. Any change you desire in them is not possible, if you are the only one with that opinion. When information about such public utilities is scarce, your neighbor may have a crucial piece that you do not have. For example, you may be wondering how long the power cut is going to last, and your neighbor may know that the electricity would not be coming back in the next 36 hours.

A more useful case would be when my neighbor could alert me to imminent electricity or water supply cut... The Internet is making us negligent of our neighbors, and that is not for our own good. Is this your point?

When the power system is disrupted, by a natural disaster for example, we are disconnected from our friends and acquaintances with whom we communicated through electronic means. Buried cables can be easily disrupted by earthquakes.

And we are left with our neighbors whose names we know but whom we have barely seen in the past several years or more...

We encounter less surprise in our lives. That is another consequence of socializing only with the ones that we get along well with.

Wasn't that the whole purpose of not interacting with people whom we dislike?

You know, sometimes it is your enemy who tells you the uncomfortable truth about you.
  

That's why I want to stay away from them!

Surprises are not always negative and we are depriving ourselves from positive ones, too.

We can't sort the two, because of their very nature as surprises. 

The technology has made many of our hands-on skills redundant, but I realize that it is not something new. It is the very purpose of technology.

Think about the laundry machine. You should be grateful that somebody invented it.

True, but some skills are worth keeping, such as musical-instrument playing.

Aren't you happy that you are spared of listening to very bad performances by amateur players, because we can always play music CDs? 

Yes and no, because many elements in playing an instrument could be understood only by trying our hands at them. Any type of activity needs a broad and thick amateur base to support the very best.

I'm glad that you found a good raison d'être for us the mediocre and the simply untalented.

Anyway, the biggest skills that we are losing is in the domain of human relationships.

You said we are much less obliged to be in good terms with people, because the availability of most goods and services does not depend on whom we know and whether the procurers are willing to do us a favor of parting with what we need.

That is chiefly because technology replaces many of human skills, but I missed the point last time that the number of offers for goods and services also matters. Suppose you are the best chest maker in the area. Further suppose that there is a machine which replicates your chest making skills. If you are the only one who own or could operate it, people would still try to be in good terms with you so that they could have a very good chest.

But if the guy down the street owns the same machine and if people don't like me, they could go to him.

The real strength of technology is in mass production of productive means, comrade! It allows many of us without skills to act as if we were skilled producers. And because it creates many producers whom we can turn to, we don't have to worry about being in good terms with one particular person.

We can buy music CDs from literally millions of sellers. The process of inserting a CD in a CD player and making music come out of it requires much less talent than making music with an instrument.

It implies that technology for mass production is useless if we do not have the mechanism to distribute and sell the products.

Another necessary ingredient is the development of commercial institutions...

The more merchants exist for items that are comparable, the less dependent we are on a specific vendor. It means that we can be less concerned about figuring out people. If we could obtain what we want through only one person, we would have to bring up our needs when s/he is in a good mood.

We can't say, "Ah, excuse me, do you happen to be feeling charitable enough to accept my request without grunting, spitting in my face, or making unreasonable demands in exchange?"

We have to judge based on indirect evidences.

That becomes easier, the more you know the person.

We still encounter occasions in which we need to make a decision about a person whom we just met. However, since our lives nowadays require less and less of face-to-face interactions, we are losing the skills to gauge a person by how s/he looks and behaves in a few minutes.

Chatting online doesn't count as in-person interactions?

Think about all the information that gets lost. The timing it takes in responding is less related to how eager the person is to chat, but more to how fast s/he can type. The tone of the voice, the hand gestures, the facial expressions, etc. are all unavailable.

We can tell quite a lot from the eyes for sure. But do we have to worry about not seeing in person if we could keep in touch otherwise?

There is a great deal to face-to-face interactions, especially with your own species.

If so, it poses an insurmountable problem for you.

Right, I'm one of a kind... In any case, anything that we are told personally has a bigger impact on us than what we read, given that the contents are the same. You must have experienced it yourself.

I guess that is why we go to live lectures instead of just reading a textbook.

For important meetings, the best mode is in person. If that is infeasible, we opt for video conferencing, not telephone conferencing or online chatting.

Although many of us look on the screen as if we had been released from the psychiatric ward for the occasion... 

I may decide to buy something extra, just because an affable storekeeper recommended it. That's different from clicking on "Here's what we recommend for you" and clicking again on one of their recommendations. We shouldn't underestimate how much our interactions with living beings, in particular homo sapiens, could be life enriching.

Come to think of it, people usually keep pets for nothing other than their company.

You see? There is something affecting when your eyes meet with those of a deer for a second in the woods. I don't think it's available online.

That's why we meet in a café rather than e-mail each other, right?

Otherwise, how can you treat me to a piece of Linzer Torte when you feel like it, for example? 

Comrade... why are you waving to the waiter?

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...