A Humanistic Social Structure

A successful social structure must be especially sensitive to the issue of status. Humans hate being subordinated to others. They will either strive to escape a position of subordination, repress the fact of subordination, or reluctantly accept a life of suffering if they know of no better realistic alternatives. We must therefore devise a social system that promotes status relations of equality.

However, equal status is only the first prerequisite to the happy society. There must also exist sufficient opportunities for engaging in enjoyable economic activity. A method of producing marketable goods and services through the producers’ pursuit of their passions is necessary. Additionally, this system must also be capable of harmoniously distributing the less enjoyable work.

So let’s say there is a firm that follows these principles. How would the consumer verify this? A sophisticated system of reviews is one option. An “Enlightened Economy Network” might also work, but would necessitate official verification, which adds unnecessary labor-needs, raises prices, and worst of all adds a layer of bureaucracy. Alternatively, workers might simply not want to work at a firm that does not follow these principles. However, there are always those desperate for income who will tolerate poor conditions and not speak out for the fear of losing their source of income. Still, we mustn’t let challenges of this sort get in the way of the creation of a system superior to the current one. The beginning is in the promotion of the new system.

What is necessary to start a humanistic firm are adequately skilled people and financial capital to purchase what cannot be produced internally (unless those other firms are willing to barter directly or through barter credits). This does not seem like an insurmountable challenge. One must begin by simply advertising the idea for the firm.

(Related Post: "My Economic Utopia")

On Boredom

After complaining about boredom, my friend asked: "In what way could you grow or adapt around the boredom?" At first it seemed like a silly question, but then after thinking about it a bit I figured that I might gain something from blogging about my boredom. You see, I've suffered from boredom for a long time. Reading books and blogs can only entertain me for so long. I would have music too make too, but my music computer broke. Even then, I don't think adding that activity to my repertoire would solve the problem. It would help, but not solve it.

What I've been missing all of these years is a sufficient dose of engaging social interaction. Perhaps if I lived in a house with all of my most engaging friends, I'd be set, but that's unrealistic. And then even if I did figure out how to make that happen, it might still not work. You see, what I seek is deep personal and intellectual conversation. I want conversation that develops the intellectual thought of those involved. I want conversation that opens up the cores of the participants. I want to get to the most basic essence of the other. I want to understand their most basic desires and fears. I want to reach the solidarity that develops when that core is reached--that solidarity based on the realization that deep down inside we are essentially the same.

I wonder if other people seek this level of intimacy. The idea probably freaks out a good number of people. But surely there are some up their that share my desire. I don't know what the roots of it are. Perhaps this desire of mine came into being through my psychological development. I really don't know.

Another thing that engages me is problem solving. I think it would be nice to work on solving important problems with others. I suppose this hits more at the world of work than the world of friendship, but it can exist in both worlds [though if within the world of friendship, the activity itself could still be technically defined as work (in this case we ought to ponder whether it would be a positive development to complete some proportion of economic production through friend-based teams)].

Well I don't know what else there is to say, so I'll end here. Perhaps I'll be back soon.

Enjoying Life

Snow Patrol's "Chasing Cars" is this blog's theme song. Go ahead and play it.

Two nights ago I had a conversation with a friend about the significance of life. We both recognized the infinite significance of an individual life. We agreed about the importance of people recognizing this so they may have the opportunity to live their limited lives to the fullest. Indeed it would be a tragedy to waste this wondrous opportunity.

However, enjoying life is not a straightforward task. Though my friend found it easy to be awed by our world's many features, my body does not react with nearly the same enthusiasm. Yes, the world is incredibly complex and there are always new things to see and understand, but so what? Moreover, recognizing the finitude of our unique lives could very much lead to fear and existential crisis rather than awe. I've been there, done that. Just look at this blog's opening posts.

Nevertheless, during that conversation I concluded that the point of life is to enjoy, while the ethic is to help others enjoy. I was instantly presented with a grand challenge: enjoying life as best as I can. I thought about how I might do that and made plans to carry out the task the following day. Surely in all of New York City I would find something enjoyable to me.

The next day things didn't quite go as planned. Plans to spend time with a good friend did not work out. Instead of enjoying the wonders of existence, I became frustrated as a result of my plans not working out. I had no good plan B. I ultimately decided to cool down my frustration with a walk through some areas I hadn't yet explored around the border of West Village and Tribeca.

I did my best to be awed by the little things around me. I touched the tree bark, noticed particularities of buildings, and thought about the life-giving air I was breathing in. I felt calm, almost serene . . . but not joyful. I headed toward the Hudson and found a nice spot under a couple of trees with low-lying branches. Once I identified the exact spot I wanted to sit in, I proceed to do so.

I sat there calmly, watching the people walk and run by. I then took the camera out of my backpack and took some pictures as the sun was setting. Again, I felt calm, almost serene . . . but not joyful. I took my cellphone out of my pocket, debated what I should do with it, and decided to send a text to my best friend: "I love you." I sat there awhile longer, got back up, and continued my walk down Hudson River Park.



I discovered all kinds of things during that part of the walk: an indoor sports field, tennis courts, basketball courts, metallic public tables and chairs. I thought to myself "I'm gonna have to come back here." The end of the metallic chairs and tables also marked the end of the park's nice grassy strip. I therefore decided to find the closest subway and head back to Brooklyn. I walked down Laight Street, crossed a pedestrian bridge going over the expressway, and soon after spotted the A-C-E. http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

Though yesterday's walk was a nice break from my normal routine, I certainly did not enjoy the day to the fullest. I know that I enjoy spending time with good friends, playing games (sports, boardgames, whatever), hiking, roadtripping, singing, producing music, and watching Detroit Lions football games, but there's really not that much else. Well I like doing my lifestyle architecture work, and I would probably enjoy teaching, but besides these and perhaps a few other work-related activities, I can't think of much else I enjoy. Photography can be good at times, as can watching a movie and a few other other activities, but these activities don't bring me the greatest level of enjoyment.

I suppose the answer is to restructure my life so as to do more of the things I really enjoy on a day to day basis. The challenge is that my happiest moments are social moments, so it's not just a matter of restructuring my own life, but also of restructuring the lives of others. And before I even try to begin that process I must find these special persons to restructure my life with. Now that seems daunting. I'm therefore not very hopeful right now. Perhaps I need my own lifestyle architect.

My Economic Utopia

I feel bad contemplating the idea of doing enjoyable work that does not contribute to the basic areas of American consumption: food, water, housing, energy, transportation, healthcare, household appliances, computers, cell phones, stereos, air conditioning, insurance, banking, public parks. Could I possibly work within these fields and be happy? It's nice to contribute to the improvement of products. It would be good to help design more energy efficient and lower-priced goods. But this task of improvement only makes up a small fraction of an enterprise. The bulk of the work is in producing and servicing the current products. But how exciting can it be to build and sell washing machines? Whose first choice would this be? This type of work is essentially a chore. Thus, it seems that all we can do is 1) minimize the amount of time we spend on chore work, and 2) create conditions of chore work that facilitate socialization with co-workers and (in some instances) customers.

If we all do our share of the chore work, that should leave plenty of creative work for us to do. Those with a talent for teaching can teach, engineers can engineer, designers can design, etc. Things aren't looking so bad anymore, right? It gets even better.

Lastly there's the artistic work. This is the type of work that a small percentage of especially talented individuals are able to earn a living on. Whereas the creative work is something almost all people can earn money from, artistic work is more limited. As is presently the case, only a small percentage will be able to earn money from this type of work. However, all will be able to do artistic work in their free time.

I imagine that in this improved society I'm describing, it would be acceptable for the artists (musicians, painters, athletes, etc) to be exempted from the regular shares of chore work and creative work. They would be totally excepted from the creative work and partially excepted from the chore work. Though they wouldn't do their fair share of chore work, they would spend about 10 percent of their work time on those tasks, which I believe is enough to establish solidarity with the rest of society. We all benefit from this organization because we benefit from excellent music, sports, visual art. A world of mediocre art world certainly be a world of a lower quality of life.

So this is the economic utopia I've come up with. I'd be happy to hear any alternatives or amendments.

Modern Life Sucks

I graduated from College a month and a half ago and now need to find a job in order to survive economically. The problem is that when I think of all the roles that are played in our modern economy, the overwhelming majority of them seem quite horrible. Working as a waiter? Cashier? Bank teller? Factory worker? Construction worker? Research assistant? No thanks to all of these. Yes, there are roles to play that seem great. I would love to be a singer, or perhaps an educator, maybe a consultant, definitely a life coach, a therapist, a clinical psychologist, a psychiatrist, perhaps a counselor. But the problem is that even though I could find a role that I enjoy, I'd still be working within a system that necessitates others to spend their working hours doing unpleasant work. My Kantian conscience doesn't do well with this.

I previously thought that a Utopian society is possible if we make all the right changes. However, I'm starting to have second thoughts. Perhaps we can only lessen the unpleasantness of most work roles. Perhaps we can only lessen the depersonalizing and alienating conditions of most private and public hierarchical workplaces. Perhaps I'll have to settle for this limited progress.

Let's say that we all equally slit up the most menial tasks that must get done. This does not mean that the work that is left is spectacular. Professional work is usually quite specialized and operates within bureaucracies. Is being a politician really an engaging job? Doesn't engineering for a company get old after a while? Would I really want to manage mutual funds four of five days a week? I know I certainly would not want to manage an insurance company. That can't be fun. Even being a doctor seems quite tedious to me. I mean, how does that not get old? And think of lawyers; they just argue their clients' cases day in and day out. Imagine doing that for thirty years.

Perhaps I'm being too tough. Perhaps there are people who love doing these professional jobs. Perhaps the people who currently perform these jobs are quite satisfied. Well I certainly don't get this impression from the professionals I come across.

I just want people to enjoy their work. I recognize that task variety is not enough. We need our economy to be based on work that is intrinsically interesting and pleasurable--even after 25 years of doing the work. Is this possible? I'm not sure. All I can do try to make it happen.

However, if I see that pleasurable work has severe limits, there is still one important strategy left to use: the radical minimization of one's consumption. It's really quite simple: the less we spend, the less we have to work. Modern-day labor-saving technology makes the acquisition of food very cheap compared to pre-industrial times. Additionally, we can replace cars and trains with bicycles, which cost much less per month to operate. And there's no need for eating out; nor for paying for entertainment.

So maybe modern life doesn't have to be so bad after all. We shall see . . .

Work and Potential

The thought of working most jobs frightens me. Yes, the obligation of performing monotonous tasks day in and day out is a big reason for this. However, an even greater reason has to do with the opportunity cost of working a job. Even if the job is fun, one still must give up the potential for what could have alternatively been created during that time. If one is seeking only their own pleasure in life, finding a fun job would be ideal. However, I am primarily seeking the maximization of collective happiness. I therefore feel very uncomfortable when I must devote my time to activities that I do not view as the most essential for the achievement of that goal.

Being stuck doing tasks below my greatest utilitarian potential would plague my mind with a feeling of forced immorality. This is precisely what I fear. Hopefully I'll find an economic role that steers me clear of this.

Films and Opportunity

I just finished watching The Social Network. It was an engaging film--and it is this point that has motivated to write. I don't watch very many films, but I have to admit that the feeling of being absorbed in a life other than your own is quite spectacular. I feel like I gain a great deal from having this experience with films with intellectual content. I'm not about to create nuanced criteria for what does and what doesn't fall under this category. There is a spectrum. Roughly, films centered around car chases and explosions most likely won't make the cut. As for the rest, that's where one has to do the mental work to determine that for oneself. It should be a an enjoyable activity. Well at least it is for someone with my cognitive disposition.

After finishing The Social Network life felt so grand. Living that world for two hours filled my mind with endless possibilities for my life. And this possibility is true, but only because of the privileged position I find myself in. Though I don't have large financial assets to draw from, I'm an American citizen attending a relatively elite college in New York City. If I was born to a poor family in Venezuela or Bangladesh it would be a very different story unfortunately. Maybe my intrinsic talent could have pulled me out of that dire situation and allowed me to succeed; but maybe not. Thus, I feel incredibly lucky to have the opportunity I have, and also feel an incredible obligation to make sure that as many people in the world as possible are given the same (or hopefully an even better) opportunity.

It saddens me to think of what someone my age living in poverty in some underdeveloped country would be thinking at the end of this same film. They certainly could not feel the same sense possibility I felt. Would they instead feel resentment? Or would they feel a different set of positive emotions? I could see how they might be inspired by a rags to riches story, as many poor Americans have been throughout our country's history. But this isn't a rags to riches story, it's the story of a group of talented a privileged young men making it big. Well I don't know. All I do know is that I have to do all in my power to create equal opportunity on this planet.

The Knowledge I Seek

I am thinking hard about this question of what knowledge I seek. What exactly do I need to know in order to make the changes in the world I am pursuing? What exact knowledge do I need to seek out? There are many academic disciplines in existence. Which contain the information I need? If none do, which are best equipped to create that information?

At core I want a world where deep and critical thinking abounds and where institutions are humanistic. What are the barriers to this? Are they economic, political, psychological, or cultural? Or do barriers exist within each of these realms? Certainly these realms are all interrelated, but where does that leave me? I don't think this implies that the entirety of the answer lies in systems theory. As for what it does imply, I don't yet know. Perhaps the key is simply to promote deep and critical thinking and humanistic institutions. Knowledge can be pursued as practice necessitates. Is this indeed the right strategy?

For a long time I've had the idea that eventually all of the key pieces of knowledge I've gained throughout my life will coalesce into The Answer. Perhaps this idea has unnecessarily led me toward many of the episodes of stress I've experienced. But, on the other hand, hard work toward The Answer does sometimes pay off. For example, there is Kant's Categorical Imperative, Keynes' General Theory, and Einstein's Theory of Relativity. But who says I have to quit my theoretical work while I do my practical work? Matthew Arnold inspected schools while he developed his ideas. John Stuart Mill worked for the East India Company. These are two of my biggest heroes. If they mixed the practical with the theoretical, I don't see what danger there is in my doing the same.

Being Overwhelmed

I feel overwhelmed right now. This is no rare occurrence in my life. I remember early in 10th grade writing in my journal that I wanted to do many many things. I couldn't limit myself to one or a few specializations:

I wonder what I will do with my life? It seems that there is not enough time to try all that I want. I don’t want to pick one career. This sucks. I want to do everything I ever wanted to do, see what I accomplish. I want to be #1 in the world. I can’t settle. I need to understand everything.

I wanted to have the world in my hands. I wanted experience everything it has to offer. And indeed I also wanted to be subordinate to no one. At that time I saw the world as inevitability hierarchical and so strove to reach the top of that hierarchy. Now of course I see that there are other ways, ways which will not violate Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative.

I now find myself with a similar feeling. Or rather, the feeling never really went away. I still hold those same yearnings I held almost 10 years ago. I still want the world in my hands; or more accurately, in my head. I feel so many projects invading my brain. I want to do them all. But I can't. Yes, I enjoy this weeks reading for my "Worlds of Work" class; but I also want to work on my Social Progress Network Website; and I also want to just think and try to synthesize everything I know; and I also want to go out and spend time cool people, like those I met at this past StartingBloc Institute for Social Innovation in Boston. I am being pulled in different directions, which results in moving in no direction.

So how do I collect myself? How do I get my mind to focus on one task, while not losing sight of the grander picture? How can I pursue my goals within a healthier state of mind--one devoid of the overwhelming feeling?

Knowledge and Ego

It is a common trap to religiously pursue knowledge. We believe we are doing a virtuous thing: we are becoming wise; we are understanding the world at a greater depth. But this pursuit of the greatest understanding is both impossible and a mask wherein the pursuit of superiority is hidden.

The non-egocentric pursuit of knowledge aims at either self-fulfillment or a practical end such as the improvement of a machine or the improvement of a society. Nevertheless, we must be careful because these motives can be intertwined with the egocentric motive. This intertwining makes the destructive egocentric motive much harder to spot. We must therefore keep our awareness sharp in order to defend ourselves against this ego-seducing trap.

The Science of Sleep

I just finished watching The Science of Sleep. It's a fascinating film about a creative and quirky young man who has trouble differentiating dreams from reality. He's originally from Mexico, but moves to France, where his mom lives, after his father dies. There the young man, Stephan, meets Stephanie. The issues surrounding the switching between dreams and reality are very interesting, but I'm more interested in the relationship between Stephan and Stephanie.

Stephanie is also a creative person. She plays the piano and also likes to create things with her hands like Stephan. In the scene where Stephan and Stephanie really start to get to know each other they start planning creative projects together. The first project has to do with creating some kind of scene to record through stop motion. They get really excited talking about and foraging for the supplies they'll use for the project. However, since it's late they have to postpone the project for another day.

Stephan goes on with his crazy life that mixes dreams and reality. He goes to work, works in his imaginary studio, etc. Stephan and Stephanie eventually get close, but Stephanie ends up rejecting Stephan--no surprise since he's a lunatic. The demonstration of Stephan's emotions is brilliant. You see his hidden fears and desires through his dreams, and you see that carry over into his real life. You see his anxieties and anguish play out. You see him stoop to acting like a child when nothing else works near the end of the film.

I've never seen a film that delves this deep into the emotions one feels at the various stages of a relationship. I highly recommend this film. It's powerful. I almost never watch a film twice, but I'll probably make an exception for this one. I wanted to to take notes while watching it. I probably will the second time around. Now I can really understand why some people see more philosophical content in stories than in theoretical works. Concreteness is powerful.


Update - 3/8/11

There is an important scene at the end I forgot to mention. When Stephan and Stephanie begin to get close again, Stephan playfully throws something out the window. This creates an imaginary fire that they need to put out. When they are running around solving this problem together, you see that same energy you saw at the beginning when they were discussing the strop motion project. What they are doing is carrying out tasks together. They are essentially working together. They are cooperating with each other toward the accomplishment of a shared goal. And they are having fun in the process, as kids have fun building LEGO castles or blanket forts together. It was beautiful to see this. It seemed like the apex of happiness. It presents an important lesson in the science of relationships and happiness.

Re-evaluating my Life

I will be graduating from college in a couple months. Thus, naturally I've been thinking my life through quite a bit (though I do this all the time anyway, so I don't know how much graduation has to do with it; perhaps it add a little something extra). I've been continuing work on my social progress projects of course, but I've also been focusing on the elements I need in my life in order to live happily. I've come to a few conclusions.

1) I need to make sure music plays a large role in my life. I've had a deep passion for music since middle school, but I began to neglect it as I became more focused on intellectual work some years after high school. It was bad enough the last years I was living in San Diego, but after I moved to New York without my music equipment, my musical side became even more starved. I've used the excuse of not having my gear here for not going about changing the situation--though to my credit I did look for people to collaborate with and did take music related courses at school when it I could. But now that I'm realizing just how essential music is to my happiness, I'm not going to let anything get in my way. I have paper to write lyrics; I have musical resources at school; I have passable computer speakers at home. So now the journey begins.

2) In realizing through my own life experience how important music is to my life, I also realized how limited the "wisdom" of professional scholarship can be. Many of the journal articles and books produced by academics have a very narrow relevance and do not connect to the legitimate core purpose of enhancing the well-being of society. Russell Jacoby has done a great job of describing the incentive structure behind this failure, however, I want to address the problem from a different angle. What I want to point out is that when it comes to my own concrete, real life happiness, I have been able to pull little wisdom from my college courses. I don't want to say that the production of academics is useless. I know this is not the case because I have gained much wisdom from reading books. However, the large majority of academic productions do not contain the life-changing wisdom I am seeking. I'm not saying that I have not gained important knowledge from my college courses--I have. I am arguing that this scholarly wisdom is narrow and lacking reflectiveness in the grander sense. Thus, the courses I have taken have seemed very distant from the content of my everyday life. But, I do not see this as necessary. I see it as an entrenched habit perpetuated by the mechanisms of academia's bureaucracy.

3) I think that I will be able to enjoy myself more If I am more liberal with my spending on entertaining activities. Working more in order to be able to travel and attend fun music events would probably better strategy for achieving an overall happy life. The fact of the matter is that grand events require grand resources, and most individuals are not going to foot the bill in the hope that others will reciprocate. The stakes are simply too high. Thus monetizing those activities makes them feasible. Though in theory it's all the same, since one is essentially trading the labor they they put into putting together one event for the ability to enjoy an event organized by someone else. However, the process of putting together these events must not be alienating to the laborers. Unfortunately, this principle is very rarely upheld in practice. It's not that it is a very difficult feat to accomplish, it's that few economic actors take the issue into consideration. But this is okay because alternative economic worlds are possible.

Getting back to my second conclusion--which is my core conclusion, it was the situation I found myself in, along with the advice of my friends, that were significant in my realization. I was unhappy, I thought about it, I shared it, and then I thought about it some more. Yes, academic knowledge influenced these conversations and thoughts, but academic knowledge alone tends to not go very far in these issues of fundamental human importance. Academic knowledge is largely produced for its own world. Others can go in and salvage some of that raw material; but this process of joining and shaping disparate materials for a truly life-enhancing purpose is something very different from the academic norm of activity. I wish this were not the case. I wish a bridge to this outcome would be constructed within the Academy. I know it is possible. However, until that happens, students will have to create that bridge themselves or else face the unfortunate situation of coming out of the Academy lost, scared, and ignorant.

Grasping the World

The world seems to be too grand for any one mind to grasp. We have all kinds of experts, but they are just that: experts; they have special knowledge in a particular subject. No one could possibly be an expert in everything. So it's no surprise that problems are constantly popping in the world.

So we have people who have studied different things thinking about the world. Maybe one has studied ethics, another economics, the next one political theory, and the last one educational psychology. Is the case that the world must be run through each of them sticking to the issues pertinent to their studies? What if their are issues that cross disciplinary boundaries? Do we then just shove the four experts into a room and keep the door locked until they've come to a consensus? Let's say this is the case. Let's say they do come up with the right answer. That would then imply that everyone else should follow their recommendations. This world would be a technocracy. It would be a world where the masses are dependent on the elite of technical knowledge. We better hope our elite really are right then.

I struggle with figuring out what is worth knowing. On the one hand I see a world of practical challenges: creating and distributing food, information, entertainment, consumer goods, medicines. On the other hand I feel that humans can live in a fundamentally better way; that if we only took the time to really think about it we would decide and then move forward in changing the way we live our lives. But how far can the deepest of thinking take us? How different can things really be? Labor still has to be spent on the practical challenges. I cannot imagine the need for this ever going away. Furthermore, isn't a huge component of the good life in figuring out the best way of meeting life's practical challenges? So then what the heck does research into the philosophy of economics matter? (This is something I've been really wanting to study, by the way). I suppose those experts help the economics experts be better economics experts. I suppose the philosophy of economics experts devote a bunch of time to the philosophical issues of economics and then pass on the most significant discoveries to the economics experts. It's like research and development: A bunch of basic research gets done, but then only a small percentage of it leads to the development of something useful. That's just the way it has to be. It's a rational and progressive procedure.

But as individuals we need to know how to act optimally. This means we need a lot of information. But we can't delve deeply into everything. Further, if we seek out the expert opinion on all the issues we'll discover that the answers are not clear cut. Or are they? Most likely we're looking at a spectrum from expert consensus to significant disagreement. But let's make this concrete by thinking of specific examples. Economists? They disagree. Doctors? Less so. Pollution experts? I don't know what the heck they think; they've never communicated it to me. Ethicists? They don't get much media time either--though I doubt they have anything near a consensus. Psychiatrists? They definitely disagree; and again, we don't hear much from them unless we have a serious mental problem and seek their help (or if we watch Dr. Phil). So what I'm getting at is that most experts don't communicate much with the masses. So we're really on are own with a bunch of things we know little about. So either the experts need to step it up with the communication or we the masses need to step it up with our knowledge . . . or perhaps we need a mixture of both.

Indeed I believe the answer is the mixture of both, but this still leaves significant questions about desirability of a technocratic, specialized world. Due to the grandness of these questions, I cannot delve deeply into them here. Instead I'll leave it as an open issue to ponder over and continue on to a different matter: the role of this very blog and other media like it. I'm not an expert, yet my words are being read. My readers are learning something. Yet, what is that something if I have no real expert knowledge? I'm just a dude who thinks about things. There are lots like me out there. Some are less well read, some more so. And there are those who do this on a larger stage, such as Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reilly. Why does anyone care what we think? We're just one perspective; a single learning process making sense of things. But if we're not experts on anything, what points of significance can we possibly make? Theoretically, for any possible topic there should be an expert available to provide a better judgment. So right now it would be better for you to be reading the work of the expert on experts. There should be a few sociologists out there who specialize in precisely this. But I guess it wouldn't be as entertaining to read a blog that's always on the same topic. But again, I will emphasize that point that experts on experts don't communicate much with the masses. So it seems that with all these cases we need intermediaries to facilitate that process. Perhaps this is what my role ought to be.