There, There. It's All Right ....

I keep clicking. My perceptions of objective reality obviously need new settings.
http://make-everything-ok.com/

Mirrors

Mirrors are odd things. They're how we see ourselves, but it's a reversed seeing. Yet they're perhaps the most common way we know to visualize ourselves.

If I tell myself to touch the right side of my face, my hand goes up to touch my cheek. No problem. But looking in a mirror, touching the right side of my mirror-face, the hand wants to cross over.

It's as if my image were another person; that would be their right side. So what I see in the mirror is a perceptual mix of myself and an imagined 'other person' looking at me.

We see bits and pieces of ourselves in mirrors. I can brush my teeth before a mirror and come away with no idea whether or not my hair is tidy. I can see what I want to see to some degree. It becomes trickery to allow myself to see my image without that filter.

Such an odd thing to see yourself in a mirror unexpectedly. For a sharp moment you see a stranger. For an instant, you see yourself as others see you. Then the filters kick in and you see you.

Such honesty can be hard to bear, either from mirrors or from other people.

People are mirrors for one another. We mimic words and gestures of those we get close to, even of strangers. We are influenced by the moods written in their faces, their gestures, their voices.

We see how other people act. If we admire it, we want to take it in and reflect it back from ourselves. Smiling makes us feel happier. Acting strong changes our hormones and makes us strong. We can make ourselves to be more as we wish to be. Mirroring others is part of that process.

Friends reveal so much of who you are. Who are they when they're with you? Long term relationships can become reflections of reflections, both of you mirroring long-past conceptions or stages with perhaps no validity in the present. Habits. If you disrupt the reflections you fragment the relationship.

This can be good. It lets you both see one another as who you are, not who you are in your interpreted reflections of one another. But it can also mean that instead of a friend you see a stranger, and all you share now are those long-established mutually reflecting images.

A friend who reflects you truly – why does that happen? It can be hard to bear, to have to be honest with them and with yourself. It is also liberating. If they're still around after that honesty, they truly are a friend.

Friendship. Seeing another person for who they are, not who you want / need them to be. Taking what is weak or unkind in them and holding it in gentle hands, helping them accept and improve that part of themselves. Recognizing what is noble and wise in them and honoring that, taking it into yourself and giving it back to them with humility and gratitude. Giving them the joy of loving them for all those facets, not just for the few you like best.

Letting them love who you are, too.

Alan Garner on Alan Turing

Since I first learned of Alan Turing I have been outraged at what was done to him. A comfortable outrage, I now realize. Intellectual. From a safe distance.

No longer.

A blow to the stomach -- a shock wave shattering my complacent sanctimony into bitter fragments of self-understanding and horror.

Alan Garner's simple, short biographical statement does more to show evil in the guise of morality than any epistle or sermon ever could.

This is what writing can do.

My hero: Alan Turing, by Alan Garner

 In the 1950s I was an athlete. Those were the days before joggers clogged the highway, so it was unusual for me to see another runner when I was training. We fell into the habit of meeting up and pounding the miles together for company.
He was stocky, barrel-chested, with a high-pitched, donnish voice and the aerodynamics of a brick. He was funny and witty and he talked endlessly, but I understood very little of what he was saying, and it became clear that he ran in order to think. He seemed to be obsessed by mathematics and biology. That much I could work out.
We had one thing in common: a fascination with Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, especially the transformation of the Wicked Queen into the Witch. He used to go over the scene in detail, dwelling on the ambiguity of the apple, red on one side, green on the other, one of which gave death. We had both been traumatised by Walt.
On one occasion he asked me whether, in my opinion as a classical linguist, artificial intelligence was possible. After a couple of miles of silence I said that, in my opinion, it was not. And that was that.
He killed himself when an ignorant and uncouth judge gave him the choice of a prison sentence or chemical castration; and I was overwhelmed by fury at the salacious, gloating humiliation imposed on my friend, and by a sense of guilt that I did not, could not, help him; which lasted for decades, and was made only worse when the Official Secrets Act revealed his true heroism.
He died of cyanide poisoning. By his body was an apple, partly eaten. The apple was not tested for cyanide. His name was Alan Turing.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/nov/11/alan-turing-my-hero-alan-garner

How to Die?

This article is about two deaths. Two men, both artists, and how they faced early death.

One in dissolution and despair. One in awareness and creation.

Isn't this article really about how to live?

NPR's Krulwich Wonders

Philosophic Horror!

Belated Halloween terror from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal:

 http://www.smbc-comics.com/

Kids or Spouse?

A friend and I had just been discussing this question. We wondered how many other women question this. Of course, there's two sides to the question: kids and no spouse, or spouse and no kids. Either way, society often frowns.

I'm thinking a lot about cultural myths lately. Tradition dictates marriage and family. But in this as in all things, people should be free to choose -- and most importantly, society should support those choices. It's all too easy to feel guilty for wanting a non-traditional life.

Then I think about choices that are even more non-traditional, and I am once again humbled at the courage people have, who choose not to hide who they are: different sexual orientations, gender change, even (omg) atheists.

We are getting better, I think, as a society, but there's still so much intolerance, even hatred for those who don't abide by a perceived norm. But what is normal, and why? And who decides?

I think it's easier on everyone to stop insisting we have the right to tell others how to live, and ask instead for respect. Be kind. That's all.

http://www.arcamax.com/newspics/28/2805/280589.jpg

I know I'm a Writer Because ....

I've read the quotes. 'unhappy is the house where a writer lives' sorts of things. I don't know about unhappy, but a writer does live here.

I am not a person who writes. I am a writer.

I know this because my deepest, most soul-stirring or harrowing emotions are greeted with a rapturous: "Oh cool! Now if I can just get this into words, I can use it in a story!"

Anoesis: How New Words Open New Worlds

Yesterday morning I learned a new word. Such a delight (thanks to word of the day). There are words that I feel the lack of. One is a word for the deliberate act of ignoring. If I say ignorance, (IG-nor-ance) it means I don't know. But I want a word for ig-NOR-ance. Humans are very good at deliberately ignoring things, so why is there no word for it?

Yesterday's treasure was Anoesis: being flooded with emotion or sensation, and unable to form rational thought about it.  And the most peculiar thing happened. That afternoon I was plunged into anoesis.

I love to analyze, and having a label for that abstract, overwhelming, compelling state helped. Of course, I was trying to find a way to express this state of being so I could use it in a novel, but also to help me understand why I felt that way.

Like the apparent duality in physics, I live in a Newtonian world. My still-enduring moment of anoesis plunged me into a Quantum universe where all I know and think is altered, pulsing to different energies and perceptions. The quantum universe underlies all I think I know. I, too, am looking for a grand unification of what I am and what I seem to be.

Words are not dangerous things, but they do foment revolutions, personal or global.

Anti-Intellectual Incompetence

 An interesting post from Massimo Pigliucci at Rationally Speaking.

I was particularly intrigued because I had just read yet another 'discussion' on religion vs. science, where the arguers for religion were chronically unable to discern the difference between proof and belief. If one cannot make that very gaping distinction, there is no hope of discussion. I admit to feeling there is no need for discussion. Religion, in this so global modern world, should be private and personal, and ought not to be imposed on others. My beliefs are mine; theirs are theirs. But provable information -- that is the realm of the public domain.

This article discusses another false dichotomy: intellectualism vs engineers. Timothy Ferris of 'Wired Magazine' argues that only productive technology is worthwhile (does he work for Perry?) and that thinking, ideas, and intellectual processes are a waste of time.

How, I wonder, did he get the education that allowed him to think about this? Not that he did much thinking. It is clear he is bias-promotion rather than genuine reasoning in his article.

Massimo makes several good points, most notably that Ferris "makes his case by cherry picking examples, distorting history, and simply ignoring what is not convenient for his thesis." He provides examples to support this claim.

Later, Massimo says, "five minute of serious reflection should have made Ferris realize that he created a straw man with precious little correspondence to reality." Again, he offers counter arguments worth considering.

I am, as with religion vs science, willing to allow both sides validity. I see them as reflecting different aspects of human nature and need. I have always been grossly suspicious of any premise that requires absolute exclusive validity. Nature vs Nurture. Particle vs Wave. Life is seldom so clear cut. My guiding principle is 'it's a spectrum' and from that beginning, I proceed, cautiously, to determine how dark or light the shades of grey are on any issue.

Well worth reading: http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/10/engineers-vs-intellectuals-how-timothy.html

Writing, Bacteria, Evolution, and Rules

I wasn't sure which blog to post this article to. It is science, yes, but it is also philosophy, and very little thought was required to turn that philosophy into writing advice. So, writing, philosophy, and science? Sounds like it belongs right here.


How Life Arose on Earth, and How a Singularity Might Bring It Down
 By George Musser
from Scientific American   September 23, 2011


The origins of life; the process of evolution; the dangers of too rapid growth, but also of stagnation.

Can you see the application to writing?

There is a quote early on, from Sean Carroll. He blogs at Cosmic Variance.

“The purpose of life,” meeting co-organizer and Caltech cosmologist Sean Carroll said in his opening remarks, “is to hydrogenate carbon dioxide.”

Well, that's a downer for all of us who want to believe there's something inherently unique and purposeful about humanity. But as a writer, I see that as a call to remember the true purpose of my work: to write stories.

Writers are not marketing machines; we are not  role-models; we are not advocates for this, that, or anything. Of course, these are aspects of our work, but they are tangential, not essential to what we do. Writers tell stories. In non-fiction, writers provide information.

That's it. That is our whole reason to be. To write. Anything else is the proverbial icing on the cake. Don't get so caught up in the add-ons that you lose sight of your true purpose. Just tell stories.

Back to the article. Inorganic reactions become biological reactions.The evolution of life-forms was driven by the spontaneous generation of complexity.

In writing, we start with a few tools. Words. Sentences. Grammar. Themes that determine how we arrange those elements. Then we reach a critical level, and the ideas take over, dictating the words, forcing the patterns into new lines.

Some people say their characters take over the story and they can no longer tell them what to do. Such willfulness is analogous to the emergence of biological reactions in evolution. What these writers are saying is that the story has found its life. It has evolved from connected words to an entity with a need to grow and develop.

Just as there are millions upon millions of life forms in the past, present, and future of our world, so too are there millions of stories. Like life, they rely on a few basic structures, but also like life, the pressures of their environment, the resources they have, the stimuli they perceive will alter and adapt them in to myriad forms.

Nothing new under the sun? Quite correct. It is not new, it is the history of life and of literature to constantly create new permutations, new adaptations. Infinite variety.

The article goes on to discuss how a strain of bacterium discovered they could use the citrate in their agar, rather than depend upon the glucose. This evolutionary adaptation proved repeatable. (I loved the comment, "Sympathetic murmurs of pity for the grad students spread through the FQXi audience." Grad students do all the long, tedious slog-work essential for science) It's not just making stuff up, folks. It's an incredible amount of painstaking, repetitious labor that leads to science. That's why we don't call it science unless it can be proven and repeated. Not at all the same thing as merely wanting it to be true.

In writing, the old patterns work. We are taught how to craft a sentence, how to develop a character, how to 'show-don't-tell.' But if we read, we discover that the greatest writers break the rules and enhance, even throw out the accepted forms. They bring new ways of telling stories into the world. Innovation drives literature as surely as it drives life.

Many, perhaps most innovations will fail. But a few succeed. Don't be afraid to try new styles, new characters. Never let yourself fall into believing that there's a one-and-only way to write. That said, like the bacteria in the experiment, there's a reason why we are taught rules. They work. If you innovate, you may fail. Be warned.

The end of the article discusses how different systems follow similar patterns. Bacteria, cities, humanity: all follow predictable relations. Smaller organisms have faster metabolisms. People in cities walk faster. And short stories require tighter, more urgent pacing.

Complexity theorist. Now there's a job title I'd love to have. "Complexity theorist Raissa D’Souza of U.C. Davis argued in her talk that when you have coupled complex systems, any break in the growth trends tends to be accompanied by wild fluctuations. Modern society is predicated on growth; stability is tantamount to collapse."

I've long wondered why humans in western cultures are so obsessed with growth. The town I live in, a delightful, charming place, is being destroyed by growth. The university is being mutated into a cancer that absorbs and destroys the quality of life for the campus and the town. But it will be a Big University, and that is, alas, all that matters.

Snarking aside, being big is not, by default, better. Books are too often too long. Don't be afraid to cut. Remove whole scenes. The joy of computer-aided writing is that you can copy out the entire novel in a blink, tear it to shreds, rearrange the bits, keep what works, paste that into a new version, and delete the rest.

Do hire an editor. They aren't enamored with your words, only with the finished product. They have the objectivity to see what is extraneous where you can't bear to let anything go. Trust your editor!

The final advice of the article is one all writers hear frequently. Get off the internet.

Time, lots of time, gave us life on earth. Even more sweeps of time gave us our selves. What's a few months to give life to your words?

Links to Think About

Being deeply and happily absorbed in editing, I find it impossible to post. I know -- excuses, excuses. But there are a few things I've read recently that deserve mention.

The blog, Rationally Speaking, by Massimo Pigliucci is one I check daily. Here are three recent posts that are well worth consideration.

First, the final installment of his series on Ethics. The series is an easily accessible introduction to the question of ethics, and how we interpret and devise ethical systems.

Next, his Seven Questions on Skepticism. As I have written before, being skeptical is work. It is not being a toddler snarking "prove it" with clock-like predictability. It is attempting to see around, inside, and outside a question, trying to understand origins and ramifications, and, above all, recognizing that imposing limitations on yourself, on others, or on ideas is a very serious thing to do. It must be done, but we owe it to ourselves and our society to do so with kindness and understanding, not dogmatic decree. Massimo offers some very good suggestions on how believers and nonbelievers can learn to discuss reasonably even if they can't agree.

Today's post also relates to ethics. Are we innately evil or good? Can we create a society that encourages respect and tolerance? An intriguing read.

Also today, NPR's Adam Frank offers a thought provoking look at time. I have often wondered what it would be like to live in the past, when time was a generality, not an absolute. Where I could say, "this afternoon" to a friend, and not be at all disturbed if they showed up right after lunch or right before dinner, because all that span was, indeed, afternoon. No more specific reference point was available. Of course, the church did have time keeping rituals that defined the day more precisely. And I recall reading that in ancient Rome the day was divided according to sunlight, so a day in summer would be broken into longer units than a day in winter. But still, none of these have the urgent and impelling tenseness of "on the dot' modern time keeping mentality. Life was more relaxed. Was it better? What do you think?

Most People Are Good Drivers

We all laugh when we read studies saying that most people rate themselves as above average in some category. Intelligence, thoughtfulness, honesty, and driving.

Driving home this morning I realized something. Most people *are*  good drivers. Maybe not super-courteous, or following speed limits, but they do stay in their lanes, they don't cut out in front of you (except the twerp who did that to me last fall, drat her), and they stop at stop signs.

Think about it. We rely on people following the basic rules. When someone turns left in front of you and you have the right of way, why are you angry? Because that's abnormal. Not just that it's illegal, but that you expect them to follow the rules.

We assume that people will drive respectfully. Sure, we look both ways even when the light is green -- we know we can't trust everyone to be alert or rational. But we can assume they will be.

It doesn't require any particular religion, or any religion at all. It has nothing to do with race, or age, or gender. Most people don't steal. Most people don't lie -- excluding social lies, or course. Most people are kind most of the time.

We notice the exceptions.

We need to remind ourselves just why we notice bad behavior.

We notice it because most people are good drivers, of cars and in life.

And I thank you all.

Adjacent Possibilities and A New Ethics

The novel that has been getting far and away most of my efforts at revision is (working title) Adjacent Possibilities. It is a story of two people who learn to trust and accept one another. They have friends who help them in this process. They face threats and find ways to conquer fears. They go hiking a lot. And there are cats.

The two main characters are professional philosophers. Between them and me, there are, oh horrors, ideas in the book (trust me -- I am keeping them as low-impact as possible -- ideas don't sell).

The title reflects one of the dominant themes of the book. Life holds more than we can see, but not what is out of reason.

We can imagine gods, faeries, demons, aliens; but they are not provable. They are not rational possibilities, not adjacent to reality. One can argue: if I can see them to believe in them, they *might* be real. But that is not rational, only wishful.

I can see myself as a published author. It may not happen, but there is a clear chain of events that are in the real world that could lead to this new reality. It is adjacent to my current reality, and therefore possible.

Corollary to this, if we are presented with proof of something, even if we thought it outside reality, even if we don't want to believe it, we have to accept it or forfeit our rational integrity. Climate shift falls into this category.

The relationships between the characters in this novel are of adjacent possibilities. New ways of thinking and seeing alter what is possible in their lives. 

Another theme of the book is ethics. What is right and wrong, and why. In their philosophic research, my characters ponder this question.

And this has been troubling me as well. I cannot accept that there is an absolute morality. To do so would put many actions that are obviously necessary, perhaps even virtuous as evil. A simple example: do not kill. If someone tries to kill me, and in defending myself I inadvertently cause the death of my assailant, am I immoral?

No.

The history of humanity shows that times and conditions alter what we accept as moral behavior. But I am equally troubled by relativistic morality. We cannot say that everything is flexible. We need some sort of guidelines.

The solution seems to me to be that we establish ethics within our culture. This allows us to live together as a community. But, if it becomes clear that an accepted ethical belief is causing harm to members of our society, then we need to moderate our ethics.

This is exactly what happens when we accept that gays and women are just as human as the men who have traditionally dominated our culture. In the past, morality meant abiding by rules of behavior that kept these people in charge, and kept society within limits of which they approved.

Greater education has allowed us to realize that more people than those few deserve respect. Society has to reshape itself to accept people and behaviors that hurt no one as ethical and equal, even though they lessen the absolute control of the dominant group.

That the dominant group resists is inevitable. They don't want to lose their control. That many of the people they've rendered unable to think for themselves also resist is, unfortunately, inevitable. But those who break free, who learn to recognize human equality unhindered by past cultural shibboleths -- these are the creators of the morality of the future. Humans, whatever their age, their skin color, their gender, their sexual preferences; all humans deserve the freedom to choose their life. Repressive, archaic morality must not be used as a weapon against them, as long as they do not hurt or hinder others from equal freedoms.

To demand adherence to a moral code derived from an unprovable and irrational entity is a blatant attempt to deny full humanity to everyone in the society.

We have an adjacent possibility. Humans can accept that we create ethical codes to provide a framework in which we can live as communities. We can accept that there will be minor differences, but we can agree that, as long as no one is hurt by the actions of others, everyone should have the freedom to choose their own life, without harassment or repercussions.

We must never treat any other human as less important, less real than ourselves. Politicians who cut benefits to the needy in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy should be recognized as immoral. Anyone who would rob, or rape, or harass others on an individual, institutional, or national scale should be equally abhorred. Laws, necessary to maintain societies, should reflect these values.

This is a morality that protects all and harms no one. This is possible.

Rethinking Argument

We tend to make up our minds for emotional reasons. Then we identify with our conclusions, and find ourselves threatened or angry when someone tries to alter our conclusions. The more comfort we derive from our belief-based conclusion, the more fiercely we resist someone trying to change it.

Hence all the hostility amongst religions, or competing scientific theories.

We should be, at the very least, polite in our arguments -- and always have good, solid supporting evidence.

For politeness:  How to Argue on the Internet and Linguistic Politeness Research Group

For good, solid arguments :

http://www.smbc-comics.com/

Laughter As Philosophy - can it make us see reason?

This sounds to be a movie worth watching. I've looked at several interviews and clips; you can get links to more from youtube.

Bill Maher wants us to see that religion is created by humans to control other humans. As he says, 'no one knows'.

No one knows what happens when you die. Why would you accept the beliefs of someone who claims special knowledge? They're only human - just like you.

He hopes the rational 16% will stand up and be seen.

Maybe comedy will help. It certainly can't hurt.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHH2JItePlc

Anger as Ink

What motivates us?

Compassion? Anger? Hate? Love?

What makes us want to keeping pushing, struggling to accomplish what needs to be done?

Life sets up more than sufficient obstacles. Just the every day work of surviving holds us in place, keeps us from reaching out too far towards what we want.

Other people hold us back. Not only out of spite or their needs, but simply because we are tied to them through so many types of bonds. But those bonds hold us to them, and thus back from what we want to become.

We set obstacles for ourselves: inertia, apathy, fear - oh yes, fear. The fear of failing, the fear of being laughed at - even the fear of succeeding.  I want this. But what if I get it and I don't like it after all? Then what have I?

My biggest motivation seems to be anger. Initially at other people, then at the fool I am, but also at myself for believing I cannot do what I've set out to accomplish. For believing what others want me to believe rather than admitting, or even allowing hope of admitting what I know to be true about myself.

Anger is what forces me to realize that I am my own worst enemy. I cannot rest until I cause problems for myself, and then, when I've made enough of a mess, I can finally recognize it and start to clean it up.

The price is high. It is not a good way to accomplish your goals - alienating people, deliberately making problems for yourself. But if it increases the pressure enough that an explosion, however small, happens, then I suppose it's worth it. Anything to get out of despair and back into action.

Hopefully someday action will come without such finagling. Leaving a trail of self-destruction is not the best way to get out of a swamp and onto solid ground.

But to be angry at all is, for me, an amazing thing. It means I am finally learning that I don't have to bow my head and take blame for what others impose on me. I am not stuck. I can break out.

So anger becomes the ink to my pen. I can write, because I have to prove I am not incapable, not stupid, not such a fool as life, and the habits I've learned in life make me believe I am.

Having once done so, well, there's a whole world of new problems to face. But at least anger gives the energy to meet the challenge.

Cracked, and Writing is Despair - when it's not elation

I was doing my morning's routine of reading comics, then blogs. Science, philosophy; and there's a few writing ones I like to follow. Though for writing I mostly use Twitter - a random idea jumps out and says "Here! This is what you've been needing to think about!" For which I am truly, truly grateful.

Anyways, on one of the philosophy blogs I followed a link and discovered that  the book I've been working one for the last year is, apparently, a cheap flimsy watered-down version of the sort of novels some very famous (in the right circles) (which I obviously don't inhabit)  (which is another point of despair) person has been writing for many years now.

All my hundreds of hours of research, my hundreds of hours of writing, my in progress hundreds of hours of editing - for what?

And I am sunk once again in inescapable gloom.

What's the point? I know I am not unique, that no one is unique, that every story has been told thousands of thousand of times... but I was feeling pretty good about my book up to that moment.

I used to be a very stable person. Not without upheavals, but generally rational, reasonable, and not prone to gloom.

Since becoming a writer, my life is the proverbial roller-coaster. And not with slow steady swings from elation to despair.

Oh no. That would be too easy. Like a toddler with a light switch my brain leaps from extreme to extreme, within the same bleeding sentence.

So then I find this: http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-to-become-author-in-5-incredibly-difficult-steps/

I don't know how I hadn't seen it before. Cracked is a wonderful place for researched information in a quirky, irreverent style.

Being able to laugh, even though being reminded yet again (and I didn't need the reminder - I never forget) that I am not in the tiniest bit unique, made me feel better.

And I will write today. How could I not? It is who I am, for good or ill.

Life, Cilantro, and Philosophy

I must issue a disclaimer.

I am not a philosopher.

I've taken quite a few philosophy courses. For several of those I was fortunate enough to have a professor whose chief concern was making us think, rather than memorizing dates and themes. It is no surprise, then, that the philosophy professor in my novel takes this approach to her basic classes: teach them to think, to understand how to frame an argument, to identify fallacy, and you have given them skills that will enhance their lives.

Life, to me, is about ideas. Glorious, inspiring, thought-provoking ideas. Comfortable or not, ideas spark what is unique in us – our thoughts and dreams.

Human thought and action are shaping the world. I come down fully on the side of naming this the Anthropocene. We are too powerful a force to be ignored, even geologically. And what we do is not always good for the present or the future. But as a species, we seem to be helpless against beliefs. 

Beliefs and ideas are not the same. Some are working-valid. I believe that people should obey the law. The law says you do not allow religion in the schools. I believe that people who pray in school are criminals and should be held accountable as such. These are beliefs, but they are based on facts.

I also believe my cats are the most adorable creatures that ever lived. I know this is false. It is my opinion-belief. I can believe it if I wish, but I cannot, must not expect others to agree with me.

I know the difference between belief that is a personal opinion, and belief that is based on some evidence, and facts.

When I say 'I admire Bertrand Russell', this does not mean wholesale endorsement. Then I would be a Russell-ian, a follower rather than one who reads and thinks based upon what is read.

Following kills the mind. We need to learn to think. To question, analyze, and evaluate based on evidence, not authority.

When someone says, 'It's true. I read it in a book' they are admitting they aren't thinking for themselves. It doesn't matter what book it is – they are accepting dogma.

Now, if they say, 'It might be true. I read a report...' they are more likely to be thinking. First, they have qualified their statement, pending further proof. Second, they are reading reports, or studies, trying to get as close as they can to actual evidence. Third, they are not just reading the headlines, but the substance.

When I write about philosophy and writing, I am not issuing proclamations. I am offering connections I've seen, ideas that I've appreciated. You may, and almost certainly will see them differently.

And that is the beginning of dialogue – rational discussion of ideas. And that, to me, is the greatest joy in life.

Oh, the cilantro? Cilantro is like belief. A little bit can add spice to life. Too much, and it destroys everything else.

My evidence? Mostly anecdotal, I fear. Although I have read that cilantro is one of the love/hate flavors. Few people are neutral. Which makes me wonder why so many restaurants glop it into everything in great hulking handfuls... sorry.

Even a small amount of cilantro and I cannot taste anything else. I could be eating the most exquisite food in the world, and all I'd taste is that chalky, pungent (disgusting) flavor.

New tastes, new impressions, new ideas are too precious to miss.

I try not to be cilantro.

All Roads Still Lead to Philosophy?

Another great procrastination tool. I really need to start a site just for that subject.

I tried the 'all roads' after xkcd published his comic  (read the mouse-over). At that point I found one heading that lead to a loop. It seems to have been fixed now. I read at Measure of Doubt that Wikipedia was working away to fix things after the comic was so popular.

Of course, the first thing I entered was 'cats'. And then 'chocolate'. Their paths meet in Mathematics.

And speaking of cats - I, too, love cats. But rainbows? Really?

Writers And Philosophy: A Series

Why would it be important for a writer to know about philosophy? Writers write. Philosophers… philosophize. Whatever that means.
 

Philosophy is a way to understand the world we live in, including ourselves.

Philosophy is also a structured method of inquiry based on rational arguments.

If the word philosopher makes you think of a guy in a toga, or, for a more compelling character, a naked guy running down the street shouting 'Eureka'*, you're right.

If the word philosopher makes you think of emaciated, unkempt people with shaggy hair and glasses, you're also right. Ditto for tweed jackets with leather elbow patches and employing, even if not actually using a pipe (props are good in character descriptions).

Philosophers are also perfectly normal people you could pass by on the street with nary a second glance.

It isn't the appearance that matters. It's the mind.

Philosophy is using mind to understand the world. It is a method for looking at an unknown and using reason in an attempt to make it known.

Find correlations. Propose a hypothesis. Create rational arguments to support your idea. Then argue, in the active sense of the word, with other thinkers.

But it's not just talk. Philosophy also requires continuing observation, seeking new information and adjusting your position to fit facts as they are confirmed.

Sounds a lot like science, doesn't it?

Science is a product of the philosophic mind. Without embracing a quest for knowledge; true knowledge, not myths or illusion; our world wouldn’t have medicine, indoor plumbing, or computers.

Pick something you really like. Now thank a scientist for it. And even more, thank a philosopher. They laid the ground work that became the scientific method.

That habit of using their mind is why philosophy is important to writers.

Writers create.

They create worlds. Characters. Plots. They devise and solve mysteries. They explore facets of human nature. They delve into the relationships between people.

All these are aspects of the philosopher's work. The methods used to solve real problems in the real world will also help a writer master the complexities of their created world. Focused thought, questioning and analyzing motivations, settings, even plot points: the philosophic method will help you see where you've left holes or created inconsistencies.

Approach your story as its Official Philosopher. Can you make sense of the world as it is presented? Can you use facts given to predict other aspects of that world? If not, then the world is irrational and incomplete. If yes, then you've got a real world to explore with your characters.

In this series we'll explore several facets of storytelling, and show how a philosophic outlook on these points might enrich your creations.

* Eureka – from the Greek heurēka, meaning 'I have found (it)'

The legend: Archimedes got into his bath, and realized that the water spilling out was equal to his body's volume. Hence, the image of him running naked through the streets.

He was later asked to determine the purity of a gold crown, and used his displacement theory to solve the puzzle.