Dissidence and Mental Health

Much madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.
’T is the majority
In this, as all, prevails.
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur,—you ’re straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain.

- Emily Dickinson, 1924

Regarding my recent frolic on the borders of madness (see next post for what sparked it), I feel I need to articulate what's going on. Hopefully this is a helpful and expressive exercise rather than a symptom of the problem.

There's a reason that revolutions are always shored up by the crazies, the marginalised, the misunderstood.  'Madmen and Revolutionaries' seem to go together like 'Oreos and Milk'. They are a good combination; better together. Unlike the obsessive, addictive and dysfunction-building snack combo, the madness that is a necessary attribute of revolution is generally seen as bad thing.

The Occupy protests are a good (and rhetorically obvious) example of this. There are many messages associated with the movement that people regard as absurd or crazy. The reality, in my opinion, is that there is some very good messages and some not so good messages. It's all about resisting the dominant paradigm.

Let's start with Insanity. To be insane is to completely reject what society deems as 'normal'. Hypothetical: I believe it is perfectly normal to take a dump on the ground when no toilets are handy. This is an (arguably) morally rational statement. Now lets say, 'I believe it is perfectly normal to take a dump In Fed square when no toilets are handy. What has changed? The reasoning is the same.

What has changed is the factual information. But what gives us meaning is the underlying moral premise. Wanting to respect the liberty of others by respecting their right not to see a live shitshow in a public area is the moral idea that gives meaning to the assertion that taking a dump in Fed sq. is wrong or crazy.

Here's the thing. It looks like the society we live in today has accepted many ambiguous moral principles as universal. THIS IS DANGEROUS TERRITORY. Dangerous both for society (and we see that danger everywhere, all the time) and dangerous for anyone that dare assert that the current way of doing things is completely (or even partially) wrong.

We live in a normative universe. The reality that we as a society and community agree upon frames our world, in a way that gives us meaning and a method of explaining things. Foucault understood this very well, and his studies on madness have disturbing implications for the state of affairs today.

Yesterday morning, I was in serious danger of embarking on a manic episode at some point. Whether or not it would have passed, or whether I would have been diagnosed and thrust into a system that problematises and stigmatises mental health is now unknowable. But the danger was there, and I believe it is because I am in a place now in my thought where it is either myself or society that is insane. Cos shit just does not add up. Dealing with the sense of alienation and victimisation that follows is an absolute must, as these feelings can generate a feedback loop that will cause you to lose friends and alienate people, being written off as a die-hard crazy in the process. To the person who put me in check, thank you for being willing to risk our friendship in the interest of my wellbeing. You are an amazing and valuable person.

To those out there that have committed themselves to the movement, stay strong. Ensure you have a strong support network of friends and family, keep in mind that this is a long term process and REMEMBER to LOOK AFTER YOURSELF. Our cause is just, and we are stronger than we know.

Take care.

On winning people to your cause.

PERSONAL NOTE: Hokay, so...the last four days have been a massive strain on me intellectually. I am buzzing around and feel like a late-stage Phaedrus from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (a must-read for anyone interested in practical philosophy). I went to see a psychologist today on the advice of a friend, and a good thing too. My frenetic mental energy was taking me down a dark path, so I will (regrettably) have to be a little less involved in Occupy and put more energy into currently neglected parts of my life.

This post is about persuading people to your cause. Not all causes are just, but that is a topic for another post. All the people with whom I engage in debate here started with the proposition that they were against the Occupy movement (to some degree or another). Where they are at now I'm not sure, but the feedback I have received since indicate that they are willing to participate in discussion. And that is what we want. I will give my own analysis on the meta-discussion occurring 'below the surface' (i.e. what we are really debating about) but, as always, pay attention and come to your own conclusions.

WARNING: this is really, really long. Good for procrastination periods of 15-30 minutes. Much love.

Productive Debates


I had been getting increasingly agitated be the ignorance I was seeing all around me. The media, my peers, and (more fundamentally) the system we live in. This gave me the fight, the passion, to take people on. In the last few days I have come to view myself as a modern day Socrates. I'm sorry if this sounds like a delusion of grandeur but it's the closest analogy I can think of. My goal is to question others' beliefs. I do not claim to have a monopoly on truth, merely a set of ideas and morals that I have collected over the course of my inquisitive life. I am genuinely interested in where a good debate can lead, and try to keep myself open to the possibility that I'm wrong. I try to assess the good and the bad in arguments, and state my own case accordingly. With this approach, it is hard for the debate to fail to go somewhere interesting. But I'll let you be the judge.

Pru
Pru used to be a good friend of mine. She always had a keen sense of humour, and was pretty apt to call bullshit where she saw it. With my move to Melbourne, contact was virtually suspended, apart from the occasional brush on Facebook.

What led me to speak out was seeing repeated posts of Pru's decrying the protests as illegitimate, either because of the nature of the protestors or the lack of clear message. This types of posts infuriated me. Earlier, I had asked her whether she agreed with the 'basic message' of the Wall st protests; she said she did. 3 days later, I was dismayed to see another one of these 'articles' that are rapidly and widely becoming identified as media drivel.

I called her out.

Here the terms have been set. I have identified a contradiction in her behaviour, and asked her to identify it. I avoid a reversion to nihilistic humour (what Trolls thrive on) by putting our friendship on the line. Passion and dedication allows me to do this. 

Her response, as a result, is considered and justified. Pru is a very intelligent person, and articulates well the reasons for feeling the way she does about Occupy. It is absolutely important, if this debate is going to be constructive, that her views are given weight, and be payed attention to. 

A clarification that will narrow the terms of the debate, making it more productive.

An honest opinion of where she believes the movement to be at, but is unsure about their claim to 'truth'.

A criticism of the inability of the movement to satisfactorily articulate exactly what is wrong with the current state of affairs. Also, an identification of some hypocrisy within the movement itself. 

An assertion that our current democracy adequately serves our needs as citizens. This is a great assertion; contesting it is Legitimate Debate. Also, an assertion that the current political system already empowers those that are dissatisfied with the status quo. Another assertion that the power of change really lies within the consumer. These are all productive assertions, as they can be productively criticised with reference to moral reasoning (see last post). 

An acknowledgement that the underlying issues might be broader than what is currently being represented. An unhelpful criticism singling out certain kinds of protester practices as somehow delegitimising the underlying message. 

And now we're getting somewhere. While Pru knows that, on a fundamental level, this cause is a just one, her feelings of inadequacy to affect change (symptomatic of our current state of affairs) prevents her from taking up a cause. She instead confines herself to what she believes that she is 'good' at, like being ironic and funny. This is a big shame as she is an individual with near unlimited potential. 

see above

And now: the response. The way a response is crafted is incredibly important, especially where people feel personally invested in the ideas you are debating. Being told you're wrong, even gently, forces a kind of 'mental pain'. It is unpleasant. What we thought to be true might not be. We tend to believe what we believe, and something that forces us to reassess that can lead us to question if: we have a proper grip on reality, have good judgement, are being misinformed etc. This is part of why it is so important to retain a sense of intellectual agnosticism if you are really interested in Legitimate Debate.  

Agree where you recognise truth, assert you own version where there is a conflict. Justify yourself.

I cannot overemphasise the importance of acknowledging that someone is right when you believe they are. It keeps the debate respectful and productive. 

Stay positive. Assure the person that their confusion reflects in no way on them as a person.

This is the end of this debate. Stay tuned for one with an intelligent, moral conservative. It's a ripper ;)

On arguing for what you believe in

DISCLAIMER: This is one of my more challenging posts. If you don't get it the first time, try try again. This is definitely one of the more important ones.

There is a lot of false debate out there today. Coke or Pepsi? Capitalism or Communism? Profession or Trade? Shaved or Groomed? Onshore or Offshore?

When most people are engaging in these debates, they are usually using reason to justify their underlying personal preferences. I like coke because I associate it with social success (underlying preference) whereas pepsi seems more like the loser's drink. Everyone knows Winners drink coke.

When we engage in debates like these that rely purely on rationality, we get distracted from those underlying preferences. 'I like coke because it tastes better' might seem to make more rational sense to some, but doesn't convey any insight. The debate isn't furthered. If we really want to decide which soft drink is better, we have to assert a principle that is connected to a 'moral value' (see below). Associating coke with social success explains my preference; social success is good and so therefore is coke. Therefore, I am of the opinion that coke is good. This makes sense and conveys a greater understanding of the issue. With this knowledge, we can question whether it is right that I believe coke is better than pepsi. We do this by asking whether there is a necessary connection between social success and drinking coke. Most reasonable people can easily see that there is no connection: my reason for liking coke over pepsi is therefore invalid. There might be other moral reasons, such as the fact that I legitimately believe it tastes better, but a moral preference (in this case a moral preference for aesthetic experience i.e. 'Taste') cannot and will never be explained by rationality. It is good in and of itself.

(Moral) preferences, or 'moral principles', form the basis of legitimate reason. Reason can be used to justify pretty much anything, depending on the underlying moral principles. Take communism. The moral principles of 'the state should provide', 'there is no god, only the material' and 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' add up to a system that, while theoretically watertight, is a practical nightmare. The reason is the faulty underlying moral principles.

The underlying principles of communism are not fundamentally good in and of themselves. They express values and a certain worldview, but I do not think that anyone would go as far as to say that these are principles that everyone could agree with, universally. To practically apply reason in a way that benefits ourselves and those around us, we need to operate using moral principles that are considered to be universal. This list of universal moral principles (that cannot be reduced any further, and entail a necessary a priori moral acceptance/rejection) include but are not limited to: life, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, sociability (friendship), practical reasonableness, and spirituality. Unless we can trace our reasoning back to a permutation of one or more moral principles, we are not making a Good Argument. 

The practical effect of this is that when you critique someone else's view, you have something better to say, as you are rationally critiquing their moral premises. Rationality does have value in and of itself, but only when it is connected to an identifiable underlying moral premise. By clearly linking your rational argument to a moral premise, you are showing for all the world to see the 'middle ground' you took to arrive at your conclusion. This is important if we want to honestly engage in Legitimate Debate.

'Morality' is a loaded term (see below), but moral premises are relatively easy to evalutate: people usually recognise Good when it is staring them in the face. And if they do not, moral rationality at least shows the way to a direct comparison to competing moral principles. It is the only real way of candidly engaging in Legitimate Debate. This is because it furnishes us with Practical Knowledge (a topic for another post). 

Unfortunately, our society (especially our society of removed 'intellectuals') has become far too reliant on rationality alone. Through this faulty moral reasoning we have come to justify the detention of refugees, an inefficient and unworkable carbon tax, and unjustified welfare handouts that have the effect of creating mass dependancy and entitlement. These are not good things, and in my opinion, lack legitimate justification. 

So next time you say something, think 'what am I really saying?'




Note: 'Moral values' and 'Morality' have come to represent things that are actually far removed from their actual meaning. When we think of 'morality', we typically think of abortion, the war on drugs, world poverty, income distribution and religion. While all of these issues are intimately connected with morality, they distract from Morality itself. Morality, in its purest form, is the assertion that something is 'good'. Therefore, whenever we have a preference or an opinion, we are implicitly saying (by asserting it) that it is a 'good' one. Therefore, any preference and opinion is really a moral statement. The fact that morality has come to be viewed as divorced from our opinions is one of the great tragedies of our society, and a determinative factor in explaining many of the problems we see today.
As always, if there is any points of clarity, I would love your feedback. 

Why we need Capitalism

I cannot stand Commies. They're like the dickhead at the party that keeps trying to play his collection of cold chisel when everyone is already boogieing to some progressive disco tech. They're commonly found frequenting university campuses, handing out flyers which they then try and charge you for, fucking up the atmosphere with their bad skin/hair/smell and belligerent attitudes.

Don't get me wrong. Without the die-hards and the crazies, Occupy wouldn't have had the momentum to get up off the ground. Most people have jobs, uni, kids, and other commitments that prevent us from camping out all day and night in name of our values. It is by virtue of current-day Capitalist Democracy that there is a disconnect between our moral principles and the obligations that society demands of us. As a result, we have to pay the bills by working a job that we probably don't view as 'good', 'just' or 'right' in its own sense, but have to because of our material needs and desires. For those free of such commitments, a stand may be readily taken; protecting our democracy and future by keeping the system in check. It's just a pity that showers are largely optional for people without substantive commitments.

Many of these Socialist Alliance types insist that we need to do away with Capitalism and return the control of production to the workers. Trying to reason with these angry hippies is difficult and frustrating, as they reject the tide of history, sheepishly mumbling 'Stalinism' and then go on to say that any job is exploitation.

I call bullshit.

Any ideology that starts with the premise that I am a victim is an unworkable one. I am not a victim. I am in charge of my own destiny, and blame only myself (and possible my parents) for my situation in life. I have so much to thank my parents for. A doctrine that asserts that people are bundles of entitlements rather than bundles of potential is dis-empowering. The conclusion of this misguided system is that the State should fix all the worlds problems.

Bull. Shit.

I for one do not trust the State, I certainly wouldn't trust it to do the right thing without a strong and developed system of accountability.  But we're straying from the topic; the necessity of capitalism.

Capitalism allows an individual to easily transform his material desires into reality through the realising of their productive capacity. I cannot overstate how important this is.

People need liberty if they are to flourish. Capitalism gives us a system that allows us to engage in productive pursuits that suit our abilities (as we get paid more for what we're good at) and then, if that weren't enough, effectuates our free will by giving us 'money'.

'Money' is the worth of out labour that has been transformed into 'currency', or universialised worth. We can spend our money on whatever and with whomever we like. When spending money, we are limited only by what the market (comprised of other productive individuals creating wealth through labour) can provide. The joy we feel when window shopping is the thrill of possibility and of exercising our will on the material world. It is a beautiful and important thing for human flourishing.

Capitalism also provides us with a means of realising our aspirations. This life is a warm, short moment in an otherwise cold and indifferent universe; we each and every one of us have a desire to live a good one. By accruing wealth (worth) and excelling in you chosen productive pursuit, Capitalism furnishes you with a sense of achievement. Unfortunately, the spiritual value of this particular brand of material success (i.e. making/spending money) is relatively low. We have come to over-rely on capitalism as a way of expressing our own individual self-worth, which is why we try to fill the sense of unease inside us with consuming products instead of more lasting and soul-nourishing pursuits like spending time with friends and family, art and being creative for ourselves (hobbies).

Regardless of what capitalism has come to be in the present day, the ability to control one's own destiny is fundamental to a Good Life. Capitalism allows us to do this on a material level, furnishing us with food, clothes, shelter and leisure products while allowing us to contribute to society through our own productive pursuits.

Capitalism is here to stay, and a good thing too. Once we can acknowledge this glaring truth, we can move forward with The Debate.

Why the Occupy protests are different

It is a truism that protest in the last 30 years 'Protest' has taken a backslide in effectiveness compared to its heyday in the 60s-70s (not forgetting the 20's). While the Vietnam Protests didn't prevent the war (much like the Iraq protests), they had the effect of putting the government on the back foot as citizens sent a clear message that they weren't convinced: Government had to do a better job of justifying the atrocity of war.

Protests have won and defended key civil liberties in the past, without them the State is left unchecked as it continually accrues political power.

The reason as to why protests affect change is their legitimacy. Protests engage the State or other major political actors in a public debate that requires the 'protested practice' to be justified on rational moral terms. We, the people, by virtue of living system of government that is accountable to our will, make the call as to whether this 'protested practice' is justified. Every single person can do this: all that is required is a true (or approximating true) representation of the facts at hand and the ability to reason rationally by reference to identifiable morals.

The problem with protests in the last few decades is that a) protests have come to be practiced less as a public debate and more as an Entitlement Claim by differing communities and b) Politicians and Statusquoists have become better at casting the terms of the debate so as to alienate protesters from the general public. This is why many don't have any patience for the Occupy protests: they are seen as just another factional interest group taking advantage of the welfare state to secure more 'rights' and entitlements.

However, as the Occupy movement at its core is opposing a 'protested practice' (the current global economic order) that commentators from all stripes have identified as a serious problem, it is engaging the public in Legitimate Debate. While there are many protesters that are using the old methods of confrontation and assertion of ideology, these methods are outdated tools from last century.

These protests are different because they are happening in the Age of Connection. It isn't hard to get a message out: it just has to be a good one. Where in the past only civil disobedience could attract the attention of the citizenry, now we have Facebook and 24hr news.

The protesters, if they want to go about this the right way, need to promote Legitimate Discussion by asking tough questions. And to do that we start with something everything can agree on: the current way of doing things isn't working.

Let the debate begin.

mY FirSt bLoG

So I'm sitting in bed at 3am on a Saturday night, trolling the Occupy Melbourne media coverage and I realise that I am a Loser. What am I doing here? Don't I have better things to do? Apparently not.

These protests have gotten me excited. So in my still-hungover, sleep deprived state I keep hammering away at this keyboard with dwindling clarity of analysis but a growing belief that these protests will be different.

I have attended protests before. Well, one, actually. It was a depressing affair; a bunch of entitled, whiny pinkos yammering about rights and justice and the ruling class. I had come to protest what I perceived as the destructive and uncontrolled exploitation of the environment. The whole thing lacked heart. I got the feeling that people were embarrassed to be there; I sure was.

The Occupy movement addresses something we can all agree needs attention: the current global economic order. The 2006 crisis has plunged the world into economic chaos with the poor, middle and upper class as casualties: no-one has benefited from the fallout. Oh yeah, apart from bull traders betting against the market. An economic system should reward production, and the fast money on wall st was not producing so much as running around like the coked-up traders manipulating it, rocking the boat of global trade until it capsized.

We are approaching a moment in history where everything will be up for grabs. In the next 20-40 years, the world will undergo major crises and when we come out the other side it will look very different from where we are now.

Economic crisis, climate change, a restructuring of the global balance of power are all on the cards. And in my opinion, if we don't fix what needs to be fixed, it'll all come crashing down like the proverbial house. Whether its the political and civil institutions such as human & personal rights, the welfare state etc. or a materialistic paradigm that takes the fall will be seen. I don't claim to have any answers, I will merely call the current situation as I see it.

So back to why I'm writing this blog. My new Loser status necessarily entails that I give a fuck: this space is to chart my thoughts and theories of what's really going on. Stay tuned for some subversive shit.