Yet There Is Method In It

It has been about 10 months since I posted on my religion in the TV series Babylon 5 thread. I have been busy. (”Everything out there has only one purpose. To distract ourselves from what is truly important.” G’Kar) I have had a chance to rewatch the series again since I last thought about blogging on it.

Shadows

The Shadows are an alien civilization which also very mysterious, manipulative and powerful. Over millions of years they have come to oppose the Vorlon empire. Their philosophy and understanding are all driven by a simple question: “What do you want?” In this system, the identity of an individual is only defined in terms of actions and goals. Any identity, underlying motive or free will is not considered. This is similar to consequentialism where the ends justify the means. Since most of our immediate desires are worldly, it might also be a realist or materialistic philosophy in its routine application.

Machiavelli is a good example of this style of thought. In his most famous work, The Prince, he describes how one acquires and maintains power. He does not attempt to describe an “ideal” prince (that is to say “who he is”) but simply what actions must be performed in order to achieve a goal. This pragmatic view is political realism.

Not all desires are about the pursuit of power. For example we could ask of Socrates, “what does he want”? Could we say “rationality at any price”? (quote from Nietzsche). We could also say Plato: knowledge, Aristotle: wisdom, etc. (Incidentally Lennier indirectly asked for this of the Shadows.) If we pursue any goal too single mindedly, we risk losing our perspective.

The other questions.

I have previously mentioned the questions “who are you?”, “why are you here?” and “what do you want?” There are several secondary metaphysical questions that are mentioned by one or other of the characters but are not so critical to the story’s main conflict. These questions serve as another thematic backdrop to the TV series but are not addressed at such a literal level.
Who do you serve? (TV Movie “In The Beginning”)
How will this end? (Series 2 Ep 9)
Who do you trust? (Series 3 Ep 16)
Have you anything worth living for? (Series 4 Ep 2)
Where are you going? (Series 5 Ep 22)

This is perhaps a reference to the Socratic method, in which a thinker explores a philosophical position by using questions to stimulate thinking. In the next part I will attempt to describe and analyze the various answers to these questions.

Anti Citizen One

Again on my recent theme of cause and effect:

Grand Theft Auto 4 queue man stabbed in head

A hooded male stabbed another man in the head and neck yesterday as they both queued to buy copies of Grand Theft Auto IV from a Croydon Gamestation store. The Register

Considering the people had not had an opportunity to play the game, we can hardly blame the game’s content for this incident. And I was not serious in suggesting that queueing causes violence. In this case, violent people chose to stand in line to buy a computer game.

Banning the game is like bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

AC1

A quick, anecdotal case study of adverts seen in the last week:

Example advertising: A car is driven recklessly along a street as an obvious computer game reference to Grand Theft Auto. The driver comes to a halt, steps out of the car and walks into a shop. The man behind the counter feels threatened but the driver takes the product (Coca cola) and pays for it. He then walks around the neighbourhood doing various good deeds in the opposite manner to the computer game - catches a thief, gives money to a busker, etc. The song with lyrics “give a little love and it all comes back to you” is playing. The slogan “the Coke side of life” is shown.

Message of this advert: the brand coca cola is associated to generosity and optimism. The song states that generosity or love will be reciprocated. There is no direct claim is made for the product.

Example 2: A hand cream is applied to a celebrity’s body. The voice over claims the product can taughten skin, remove wrinkles and make you appear younger. (L’Oreal)

Message: Use this product and you will look beautiful (and perhaps more like a celebrity).

Example 3: A man enjoys driving a car through computer generated pretty scenery. Cool music is playing. (Masda/Kia/etc)

Message: Use this product and you will be happy.

Example 4: An envelope is opened and a laptop is pulled out. The laptop lid is opened to show the Mac desktop and logo. (Apple)

Message: The product has desirable properties (thinness in this case). Note that this is not a functional property.

Example 5: A man and a women are shown on split screen talking to each other by mobile phone. They discuss family issues. The driver collides with an unseen object and knocked unconcious. The person on the other end of the conversation is traumatized. (Public information advert - the product in this case is a behavior)

Message: Talking to people who are on their mobile while driving may be upsetting (if they have an accident).

My observations: Advertising typically shows a person (or a character you are likely to identify with) enjoying the product in question. In the more abstract adverts, the product is part of a lifestyle that would be enjoyable. Often the characteristics of the product are secondary to the enjoyment (cars, coca cola). When characteristics are discussed, they are typically aesthetic (thinness, sleek, young, beauty, etc).

Very occasionally the inverse argument is used: product X will cause you unhappiness and should be avoided.

The purpose of advertising is to persuade people to buy the product. Therefore their full message is: product X will make you happy (or beautiful) and you should therefore purchase the product. This unspoken message contains two fundamental flaws.

1) Product being linked with happiness does not imply we should take any particular action. It does not logically follow that we should buy the product.

2) Studies indicate that our level of happiness is mainly physiologically determined. Our conscious choices only have a limited effect on our happiness (including mediation, medication, etc). Happiness is largely outside our hands. We should ask ourselves do certain behaviors cause happiness, or do happy people more likely to perform certain behaviors? The answer seems to be the latter.

This expressed by the master of debunking hollow ideas as:

The most general formula on which every religion and morality is founded is: “Do this and that, refrain from this and that — and then you will be happy! And if you don’t…” Every morality, every religion, is based on this imperative; I call it the original sin of reason, the immortal unreason. [..] An admirable human being, a “happy one,” instinctively must perform certain actions and avoid other actions; [...] In a formula: his virtue is the effect of his happiness. Nietzsche

This argument also applies to advertising. This quote is literally true if a brand has replaced religion in a persons mind. My concern is the proliferation of advertising in society is causing the spread of “immortal unreason” where thought and discussion are impaired.

As recently reported by the BBC:

Clinical psychologist Oliver James claims in his new book The Selfish Capitalist: Origins of Affluenza, that “selfish capitalism” (the kind of capitalism we have in Britain) is making us sick. Literally. BBC

For further reading, I recommend Adbusters. They seek to move people beyond the tired concept of everyone being a “happy consumer” and toward being a participant in the real world.

Update: Of course advertising was never meant to be a logical argument but an appeal to the emotions.

Anti Citizen One

“The [European] Commission wants to extend the copyright period for music performers from 50 years to 95 years.” BBC

This should be strongly opposed. My views are public. My proposal: to cut copyright to 50 years or the death of the performer which ever is sooner. Only exception: if they have a significant other that absolutely depend on the money (or perhaps they should have got life insurance??). In fact 20 years or until time of death is even more reasonable! (This is the lengths of patents typically.)

Anti Citizen One

The Shadows are an alien civilization which also very mysterious, manipulative and powerful. Over millions of years they have come to oppose the Vorlon empire. Their philosophy and understanding are all driven by a simple question: “What do you want?” In this system, the identity of an individual is only defined in terms of actions and goals. Any identity, underlying motive or free will is not considered. This is similar to Consequentialism where the ends justify the means. Since most of our immediate desires are worldly, it might also be a realist or materialistic philosophy in its routine application.

Machiavelli is a good example of this style of thought. In his most famous work, The Prince, he describes how one acquires and maintains power. He does not attempt to describe “ideal” prince (that is to say “who he is”) but simply what actions must be performed in order to achieve a goal. This pragmatic view is political realism.

Not all desires are about the pursuit of power. For example we could ask of Socrates, “what does he want”? Could we say “rationality at any price”? (quote from Nietzsche). We could also say Plato: knowledge, Aristotle: wisdom, etc. (Incidentally Lennier indirectly asked for this of the Shadows.) If we pursue any goal too single mindedly, we risk losing our perspective.

Today’s society seems to seek happiness above all things - that is Hedonism. If we ask how is happiness achieved, we immediately see that our society has the goal of happiness but not the means for achieving it. Consumerism is the current solution - I would suggest Buddhism for its meditation or psychological therapy for those seriously pursuing happiness…

Some movements don’t even have an answer for the question “what do you want?” I am thinking particularly of post-modernism. Of course, this is not intrinsically good or bad. Movements like these specialize taking answers to these metaphysical questions and, effectively, analyze them until the original thought is obliterated!

And Other Issues

There are several secondary metaphysical questions that are mentioned by one or other of the characters and not aligned with any world view in the story. These questions serve as another thematic backdrop to the TV series but are not addressed at such a literal level.
Who do you serve? (TV Movie “In The Beginning”)
How will this end? (Series 2 Ep 9)
Who do you trust? (Series 3 Ep 16)
Have you anything worth living for? (Series 4 Ep 2)
Where are you going? (Series 5 Ep 22)

Have you ever noticed that in story telling, when characters finally ask these questions of each other and their situation, some critical information is revealed? I suspect the same is true in life.

The majority of people find all this speculation absurd since they can continue to live without addressing them. Obviously, people have to have some idea of good and evil but to ignore these issues is to have habit as the basics of ethics.

“Who am I? What am I doing here? and Where am I going? Those had to be the very first questions we began asking when we became sentient, and we’re still asking them.” JMS

Anti Citizen One

I was reading extracts from the book “The Cult of the Amateur” by Andrew Keen. He states that

Moreover, the free, user-generated content spawned and extolled by the Web 2.0 revolution is decimating the ranks of our cultural gatekeepers, as professional[s] [...] and other purveyors of expert information are being replaced [...] by amateur bloggers, hack reviewers, homespun moviemakers, and attic recording artists. Andrew Keen

The full extract is available on the BBC.

Andrew Keen makes a simple but fundamental mistake: he equates the professional with competence and the amateur with incompetence. This is so obviously untrue that I find it hard to know where to begin with counter examples! Many examples are stated in the report from Demos titled “The Pro-Am Revolution”

The Pro-Am Revolution argues this historic shift is reversing. We’re witnessing the flowering of Pro-Am, bottom-up self-organisation and the crude, all or nothing, categories of professional or amateur will need to be rethought. Demos

Obviously, if I agreed with Andrew Keen, I would not be writing these words on this blog!

Anti Citizen One

PS I finally finished History of Western Philosophy! Hooray!

Carrying on my seemingly never ending series of posts on the TV show Babylon 5:

The Vorlon empire is a mysterious, authoritarian, manipulative and very powerful alien society that is central to the overall story of Babylon 5. They have been in existence for a long time and are a “more advanced” society than Earth - even in the story setting of the year 2258 and onwards.

They appear to be more interested in philosophy than in following a religion. Since they have occasionally presented themselves as Gods, they are more likely to be viewed as divine than have any obvious religion themselves. Their philosophy and understanding of all other species revolves around the answers to two primary metaphysical questions: “Who are you?” and “Why are you here?” They appear to be skeptical of socially constructed truths, based on this conversation:

Sebastian (the Vorlon Inquisitor): Who are you?
Delenn: I am Delenn.
Sebastian: Unacceptable answer! I already know your name! Who are you?
[snip section - Delenn is unable to answer without referencing external authority]
Sebastian: What a sad thing you are! Unable to answer even such a simple question without falling back on references, and genealogies, and what other people call you! Have you nothing of your own? Nothing to stand on that is not provided, defined, delineated, stamped, sanctioned, numbered and approved by others?

This type of question is considered meaningless by early Wittgenstein thought, who says it simply dissolves when analyzed. Even the writer, JMS stated ‘At some point the “answer,” such as it is, must transcend language.’ But most people, not having read Wittgenstein like to think they know “who they are” or you might say “nosce te ipsum“. If language games theory provides a social framework for us to agree some relative truths, it might be criticized for not providing anything that has not already been “approved by others”?

In a thought experiment, if we are washed up on a desert island with no hope of rescue, who are we then without external references? (Or in a more extreme case, washed up and suffering from amnesia.) Social mechanisms for defining “who are are” are overrated…

The questions can also be answered in a rather mundane way obviously, but they consider that a misunderstanding of the question.

Sebastian: Do you know why you’re here?
Delenn: I was sent [by Kosh].
[snip]
Sebastian: You’ve answered the wrong question! Why are you here now, in this place, in this life?
Delenn: I was meant to be here!
Sebastian: Meant? By whom?
Delenn: I don’t know!
Sebastian: How can you be sure?
Delenn: I don’t know!
Sebastian: No, you don’t!

Obviously, there has been no agreed answer to the purpose of life. The question “Why are you here?” may be answered in two ways: “what purpose does it fulfill?” (teleology) or “what prior circumstances lead to the event?” (as Russell points out). The implied question that is chosen by the answerer is quite revealing of their world view.

I think we mentioned this question before in another guise. To recap briefly, the question supposes that there was a possibility of non-existence (or the possibility of not being “here”) and that a reason exists for our existence - both could be considered debatable.

Philosophers have been debating the meaning of life since the beginning of philosophy. Most early philosophers declared an objective purpose to life. This was usually one of: virtue, happiness, knowledge, etc. The answer to “why are you here?” becomes the search for truth or virtue or whatever. But how does the philosopher know what he knows? Nietzsche claimed most arguments of the “true” world are simply a “paraphrase of the proposition: ‘I, Plato, am the truth’” a.k.a. argument from authority.

Of course it is possible there is a trivial answer or no answer at all. If we are just biological organisms, are we just the same organism for our whole life? Am I my “soul”, which is constant for one or many lives? In Buddhist philosophy, the teaching of Anatta states that there is no “self”.

On the other hand, am I the same person I was 5 years ago? My memories, behaviors, personality and abilities have changed over the years. What then remains of my former self? On the more speculative side of things, if your mind could be copied exactly, would the copy be also “you”?

For further reference: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on identity. It seems to be a load of waffle to me though!

AC1

A pet topic of mine: copyright law. It needs reform. I read an interesting speech calling for “Fair use reform; limits on secondary liability; protections against copyright abuse; fair and accessible licensing; orphan works reform; and notice of technological and contractual restrictions on digital media”.

To quote FN (again):

“Just see these superfluous ones! They steal the works of the inventors and the treasures of the wise. Culture, they call their theft—and everything becometh sickness and trouble unto them!”

Radiohead’s recent album release, although not directly addressing the copyright problem, did make a small step in the right direction. They allowed people to pay from zero to £100 to get their album at the purchaser’s discretion. This removes the record company from the equation. I think record companies can be grouped with the “superfluous ones”.

Anti Citizen One

From the BBC, Lord Puttnam said:

The growing number of toy-themed virtual worlds aimed at young people risks undermining the basic human values we wish to instil in children.

Grey 17 is Missing

Carrying on my series on the depiction of religion in the TV series Babylon 5:

Garibaldi, an agnostic, stumbles upon a cult in an abandoned and forgotten area of the station. They refuse to let him leave and seem to try to convert him to their beliefs. They do not make any decernable progress as all Garibaldi wants to do is to leave.

They have adapted belief systems from the basic Mimbari beliefs and consider them spiritually advanced culture. These themes recur several times in the TV series.

“The universe is sentient, aware, alive.” “We are the universe, the universe made manifest.” “We try to understand it because in so doing, well, we will understand ourselves.” “One day the universe will truly understand itself. And at that moment, it will transcend itself.” “…next time it’ll be perfect.”

The cult also strives for their own self perfection to achieve a form of enlightenment. This is verging on suicidal since they look forward to “rejoining” the universe upon their deaths. Although not stated, the might move towards being a suicide cult - they have one charasmatic leader and many drone like followers - does that fit the profile?

“We’ve isolated ourselves in order to attain a purity of thought. Because purity of form and putity of intent, purity of execution, that is the on way. The only way the door will open.” “The door of the mind”

They seem to prefer their beliefs from a more existential mindset. “People like you suffer from the fact that you do not remember having been part of the universe.” “You know, driven mad by the silence, the terrible isolation.”

But their leader, Sebastian, is rather pretentious, claiming “I am as pure as I am ever going to be!”.

The episode is also notable for not being very good. “There are bits in that I like a lot. And some parts of it just fell down dreadfully. That’s simply the nature of the beast.” (JMS)

Let us never speak of that episode again…

Christianity Adapting to the Times

Brother Alwyn is a leader in a religious order (to some extent affiliated with Catholic church) in a post apocalyptic earth in about the year 3261. I guess religion had to move with the times in the last 1254 years! The order plans to re-industrialize Earth; all technology was blamed for a collapse in civilization 500 years earlier. This is an interesting reversal on todays outlook - the Church is usually warning agains new trends and generally fears change (consider Galileo, Darwin, etc). This futuristic order now leads the technological movement against the fear and opposition of the population. It is mentioned that “Rome” has again turned down recognition for the churches work - I guess some things don’t change!

Side Note

There is an interesting post on a catholic blog which reads like a condensed version of my series of posts, but written by a believer.