Constructing constructions

The relative and construcitivist in me would be inclined to argue that absolutely everything is of human construct. However, I do not believe in superiority of the human race or that we possess the "power" and capabilities to produce such complex structures and concepts. Wouldn't we understand everything if we created it all? To address, the direct name and implications of the Constructing Reality course, I quote Philip K. Dick: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." However, mankind as a whole has chosen to accept mind over matter and in that way, a distorted view has been created which can only be disentangled through accumulation of knowledge through observation, experience, and more questions.

Soul Food

If music be the food of love, play on.-William Shakespeare

Most of us acknowledge that music can express an emotion but it wasn’t until recently that it was scientifically proven that music can actually affect our brains. According to Chordpiano.com, “Quoted in a 2001 article in USA Today, Suzanne Hasner, chairwoman of the music therapy department at Berklee College of Music in Boston, says even those with dementia or head injuries retain musical ability.” How’s that for a universal language? Music is processed in the amygdala which is the part of the brain that controls emotions and memory. Suzanna Hanzer explains that this is why we connect certain songs to childhood (or any other past) experiences such as our first kiss, first slow dance, or summertime in Maine. The American Music Therapy Organization claims music therapy may allow for "emotional intimacy with families and caregivers, relaxation for the entire family, and meaningful time spent together in a positive, creative way" yet they cannot pinpoint why yet.

For centuries, music has played a significant role in cultures, individual lives and memories, and the universe as a whole. Even William Shakespeare acknowledged its importance and mystery in his play Twelfth Night. Aldous Huxley defined music as expressing the inexpressible after a silence. Louis Armstrong was quoted referring to jazz, “Man, if you gotta, ask, you’ll never know.” George Santayana declared that “Music is essentially useless, as life is.” Perhaps music is mystery. So far, no one has been able to explain why we connect so emotionally to it. Because of this inexplicable capability to trigger emotions, memories, feelings, and thoughts beyond our comprehension (most of which are peaceful), why music does what it does is one of the few philosophical questions whose answer can be accepted peacefully as “Just because.”

A variety of different definitions of music.

Musica Instrumentalis

"Music, often an art/entertainment, is a total social fact whose definitions vary according to era and culture," according to Jean Molino. It is often contrasted with noise. According to musicologist Jean-Jacques Nattiez:"The border between music and noise is always culturally defined—which implies that, even within a single society, this border does not always pass through the same place; in short, there is rarely a consensus.... By all accounts there is no single and intercultural universal concept defining what music might be."-Wikipedia

Perhaps the most common definition for music is that it is a subjective experience. This definition focuses not on the construction but on the experience of music. Rhythm, harmony, and melody are of little importance in this subjective experience. A sound or a sensory form of art that evokes any human emotion can be considered music. The common ground for provocation of such emotions is culture; exposure and teaching of pleasantries and values that varies with location and time.

The objective aspects of music-organization of rhythms, harmonies, melodies, silences, pitches, and so-on-is more clear cut but to universally define music, a universal culture and a universal perception of the objective would have to exist. Perhaps it's the constructivist in me, but if one man's trash is another man's treasure, can't the same be implied when referrin

Why are we fighting?

The first casualty, when war comes, is truth.-Hiram Johnson

We can support or oppose specific reasons for the U.S involvement in the war in Iraq despite validity or fallacies within these reasons but the fact is, we’re there NOW. Soldiers, civilians, innocents are dying NOW. Perhaps we entered on trivial or selfish reasons but we are there. And pulling out of what the current administration has made our responsibility would have devastating effects. Despite recent strides, Iraq is still to versatile and fragile and leaving would undoubtedly leave the Iraqi people in a worse state than when U.S soldiers arrived.

To quote Washington Post writer Joshua White, “Even if top commanders meet their goal of transferring authority to the Iraqi army within the next 18 months, a U.S. presence long after that is likely, several officers said. "This is a worthwhile endeavor," said Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Multinational Division North and the 25th Infantry Division. "Nothing that is worthwhile is usually easy, and we need to give this more time for it to all come together. We all want to come home, but we have a significant investment here, and we need to give the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people a chance to succeed." (end quote)

As a young citizen, I cannot express a single reason for our fight. It is said that we are fighting a war on terror. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were undoubtedly devastating and shocking. And I believe it to be fair for a country to defend and retaliate against the forces behind this tragedy. Yet since 2001, the vision of success has become so blurred that even some soldiers are ignorant (I do not use this word pejoratively). From personal experience, I know that some soldiers don’t know where they are going or why. They aren’t sure what supplies they’re bringing to a certain place or why it’s necessary to bomb a location. Some admit that they are fighting for America and to help those less fortunate, but the exact reason is still not able to be pinpointed. Are more deaths really necessary? The media sugarcoats the public mind with images of thankful Iraqis and soldiers that receive packages and videos from their families. Perhaps we have “learned” from the gruesome publicity of Vietnam and that is why we don’t know what’s going on. One cannot support or oppose such a cause until he or she witnesses the effects of the efforts. Not to say that fighting the battle on home soil would be “better”, but I do believe that as a whole America is still as blind to the real issues as it was before 9/11. Our government still refuses to take responsibility for sticking its nose where it didn’t belong. Our own soil has suffering that should be fixed before we can imagine a harmonic country, never mind planet. Nonetheless, we are now a part of this war and we are fighting for the interests of ourselves and the Iraqi people. We cannot pull out now and risk greater disaster.

The issue is not how we will achieve a democratic or free Iraq or a powerful and safe America. The issue is whether or not the United States as a whole will ever be able to accept that despite our initial mistakes in entering prematurely, making assumptions, and concealing parts of the truth and move on with the current situation in an honest, safe, and equally beneficial way. This may sound presumptuous, but words and knowledge could solve this problem better than bombs and media-based embellishment and secrecy ever could.

The Idea of Home

There’s no place like home.-Judy Garland in “The Wizard of Oz”
(referenced by Professor Johnson; triggered the erratic thoughts contained within this blog)

Adjacent towns, states, countries, and continents are easily distinguished through cultural practices, skin color, religious beliefs, and government (despite the prejudiced connotation to such terms). As long as man has an opponent, he will maintain a sense of patriotism towards his home. The definition of such a “home” is dependent upon external locations that one has little or no emotional connection to. I believe that as long as man has an opponent, he will maintain a sense of patriotism towards his home. If we were to discover life on another planet that was capable of interacting and comprehending human ways, even if they were similar to us, we would compete with them. Even if as a whole we were curious and apt to coexist with such beings, there would still be an internal sense of desire for superiority, pride, and patriotism within Earthlings

Should we unite and respect everyone just because we share a physical location? House, city, state, country, planet, galaxy, existence, conscience? Yes. Will we? Most likely not. Perfect peace is unattainable because of individual and cultural subjectivism. I’ve said this all before. Universal harmony is a great goal to strive for but we won’t ever fully succeed because people are selfish. We connect locations to who we are and therefore what we (hope) believe is better because it’s ours. There is a sense of security in believing that something else is a part of you. One can be at home in a house, state, another person, a religion, a sports team, an idea, a possibility, an emotion, etc. All of which, despite some control on our part, are as Professor Johnson pointed out, contingent; accidental; circumstantial. Man does not want to be insecure. Having a home, no matter how small or large, gives him something to defend, love, and strive to improve. This doesn’t necessarily have to mean that this home is superior (although it may come across this way); it simply gives man a purpose.

Patriotism-A single word with many implications

A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.-George William Curtis

The dictionary defines patriotism as "love and loyal or zealous support of one's own country." The problem with this simple definition, according to Robert Jenson is if we feel superior simply because of where we live, "Are we truly internationalist? Can we go beyond patriotism? Or, in the end, are we just Americans?" Are we truly for peace and justice? Or just our own interests? Consider the idea of political realism in which the interests of other nations are largely irrelevant, except instrumentally. I agree with Jenson that the term “patriotism” has become a word without much value in America today. However, to throw away concepts such as loyalty and pride which were initially entailed within the word ‘patriotism’, I believe is unrealistic. The problem is not patriotism in its prime, it is human tendency to confuse loyalty and pride with superiority and supposed obligation to a single region, culture, ideal, etc., rather than the ever-expanding circle of humanity.

But how can an individual, a patriot, fulfill his or her obligation to humanity without sectoring beliefs or acts based on culture or region and therefore resources, government, and opportunity which stem from natural societal differences? Location, location, location. Loyalty to a landmass is quite different than loyalty to that particular regions ideals and values which are rooted in a specific place coincidentally and therefore uncontrollably. We can only be loyal to ideas due to the uncertainty of the state of a nation at any given time. Pride in and loyalty to such ideas as democracy and freedom can be taken as respect for a particular region simply because this region is the only one of which a person knows and experiences that possess such qualities. However, there is no specific evidence that these ideals hold true to America and only America. As Jenson suggested, all human beings are capable of comprehending if not practicing such morals.

There is a fine line between selfishness and non-arrogant pride. (As long as pride for one’s country or any other form of matter or idea realizes that it is not superior, I believe it can be useful and justified.) When crossed, the chaos of war and ignorance emerges. People begin to place their reasoning for patriotism on George Bernard Shaw’s idea that “Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it.” This is simply ignorance. It is t he assumption of superiority because of location and therefore opportunity and (for the individual) luck. When this ignorance is applied internationally, a stubbornness forms and humanity as a whole may suffer in the end.

At the beginning of class, a question was posed about arguing with “is” claims. From the question, I have derived my own: Should our moral arguments be to persuade people or to find the truth? We have the right to believe what we want to believe (although we can’t always act upon these beliefs) but we don’t have the right to be correct. If everyone was correct, the world would be chaos. Every valid belief or worldview is supported by morals although not all of- actually, most of-these morals can be proven true. We must admit that our observations shape our “is” claims; our accepted knowledge; current scientific facts which are debatable when new evidence is acquired. Observation, research, and history are the most reliable sources to build facts, but is fact always morally right? No. There would not be an “ought” or “should” if what is was correct.

To encompass several of the topics we have considered throughout the semester, morality, although generally accepted based on culture, religion, and experience, is still consistently wavering in that the more answers we find, the more inquiries we find. If A is morally incorrect, contrary to what we believed in an earlier time, then is B, which is closely related to the previous state of A, now immoral as well? And furthermore, can we assume that C, a new proposition, must now be questioned?

For a tangible example, consider our current topic of meat-eating (one of which I am still researching and wavering in, unashamed). If man was to find, based on a series of convincing and true “is” claims, that meat-eating (A) is morally incorrect, then perhaps the question of other generally accepted customs would be questioned. Maybe…deforestation, no matter how minute. Taking this into consideration, several more moral questions would be posed and the search (as the search for any ultimate truth, whether it is for “is” or “ought) would continue and not end until the world did.

Hume's Take On Morals-The Is/Ought Gap and the Impossible Bridge

If they put in a bridge, it would save a of lot of driving miles, but they'll never put that in out here in the middle of nowhere.-Dale Jones

Given our knowledge of how the world is, how can we know how the world ought to be? Hume believed that knowledge is based on experience. The is-ought gap is completely valid and extremely difficult to bridge (although I will attempt and post any possible connection if I am able to create an argument that derives an ought from solely is claims). "Hume's is/ought gap by itself does not entail that subjectivism is true. It is just an observation about what valid arguments for ethical claims require" (wikipedia). He is suggesting that because our individual or cultural experiences, our sense of moral right and wrong are tainted. Empirically, it is therefore difficult for us to possess any idea of moral truths (if they even exist). There are definitely universally accepted moral boundaries but again, they are based on what has been and what is, according to our observations. Much like von Glasersfeld's theory of unconceptualized apples, it is virtually impossible to confidently and conceive a true and right moral act without first basing it upon another moral assumption or generally accepted pre-existing idea.