It is said that people are radical in their youth and conservative as adults. However, then people become radical again (or die). The culture savvy adult usually needs a crisis in order to mature and flourish into personhood. But much more than that, she needs a friend.
To be Human is to be wounded
I tried to prod Notme a bit more:
Me: “OK, so, let’s suppose I am a culture savvy adult, a happy thing in my prison. Maybe I’m even authentic. And then I encounter other people who Sincerely Engage with me. How do I then find Meaningness?”
Notme rolled up a large helping of spaghetti on her fork and filled her mouth with it, chewing it thoughtfully. Before quite swallowing she said:
Notme: “Being authentic is one thing, but no, that is not what we want. Authentic you can be without engaging in others. You see, there is sincerity, authenticity, and Sincere Engagements and these three are very different modes of moral conduct.”
She continued, while still chewing:
Notme: “We are social creatures. We are who we are due to different social contexts, when growing up, when going to work or college, in the sports team or friends circle. We call those authentic who keep a moral consistency over different social contexts. This is not a given.” [Continue]
Part II: A Free Prisoner Part III: A Life without Distractions
Part I: Of Stuff and Persons
To be Human is to be wounded
Some people in our town, those of us who could, had succumbed to the summer’s heat and made a habit of making the pleasantly air-conditioned mall a meeting point. Awkwardly I moved across the shiny floor knowing full well that just a few drops of water would turn the surface treacherous. Some days earlier I had injured the big toe of my right foot, and I was visibly limping in order to walk without pain. I could feel people watching me. To be wounded is to be humiliated. My friend Notme had already found a table at the noisy café on the mezzanine and waved for me as I slowly joined her. At the table next to ours were a couple of middle aged business people enjoying what appeared to be a business lunch. Part of me envied their moneyed confidence, another was grateful for the absence of dress codes in my life. At the table on the other side sat Cato the Younger, Sean-Paul Sartre, David Hume, and Nick Cave. I nodded in their direction as I joined my old friend. It had been some time since we last met, and even if I would never admit it, I was eager to tell her what I had come up with: That I had figured out what “meaningness” 1is. As I sat down she said: Continue reading
Thinking of Things has been nominated for two posts from the last year. Go there and vote for Me, or if you prefer, Notme–there are some really great posts there! 😉
The link is here: http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2015/09/vote-for-one-of-the-nominees-for-the-3qd-science-prize-2015.html
The nominated posts are All I didn’t know about Cancer and The Pain in the Brain Game.
Update: Both posts were voted into the semi-final. The Pain in the Brain Game was further selected as a finalist, together with eight great posts, and did not make the top-three selection. See the announcement of the winners here: http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2015/09/the-winners-of-the-3qd-science-prize-2015.html
Next up is the Philosophy Prize!
TT, Thinking of Things, 2015.
The Meaningness of Life
Towards a sincere being.
Immanuel Kant: “Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end.”
This season has been about meaning, and it has been about formations and transformations and how these are connected. And it has been about meaningness, discussed in many and roundabout ways without spelling out what it is. It is time to concretise what is meant by meaningness, as well as to summarise the season.
Thinking Of Things is a way for me to investigate ideas and to spark conversations with those who read, and those who don’t. As such it has been a succesful season, with many conversations in person, email, comments on the posts, and on social media. For the purpose of a line of thought is not its conclusion. The purpose is the line of thought itself, and that it may not end. The word conclusion is a misnomer in this sense; to conclude signifies an end, while in reality it signifies a continuation, a new beginning. A reached conclusion is boring and meaningless without the follow-up question: so what? And thus, with your help, we continue our line of thought together. This is the concluding episode of the season. Read Episode 10
I wrote this a few years ago for a different context and purpose, while bored on a beach in Puerto Rico. The context and purpose were replaced many times over, and the text was forgotten. Now I was reminded of it and I dug it up to be posted here.
I do not remember how I came to realise that all I knew about cancer was wrong, but I remember discussing it with my friend the prostate cancer researcher, who gave me the articles (referred to at the end), which I was reading and writing about on that beach. Maybe I wasn’t that bored after all…
Here it is.
Three of my grandparents died from cancer. One of them was treated with chemotherapy, one with surgery, and one with radiation therapy, all to no avail. These are the three main methods for treating cancer today. Chemotherapy was first used in its current form in 1942. A search for “cancer” on the online data base for medical publications, PubMed.gov, shows that 2.7 million scientific papers have been written on the subject since 19422. Still, the treatments remain the same, albeit more accurate, cheap, and accessible. For some cancers, like some leukaemia or testicular cancers the chemotherapy is highly efficient, while other diagnoses still come with “a few months up to a year” attached to them. So, in a way we are celebrating over 70 years of not improving cancer treatment much.
Why is that? Why has a cure for cancer not emerged in the course of those millions of publications? Well, cancer is a tricky beast and we are only recently beginning to learn how it works. We are also beginning to learn how cancer does not work (but we thought it did). Also, maybe more surprisingly, we are starting to learn why we do not get cancer (most of the time) and that a tumour is not necessarily a bad thing. Let’s start the story with how it does not work. Continue reading
In a recent comment in Nature, George Ellis and Joe Silk3 employ Karl Popper’s falsifiability criterion of science to demote superstring theory to the realm of pseudoscience. At the heart of the debate lie two questions: Is superstring theory a scientific theory? And if so, how likely is it to be true? Here I will predominantly try to address the second question. I agree with many of the conclusions of Ellis and Silk but will make the case that we can find a more viable reasoning for them by joining Karl Popper’s falsifiability condition with Thomas Kuhn’s analysis of science as a progression of different phases taking us from one paradigm to another. In order to contextualise the discussion of Kuhn’s ideas, I will first take a brief historical detour back to the scientific revolution of the 17th century. Continue reading
A false sense of insecurity
The free prisoner’s dilemma
We perceive the world, and we perceive what is in the world. We separate objects from objects, and we ascribe them value. We create salient landscapes. And then we sort. We categorise, we make lists, and we understand.
Here is an example of a taxonomy, a list which orders and sorts something:
Three parts to understanding:
1. Definition. The ability to separate stuff from other stuff and to assign them emotional value or meaning. (See Episode 2)
2. Taxonomy. The sorting of things into categories. (See e.g. this list.)
3. Intuition. To feel as if something is understood, and thus have it become an intuition, gut feeling and “common sense”. (See Episode 4).
And a feeling of understanding emerges.
Read Episode 9