Let's visit the concept of choice one more time from a possibly somewhat
different perspective.
I offer that we are all nodal points in the phase space called life. This
phase space is comprised of all people who existed, exist, and ever will
exist. Each person who exists today is an intersection of all people who
have ever existed. (Remember, everyone is connected and the butterfly
effect implies that even loose connectivity can have major effects.)
Because each person is a slightly different point in space and time with a
different history, each person is unique. Chaos theory tells us that if
any person were an exact intersection as any other person, then the system
would completely reproduce itself and would be periodic and deterministic
in the Newtonian sense. Any person who came after the duplicate
intersection could look his/her future history up in history books.
Fortunately, we do all have a unique past and will have a unique future.
Let's look at what John Woods described about choice. He posits that we
(through our paradigms) interact with whatever situation we are in and
specific actions are the result of that interaction. In his view, these
actions are the only ones possible for that person with those paradigms in
that situation. To all of this I say, "Amen." Now some people have
interpreted John Woods' comments about choice to mean that if they were
correct we are live in a deterministic world. I believe that several
factors mitigate against that conclusion: 1. We are all individual nodal
points; 2. The environment in which we live displays sensitive dependence
on initial conditions; 3. In conjunction with the sensitive dependence
and multiplying the effect is the fact that we are always operating with
incomplete and imperfect information; 4. We are all subject to changing
and unpredictable external forces (this situation is described by Gleick
in his book, "Chaos" on p.169 of the paperback as an intransitive state.)
This concept of external forces kicking a system from one phase
(equilibrium state) of a strange attractor to another phase (different
equilibrium state) of the same strange attractor seems to me to be the
kick I described in an earlier posting that moves a person from a victim
state to a creator state and vice versa. I describe this kick as an
instantaneous paradigm shift.
So what do I conclude from these thoughts? First, I think that whatever
happens in our lives, we will move to a new point in phase space that is
completely determined by our paradigms and the situations that we find
ourselves in. However, the next point in phase space cannot be predicted
because of the four factors listed in the previous paragraph. So we have
determinism without predictability in opposition to a Newtonian
description of the universe that would have determinism with
predictability.
Hurray for that result. Now if I don't like the results I am getting in
my life I can gather data, take actions, shift my paradigms and achieve
different results. Occasionally I will also get an unanticipated jolt
from an external source that will take me who knows where. Some clever
person has said, "Life is what happens while you are planning your life."
My metaphor for all this is surfing on the edge of chaos. For those of us
who think we are in control of our lives, we set a direction and get on
our surf boards confident that our capabilities will carry us to our
destination. However, as we are heading toward out destination a storm
comes up and kicks us in a new direction. We learn, the forces shift, we
choose a new destination, and we go on. Life is clearly a journey with
lots of stops along the way, but we never arrive.
So here we are surfing in the phase space of life; an exciting, wondrous,
spontaneous, rich, unpredictable life. The concept of choice seems to no
longer have relevance. Even the "choice" of the next destination is a
manifestation of where we are and how we see where we are. If you think
about imperfect and incomplete information, we never know exactly where
we've been, where we are, or where we're going! And who cares! It is all
just so exhilarating. Something like waking up on Christmas morning while
still in that youthful state of not knowing what delights will be under
the tree but in a thrilled state of anticipation to discover the gifts.
For me the overall message in this is to become a lifelong learner
continually developing our capabilities to surf on ever more intense, ever
larger waves and having ever more fun while doing it. And to hearken back
to another thread, getting paid for the thrill in whatever currency feeds
our physical and spiritual needs. (Please don't let this sentence confuse
you; I am an atheist. Spiritual is a shorthand phrase that I use to
describe needs like social/emotional, personal growth, and having a sense
of making a difference.)
This leads me to a comment on the thread about volunteerism. My frame of
reference for this discussion is a two-by-two matrix that plays "For
profit (FP): Yes, No" against "Paid volunteer (PV): Yes, No." This
gives us four categories to consider: 1. FP Yes, PV yes; 2. FP No, PV
Yes; FP Yes, PV No; FP No, PV No.
In my view, 1. and 2. are essentially the same kind of organization.
While category 2. orgs do not make a profit (an IRS tax term), the people
who work in them do make a profit (an operational term). Namely, they are
paid for their volunteer work and through this pay they provide for
themselves and their families. Category 3. and 4. organizations pay their
volunteers in social currency rather than financial so their profit is in
the spiritual realm.
I don't see any difference between these types of orgs. Every person gets
their financial needs and spiritual needs met by providing a value-added
service to someone. The value given and the value received is measured in
various currencies. So for me, I get just as much of a high out of giving
great service and getting financial rewards from it as I do out of giving
service and getting only spiritual rewards. If I didn't get some
financial rewards, I wouldn't exist to get the spiritual rewards.
This is leading up to two things that bug me. They both relate to my
perception that some people act as if they have chosen the moral high
ground if they are unpaid volunteers or if they are paid but work for a
not-for-profit institution. The first "bug" is an advertisement for
non-profit hospitals that says, "For people, not for profit!" Implying
somehow that they care more and will give better care because they are
non-profit. To which I say, "Bull pippy!"
The second "bug" relates to the concept of altruism. In John Woods'
paradigm no on can choose the moral high ground for an "altruistic" act.
Given their paradigms and the situation, that "altruistic" act was the
only action available to them.
So why do I get so wound up about people choosing the moral high ground?
(And if I haven't conveyed it adequately, I am wound up!) It is because
people who choose the moral high ground are by definition excluding other
people. The two sets of people are those who occupy the high ground, the
good people, and those who are in the valleys, the bad people. I'd like
to call a moratorium on judging other people's actions as good or bad; I
believe that just hinders dialogue. If John Woods and my view is an
accurate description of how people traverse the phase space of life, then
rather than good or bad we would use words like lucky and unlucky (look
back at the four factors that relate to our position in phase space).
Being freed of the need to make moral judgments, we could then look for
systemic changes that would help us all get kicked into the part of phase
space that we would describe as a fun place to be. Then everyone could
claim the moral high ground (ooooooop, if we're all there we won't have
any referential basis for "high ground."
So on this day after Christmas, peace on earth and good will toward men,
women, and children to all of the subscribers to this list and to everyone
we effect.
Later.
-- Willard Jule 75272.3452@compuserve.com