There is a periodic observation that I hear among the realms of mathematics or philosophy, that randomness is no more random than order; that order is no more ordered than randomness, because no randomness is random. An order suggests an organizing principle, and any we utilize are arbitrary. I suppose you could say this is the "base case" of subjectivity just after it has splintered away from universality. We will always see things in our own context. That is an inescapable effect of having private histories.
It is not impossible to imagine a world where our private histories make all attempts at communication useless. It is not impossible, I would argue, because we are often closer to this than we think. And while it makes me fearful that I might hurt someone I love, I am thankful that mystery persists in both our thoughts and words. The alternative creates a logical cascade that turns the world into something fundamentally different than we have, and indeed, the idea of a world without subjectivity may be at least a canard as at most an impossibility, but I digress.
I have learned to think and talk in what is commonly known as a "systems" perspective due to my daily use of such a model at work. And thankfully, it has not fully invaded my mind and daily patterns of thought. It is a deterministic nightmare, devoid of any humanity, any spirit. It is the existence only of rules; of rules until flexibility does not exist, and the name of this state is "optimization". If ever were one single idea meta-Orwellian, this would be it. Followed to its extreme, it is the trap that exposes the deterministic world, where human actions are so optimized to make any choice obsolete. Whatever the world may really be, my heart's desire resides in a land polar opposite.
I look for the world that is mystical; a cipher, a contradiction in terms.
I like best what Borges said about the world, because it speaks to my heart, and yet my mind can find no way to criticize:
We (the indivisible divinity that works in us) have dreamed the world. We have dreamed it resistant, mysterious, visible, ubiquitous in space and firm in time, but we have allowed slight, and eternal, bits of the irrational to form part of its architecture so as to know that it is false."
- Avatars of the Tortoise
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
What is Responsibility Doing to My Personality?
What is responsibility doing to my personality? Particularly, I wonder what is different about me now because of having the job I've had for the last few years. First, let's acknowledge some truths:
1) Behavioral changes cannot be isolated to one part of our personalities. That's not how human brains work in and of themselves, and it's definitely no way to think about what happens when our own changed behavior starts reflecting back different stimuli from the outside world.
2) Wilde's "creeping common sense" from my previous post - if it is a real thing - must be able to be accelerated or decelerated. I have my suspicions which one of these two are more likely applicable in regard to getting better at a job requiring dynamic responsibilities and decision-making skills.
3) The world - as it really is - is far more unknowable than we are inclined to believe. Building thematically on ideas propounded by Nassim Taleb, Daniel Kahnemann pointed out recently as a simple thought exercise that there was a one-in-eight chance that we could have had a 20th Century without Hitler, Stalin, and Mao (each could have been born female). How many similar men did we avoid because they were born female? Three? Zero? Ten? I guess a statistician would say the most likely answer is three, but that doesn't make it right.
The more difficult question is whether any given behavioral change is something I should want. Especially as someone who has more money than a desire to spend it. If I do not want these changes, then my already high opportunity cost to go to work skyrockets. After all, you can't put a price on your [mental - or spiritual] health.
Perhaps a way to more accurately see the problem the way I do is to view rationality and aesthetics as opposing forces. But, is that true? Richard Feynmann said that, as a scientist, he saw more beauty in a flower because he understood the intricacies of its design. Although I find his argument fascinating, it leaves me confused. Learning - whether it is something like "education", or what happens when we intuitively grasp an idea - has always sucked my sentiment out of things where it used to exist. But does it add more to my future than it subtracts from my past? I have always been sentimental - if it were possible, leave it to me to overvalue the past at the cost of the future.
On the other hand, we have Vonnegut, whom I believe is on the side of Feynmann when he says (I paraphrase, for lack of access to the relevant book):
"How can you tell a good painting when you see one? Easy - just look at a million, and then you'll know!"
- Bluebeard
Next time, perhaps I can deconstruct this entire post in the context of, "Am I actually getting more responsible?", and while we're at it, "Do I really have a personality worth concerning myself about?"
1) Behavioral changes cannot be isolated to one part of our personalities. That's not how human brains work in and of themselves, and it's definitely no way to think about what happens when our own changed behavior starts reflecting back different stimuli from the outside world.
2) Wilde's "creeping common sense" from my previous post - if it is a real thing - must be able to be accelerated or decelerated. I have my suspicions which one of these two are more likely applicable in regard to getting better at a job requiring dynamic responsibilities and decision-making skills.
3) The world - as it really is - is far more unknowable than we are inclined to believe. Building thematically on ideas propounded by Nassim Taleb, Daniel Kahnemann pointed out recently as a simple thought exercise that there was a one-in-eight chance that we could have had a 20th Century without Hitler, Stalin, and Mao (each could have been born female). How many similar men did we avoid because they were born female? Three? Zero? Ten? I guess a statistician would say the most likely answer is three, but that doesn't make it right.
The more difficult question is whether any given behavioral change is something I should want. Especially as someone who has more money than a desire to spend it. If I do not want these changes, then my already high opportunity cost to go to work skyrockets. After all, you can't put a price on your [mental - or spiritual] health.
Perhaps a way to more accurately see the problem the way I do is to view rationality and aesthetics as opposing forces. But, is that true? Richard Feynmann said that, as a scientist, he saw more beauty in a flower because he understood the intricacies of its design. Although I find his argument fascinating, it leaves me confused. Learning - whether it is something like "education", or what happens when we intuitively grasp an idea - has always sucked my sentiment out of things where it used to exist. But does it add more to my future than it subtracts from my past? I have always been sentimental - if it were possible, leave it to me to overvalue the past at the cost of the future.
On the other hand, we have Vonnegut, whom I believe is on the side of Feynmann when he says (I paraphrase, for lack of access to the relevant book):
"How can you tell a good painting when you see one? Easy - just look at a million, and then you'll know!"
- Bluebeard
Next time, perhaps I can deconstruct this entire post in the context of, "Am I actually getting more responsible?", and while we're at it, "Do I really have a personality worth concerning myself about?"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)