A Nozickian Email

Hypothetical # 1:

Imagine an 'experience machine' that could give you whatever desirable or pleasurable experiences you could possibly want, if you choose to enter the machine. Once you've entered the machine, you'll be completely comfortable, your physical needs will be met and your longevity will not be affected by your decision. Once in the machine, you'll not perceive your psychic life as being inauthentic, even though it will be a simulation. Will you choose to enter the experience machine?

Answering the hypothetical, you said No--like most people. In explaining your decision, you said you value authenticity, and would therefore not be interested in pursuing a course of action--even one which eliminated unhappiness--if it [imperceptibly] cost you authenticity.

So far, so good. There are no right or wrong answers, of course--but the answer you've provided is the same as the one almost everyone else provides--me included...just in case you're interested.

Hypothetical # 2: [credited to Felipe De Brigard, though expressed in my words]

You're roused from your slumber by a medical technologist, who explains your life to date has been a simulation. You've been in an imperfect, older-tech version of the experience machine for many decades now. The technologist politely apologizes for interrupting you; she's opened the door on your experience machine by accident. Before flipping the switch back on and returning you to your simulated life, the technologist asks if that's okay: 'Would you like to come out into the real world, with all of its unpredictable ups and downs--or would you prefer to continue living out your simulation?' If you choose to continue your simulation, you will not perceive your life as being any more inauthentic than you did prior to the technologist's intervention. Your decision?

**

The first time I ran Hypothetical # 2 by you, you said, in effect, 'I'll continue with my simulation, thank you.' But then you changed your mind, saying you didn't understand the second hypothetical at first, and upon reflection, you wouldn't be willing to answer to Hypothetical # 2.

No problem; you're not required to participate. (And one can understand why someone might not want to contemplate--even briefly--that their life has been a simulation.)  The two hypotheticals can be directed at anyone, and weren't in any way devised with you in mind, just to be clear.

Joshua Knobe suggests when people answer No to Hypo#1, they're not meaningfully choosing an authentic life over a simulated one; they're simply expressing a preference for the status quo over an unknown--even guaranteed-to-be-pleasurable--alternative.  (That's what de Brigard is revealing, with his clever rewording of the hypothetical.)  This 'status quo bias'--in social science--is also known as the endowment effect, aka divestiture aversion.

You may now yawn.

Theatrical Excursion

This evening:  Went to Chanhassen Dinner Theatres, where we took in Oklahoma! 

The production was quite good, for a very commercial theater.  (Mind--wandering printably--thought: The good aspect of a Leninist takeover here would be an improvement in the musical theater.)  A large portion of the audience thinks--and is welcomed to think--that the show is a celebration of American complacency on race, class and gender, though the script also offers eggheads a noble man-of-sweat-and-struggle: 

Jud Fry (that's Rod Steiger playing him, above) is the best-loved character in Oklahoma!--among morose, non-McCarthyite Eden Prairie bloggers.  I merely wish he didn't have to get offed in the final act. In a proto-state of enforcedly sunny, mediocre American hypocrites, he refuses to mask his multiple ambivalences. May he not have died in vain.

Another thing that bothers me about Oklahoma!:  On quite a number of occasions, the territory's incipient statehood is espied with unwavering optimism.  I don't like this, as it entirely sidesteps any other possible future; one isn't at all clear what problem statehood is supposed to solve, or what feared alternative gets circumvented with it.  (On statehood, eggheads aren't thrown any measly bone.)

But as Oklahoma!s go, this was entirely fun.  Tix $49 with steak dinner included thru eoy.

My, Johnson Aches

I just came upon Rev. Tim Johnson's Spiritually Speaking column of Dec. 10--and wanted to grumble about it:

The implosion in a celebrated golfer's public image has Johnson reflecting on the evil of infidelity.  (I stiffen my posture and affect a dignified-audience-member-just-like-any-other-dignified audience member air.)

Johnson asserts that 'the sexual revolution' has done far more harm than good.  (This is true because it is obvious, the ecclesiastic suggests.)  But this cannot be known, of course:  If society harshly suppressed pornography, discouraged female sexual display, taught homosexuals they were deranged and worthless, encouraged women to shun professional ambition, taught boys masturbation brings on serious illness, etc., we don't know whether we'd be happier or unhappier. (As we wouldn't even be we.) 

The cleric engages in bald speculation, ordering the ref to tally all disputes as points in his favor. 

Johnson suggests that on the other side--across from his evangelical perspective--there's Tiger Woods and 'If it feels good, do it.'  (A minister--you'd like to be able to expect Johnson to have sufficient ethics to avoid this mode of argumentation, no?)  Johnson draws an exceptionally non-representational picture of his ideological opponents, and then bitchslaps them for words he shoves down their throats. 

Johnson asserts that among the most persuasive arguments for god's activism in human life is that some marriages do not entail infidelity.  If this is--as Johnson's emphatically views it--the smoking gun in the religious person's evidence bag, then atheism has indeed won.  If infidelity were to drastically increase,  would Johnson interpret the change as indicating a hefty reduction in the likelihood of god's existence? 

Does Johnson's god really grimace when 'he' beholds an adulterer?  (What is god's emotional state when He contemplates a middlebrow, suburban bluenose?)

In bemoaning the sexual revolution, Johnson lists a litany of ills.  But it's unclear what he's asking of us.  He recommends people not live together prior to marriage, bringing (unsourced) statistics to bear against anteconnubial cohabition. 

But young people are still going to cohabit; so what?  Is Johnson suggesting we express collective disdain for young, cohabiting couples?  (Should they not be invited to the block party?)

Putting forward his soup-to-nuts rejection of the culture in which he lives, Johnson's plea in the end succumbs to the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose anality of his ethical perspective. We should reply to him:  "Rational, good-willed people find your social perspective morally repellent, too."

Hypocrisy

Crystal Kelley deputizes John Stossel to call those attending the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 hypocrites--for using too much energy getting there.

Kelley--the delusionally self-described Friendly Neighborhood Republican--doesn't allow dissenting comments, nor will she clarify her censorship policy--or even reply to an inquiring blogger's questions.  Were she willing to engage in civil discourse, we might ask her why it makes sense to single out the attendees' energy use.  The problem--GW--is either serious or it isn't, and either way the leaders' energy use is of no special import.  Is it?

**

If you believe things you're ashamed to say in public, without benefit of anonymity--you're a hypocrite.  If you express devotion to values you also violate, you're a hypocrite.  If you misrepresent your feelings or viewpoints in order to massage others' perceptions of you, you're a hypocrite.  If you occasionally present yourself in a pleasanter light than the one in which your meanest detractor sees you, you're a hypocrite.  (The tie is a purely hypocritical garment.)

In short, life avails no non-hypocritical option for building an identity.  As social primates, we're intensely interested in molding others' perceptions of us--and we're acutely status conscious.

Ergo, all is hypocrisy.  But in day-to-day parlance, we ought to try to agree to a definitional tightening of the venerable hypocrisy! charge: We don't want it to encompass everything.

You shouldn't merely need to show that someone's stated goals, actions and thoughts might be in conflict.  You have to argue that the conflict matters--and that society ought to label it out-of-bounds.  If you're going to shout hypocrisy!, you owe some explanation as to why we ought to take your charge seriously.

The Tiger Woods' implosion reminds one of the old American hypocrisy concern/dodge.  Prior to two weeks ago, there was a human being named Tiger Woods, residing alongside a Madison Ave-created figment also called Tiger Woods--an entity wafting around the culture, managed by professional image-enhancers, no doubt with their own oft-sated flattery demands.  As a physical reality, this Tiger Woods consisted of trillions of electrons bouncing around the country and world, onto screens and in front of eyeballs.

We've since learned Woods isn't just a quiet, excellence-loving, wife-kissing bourgeois--or the air-brushed WASP fantasy of the expensive-watch ads--but a carnivorous man who reacts as most men do, when somewhat arbitrarily flung into the status stratosphere.  The human Woods isn't merely the uxorious, poker-faced study-sitter limned by the electron tsunami, but a skirt-chasing slob no different from the next parvenu.  A Benetton Denny Hecker.  (It's nice to see a self-promoting phony get his comeuppance, particularly when it isn't me.)

X2 and I were dissecting the Tiger Woods matter.  She came to his defense, accepting Wood's innocence in the creation of his own myth, prior to two weeks ago.  She accepts the former Woods image as something society created and foisted upon a non-participating, innocent Woods.  (Woods elicits a strong maternal reaction in the fairer sex, no?)  But the golfer was a knowing participant in the creation of his remunerative Gatsby schtick, and then the shit hit the fan.  Whoop di doo--even if we acknowledge his underlying 'crime' is of no concern.

Meffert and Hackett Meet Public in Edina

Maureen Hackett

This evening Edina DFLers organized a meet the candidates event at Southdale Library.  The two announced candidates seeking the DFL endorsement for US Congress in CD3 spoke--separately--and took friendly questions.

Dr. Maureen Hackett has a direct, low-key, matter-of-fact delivery, appearing exactly as she does on her website.  Hackett touches on the standard issues of the day, with good audience rapport and a coherent sound.  She's relaxed and friendly; she refers to a daughter who graduated from high school not long ago.

Both candidates give Pres. Obama the benefit of the doubt on Afghanistan, and do not dissent with BHO's recent decision to 'surge' in that country.  Both are pro-choice, though Meffert sounds more committed on the issue. 

Hackett has a this-struggle-changed-my-life story centering on her effort to rid Minnesota's state hospitals of cigarette smoking.  She doesn't quite deliver the chapter with drama or emotion.  A questioner later asks her about her lack of previous experience in seeking or attaining elective office.  She gives an unoffended reply, suggesting the various potential strengths were the party to run an outsider.

Jim Meffert

Jim Meffert enters after Dr. Hackett's half-hour.  Meffert appears a bit new to political stand-up.  He has a more impassioned delivery, calling for self-confident, progressive leadership 'without apology' (while not quite delivering it with each of his own sentences).  He seems friendly and professional, if a bit green.  Meffert attended St. Olaf with Erik Paulsen and professes a personal regard for the congressman.

Meffert has a kid with him and mentions twice he's just rushed over from Normandale Lutheran Church's Advent service.  Hackett's presentation doesn't mention religion.  Meffert tells us he's spoken with Tim Walz and looks to Walz with respect on Afghanistan.  Meffert appears to intend to exude inevitability, though Hackett has her own unassuming self-confidence.  (While Meffert ostensibly doesn't find it worthwhile to observe Hackett's presentation, she is not beneath viewing his.)

Meffert is asked for his analysis of Ashwin Madia's disappointingly large gap on election day.  He marshals the viewpoint that Paulsen successfully portrayed Madia as not-one-of-us--an elastic charge signifying something between guardedness directed toward bachelors to KKK membership.

The profounder analysis of Madia's defeat, in retrospect--and whose validity does not contradict Meffert's cultural pigeonholing thesis, reasonably interpreted--is that Madia planned for an Iraq-based campaign within a political season in which the economy became salient, magnifying Mr. Gray Flannel Suit's Robert Young comforting quality in the public imagination.  Among the mainstream Democratic prescriptions for fixing the economy, Madia's beloved 'green economy' plank was not the strongest, as a political shiv. (And it certainly seemed that Madia wanted passionately to win.)

Both candidates appear to have organized, serious campaigns; both had friendly staffers in tow.  Erik Paulsen's District Outreach Coordinator--John-Paul Yates--was in attendance, as was a beflipcammed GOP tracker (I was told).  You could detect a small hint of mutual non-affection between the two campaigns, with some sotto voce encouragement from the Hackett camp for me to explore the lobbyist label vis-à-vis their opponent.

It was funny to be back at this stage again in the cycle, when Congressional candidates will take questions and interact with members of the public.  It doesn't appear obvious who will win; other candidates could yet join.  Both appear earnest, presentable, occasionally naive.  Terri Bonoff could have the nomination for the asking, though the hour is getting late.

Some Girls Are Bigger Than Others

So his name is Jim Meffert and he's running for Congress in CD3--but he doesn't reveal anything interesting about himself on his web page.  (He has no 'issues page' up yet.)

We now have two DFL-endorsement-seeking campaigns launched--but haven't yet been presented with a single stimulating sentence.

Dr. Maureen Hackett, who's hired Leonid Brezhnev's much sought-after speechwriter [see previous post, if you dare], and Jim Meffert--who hasn't yet found a writer. 

The two campaigns have purchased slick images, as you can see above.  (If future generations bemoan our era's joy-sapping hypermediation and image-whoredom--they'll have far more evidence than seems fair.)

Chris Steller published a somewhat elusive piece on Meffert--apparently suggesting the PTA kingpin hopes to exploit his father/husband imagery to great effect against Paulsen.  Having myself strongly criticized the dullard for engaging in precisely this strain of bullshit politics, I promise to be equally merciless toward members of other parties who try same.

We select congressional candidates--generally--from a pool of people who've never revealed their views on anything of interest.  (Do as we say--not as we do, oh future generations.)  We have no interesting record of real-time political or social analysis from Hackett or Meffert--and so it's difficult to assess whether they can really be said to have any developed views on international affairs.  (During the 2008 contest, Bonoff occasionally made statements indicating a poor command of international relations, to be frank.)

We simplify the selection process by reducing it to a battle for 'paragon of middle class respectability'--or a battle over web design.  We should instead insist on a meaningful contest.

**

Terri Bonoff is playing 800-lb gorilla--or Hamlet--in the current drama.  Bonoff is apparently immersed in a labyrinthine political risk assessment game, unable to decide whether she can really win against Paulsen.  (Losing both a congressional race and her state senate seat would be an extremely irritating outcome for her, one suspects.)

And so we should take note that Terri Bonoff recently travelled to Israel, publishing this report upon her return.  Bonoff describes the trip as 'a life-altering experience'. 

Candidates' views toward Israel could play a role in the fight for the CD3 DFL endorsement--and will certainly play a role in the fall campaign.  (Historically, both the DFL challenger and the Republican candidate attempt to outdo each other with protestations of more-pro-Israel-than-thou.)

So Bonoff's innocuous-sounding report makes interesting reading.  On some formal level, she appears to be claiming concern for Levant residents of all nationalities and races.  She doesn't openly acknowledge it, but political tea-leaf readers understand the lingo: She strongly supports Israel--and views Israel as the aggrieved party in its dispute with its neighbors.

I wish Bonoff would tell us more about what made the trip 'life-altering'--and why she feels such a need to engage in euphemism when writing it up.  Does she feel America's aid to Israel is inadequate or excessive?  Concerning Israel's illegal, colonialistic settlements, does she feel the United States ought to be making any firm demand?  In international public opinion, does Bonoff believe our support for Israel is viewed as sensible or nutty?  When Israel laid waste to Gaza a year ago, did she express her views in any way?  How does she view that war now?  Does Bonoff admire or condemn Israel's immigration policy? 

As someone openly toying with a run for the House, we want her to be aware of our curiosity.

**

Your Vest Pocket Hackett

I for one positively delight in the feminine lilt radiating from the following sentences--taken verbatim [though separately] from Dr. Maureen Hackett's The Economy page:

Our country faces a multitude of economic challenges which call for wise and creative focus to get people back to work and to keep the US at the forefront of innovation for the world.

It is government's role to intervene when crisis of this magnitude occur.

Solutions to the economic crisis that will get Minnesotans back to work are increasing public and private investments.

Investments in infrastructure such as public safety, schools, transportation and energy efficiency can provide jobs in the short run, save lives and improve productivity in the long run.

In the green economy, demand for technology can be local and worldwide and it can keep our country at the forefront of innovation.

Our universities will develop new technologies that will turn into exciting new businesses right here in the Third District.

Other investment incentives can be made for incremental investments in businesses that improve private industry job opportunities.

While research and development are needed to bring about technological innovations, we must make the business climate friendlier to entrepreneurs and individuals who wish to build businesses from the ground up.

Thus, small businesses cannot attract qualified employees who may want to change their employment to innovate new business opportunities that create more jobs for the economy.

Improved health insurance policies and oversight and lower costs of insurance, whether through very strict regulation or through a public plan will improve the economy by opening the bottleneck for individuals to grow small businesses.

We must maintain the American dream where legitimate and fair practices are justly rewarded.

Who's Zoomin' Who?

Having heard just one statement by the accused's defense attorney, could you publicly call for the dismissal of anticipated charges against a fellow citizen?  Wouldn't that seem rash?  Crystal Kelley--another unapologetic righty blogging from Eden Prairie--would disagree:

When the terrorist (oh, I'm sorry, "detainee") whined to the Iraqis about how he had gotten a bloody lip during the capture, it somehow resulted in these three American heroes being brought up on charges instead of being given medals, as they should have been.

Kelley--having seen a Fox News report--has concluded that the three Navy SEALS who've been charged with assaulting a detainee are just the latest victims of 'political correctness run amok'.  Kelley implicitly asserts US service members are incapable of committing detainee abuse--or that a certain 'reasonable' amount of abuse is 'to be understood'.  US service members stationed overseas are by definition saintly 'heroes', constitutionally incapable of entertaining an impure thought.

Why do conservatives find it necessary to assign superhuman moral status to OFMAW?  There's a sound intuition justifying skepticism, when someone claims to perceive innate ethical exaltedness in all members of a group.  And such thinking is very dangerous (and almost always false, except when directed at graduates of St. Olaf) when done in the negative.  Since large groups tend not to differentiate themselves along lines of moral worthiness, why then do conservatives persist in doing so, and loudly? 

To stifle open discussion of our options, of course.  To nurture their self-appointed more-patriotic-than-thou theme, de cierto.  But among the various psychic stances one might take toward life, there's a widespread need to flee complexity and unpredictability (of correctly-perceived reality) into the comfort and certainty of subordination (sincere or feigned) under dogmatism. 

I say 'Let's hear the evidence first.' What say you, Crystal Kelley?  Can you support our having a trial first and a verdict second? 

Or am I being excessively resistant--in my cold-hearted way--to the political demands of trial lawyers?

Stones in the Road

A friend who lives far away--prepare for exoticism--recently mentioned his boss was observed loudly praising upper management for not reducing their company's work force, despite hard times.  'It really says a great deal about the character of our corporation's top leadership.' 

And it occurred to me that whilst this garden-variety bullshit statement might occasionally be issued within officespace, it might diminish one's reputational capital were you to post it on your blog.  To blog is to put one's thoughts before the public and welcome comment and discussion.  (You're free to say that sort of thing within your little ass-covering gated community--but not where others might be free to bark back, or forward the link to Brookings, SD--to your eager-to-chortle sophomore-year roommate.)

Sheila Kihne vexed me a bit the other day, in disallowing my comment on her hazing piece.  I came across the astonishingly ignorant blogpost--noting a commenter had mentioned Sue Jeffers had favorably cited Kihne's post on Jeffers' radio show.  So I emailed Sue asking if it was true.  Had she praised Kihne's opus? 

Thereafter [in our email exchange] Jeffers plays Guardian of Civility--repeatedly offering edification on my supposed 'assumptions-making'.  As we close, Jeffers does manage to irk me a bit more than expected, what with this snooty little word-sandwich: 

There are many people who post awful things, I don't read them but more importantly it isn't about my agreeing or not agreeing with the content of any post, the beauty of the United States is our freedom to say what we think.

A rather overly-confused life observation, no?  (People publish stuff that upsets me, but I don't respond because the actual content of statements doesn't matter.  The delightful wonder of our noble country--so different from Canada, Japan or Belgium--is that here we can say what we think, without any silly governmental oversight or stilted Old World deference to social position.  Participants in our [combat-provided] free public dialogue shouldn't actually interact with each other or evaluate each others' statements.  Nay!--America's continued beauty depends on our willingness not to engage in critical thinking.) 

Then Jeffers offers:

Calling people names really isn't constructive. It might be more worthwhile if you put less time and effort into picking apart someone's blog or a talk show host, maybe some volunteer work?

Analogously, a put-upon father arrives at the therapist's with a list of two-word epithets he's been called in recent years by his son/executioner:  Dirty bum, venal kook, reactionary moron, narcissistic thug, etc.  The son--observing the old man's pleading aspect--argues that when a neutral third party comes upon a dispute and observes only that Steve has called Bob rat fink, the NTP has no basis upon which to judge the underlying conflict.  (The charge may be entirely reasonable and timely--or it may be callous, false, irresponsible and/or cruel.  Without additional detail we don't know.)  Our mere learning that epithets have been uttered does not auto-adjudicate an impasse for us.

The radio host does cross the line--into a recognizable form of vintage gringo anti-intellectualism--with her unsolicited volunteerism advice.  Entering the public square--to assess a posting on The Activist Next Door, perhaps--we evaluate each others' positions on their merits.  We don't dismiss or accept Jeffers' positions based on her charitable contributions or on her generosity as an aunt.  (Were she to proffer such evidence in some credibility-expansion gambit, we should accuse her of being a Congressional candidate.) 

Which brings us to Dr. Maureen Hackett, who's opposing Jim Meffert (or Jim Meffert-Nelson--no one's quite sure) for the DFL nod for Congress [facing Paulsen].  Hackett's donated serious dough to Republicans--and $1,500 to David Dillon shortly before the 2008 election.  (When I initially asked Hackett's husband about the Nader contribution, he appeared surprised to learn such information was publicly available.)  Hackett defends her donations and says she also contributed [with doctorly munificence] to Madia, but that seems weird--and her explanation is problematical.  (How on earth could any CD3 Democrat--two weeks before the election!--give $1,500 to Ashwin Madia's opponent?)  That's going to be a very stubborn stone in the road for Hackett, and the explanation she's offered doesn't cut it.