Tuesday, December 07, 2010

Joseph E. Stiglitz - This Budget Would Never Pass: A five-part plan to cut the deficit, narrow inequality, and strengthen the economy

Interesting proposal that special interests would kill on sight . . . or die trying. There is no way we'll ever make substantive changes that do not benefit the wealthy first and foremost. Eisenhower tried to warn us.

Here is the meat of the article, but the whole piece is worth your time to read.

This Budget Would Never Pass

A five-part plan to cut the deficit, narrow inequality, and strengthen the economy—and why special interests would block it.


As a result, it is relatively easy to formulate a deficit-reduction package that boosts efficiency, bolsters growth, and reduces inequality. Five core ingredients are required.

First, spending on high-return public investments should be increased. Even if this widens the deficit in the short run, it will reduce the national debt in the long run. What business wouldn't jump at investment opportunities yielding returns in excess of 10 percent if it could borrow capital—as the U.S. government can—for less than 3 percent interest?

Second, military expenditures must be cut—not just funding for the fruitless wars, but also for the weapons that don't work against enemies that don't exist. We've continued as if the Cold War never came to an end, spending as much on defense as the rest of the world combined.

Following this is the need to eliminate corporate welfare. Even as America has stripped away its safety net for people, it has strengthened the safety net for firms, evidenced so clearly in the Great Recession with the bailouts of AIG, Goldman Sachs, and other banks. Corporate welfare accounts for nearly one-half of total income in some parts of U.S. agro-business, with billions of dollars in cotton subsidies, for example, going to a few rich farmers—while lowering prices and increasing poverty among competitors in the developing world.

An especially egregious form of corporate special treatment is that afforded to the drug companies. Even though the government is the largest buyer of their products, it is not allowed to negotiate prices, thereby fueling an estimated increase in corporate revenues—and costs to the government—approaching $1 trillion dollars over a decade.

Another example is the smorgasbord of special benefits provided to the energy sector, especially oil and gas, thereby simultaneously robbing the treasury, distorting resource allocation, and destroying the environment. Then there are the seemingly endless giveaways of national resources—from the free spectrum provided to broadcasters to the low royalties levied on mining companies to the subsidies to lumber companies.

Creating a fairer and more efficient tax system, by eliminating the special treatment of capital gains and dividends, is also needed. Why should those who work for a living be subject to higher tax rates than those who reap their livelihood from speculation (often at the expense of others)?

Finally, with more than 20 percent of all income going to the top 1 percent, a slight increase, say 5 percent, in taxes actually paid would bring in more than $1 trillion over the course of a decade.

A deficit-reduction package crafted along these lines would more than meet even the most ardent deficit hawk's demands. It would increase efficiency, promote growth, improve the environment, and benefit workers and the middle class.

There's only one problem: It wouldn't benefit those at the top, or the corporate and other special interests that have come to dominate America's policymaking. Its compelling logic is precisely why there is little chance that such a reasonable proposal would ever be adopted.


Bonnitta Roy - Evo-Devo and the Post-Postmodern Synthesis: What Does Integral Have to Offer?

The good folks over at Beams and Struts (one of the best of the new breed of integral blogs) posted this excellent and thought-provoking article by Bonnitta Roy a few weeks ago - I think I quick-linked it to Friendfeed/Twitter/Facebook, but I wanted to also post it here (in fact, I may have already done so - if I did, please excuse the repetition).

Evo-Devo and the Post-Postmodern Synthesis: What Does Integral Have to Offer?

Written by Bonnitta Roy

evodevo

Introduction

I am currently working on an article about epistemic challenges to evolutionary theory, and it seemed timely to receive an invitation from Chris Dierkes to contribute to the ongoing discussion here at beamsandstruts on evolution. More specifically for this audience, I am addressing the question of what does integral have to offer to evolutionary theory as it moves into its post- postmodern phase. The various new approaches to evolutionary thinking I am researching, are post-postmodern in the sense that the theorists are themselves aware that a theory of evolution is both created within and constrained by the epistemic, conceptual framework any particular theory is working from. These new approaches to evolutionary theory are part of a larger new inquiry into science studies in the wake of the postmodern assessment of scientific reason. There is, for example, a number of Philosophers of Science who are trying to define a “naturalistic turn” that would serve as a post postmodern re­-construction of science. This, too, requires inquiry into various conceptual assumptions and frameworks that have become embedded in the scientific world-view, as well as some delicious thinking about entirely new conceptual tools with which to approach science. Evolutionary theory is reaping exciting benefits from this “naturalistic turn” in particular, through an emerging field of theory and research that is attempting a grand synthesis of evolution and development, called Evo-Devo.

It is easy to recognize Evo-Devo’s naturalistic turn in Lewontin’s words quoted in Integrating Evolution and Development.[1]

All sciences, especially biology, have depended on dominant metaphors to inform their theoretical structures and to suggest directions in which the science can expand and connect with other domains of inquiry. Science cannot be conducted without metaphors. Yet, at the same time, these metaphors hold science in an eternal grip and prevent us from taking directions and solving problems that lie outside their scope. p. 37

The epistemic challenge for a naturalized science of Evo-Devo is, as Callebaut notes in the same book

Theoretical perspectives coordinate models and phenomena; such coordination is necessary because phenomena are complex, or scientific interests in them are heterogeneous, and the number of possible ways of representing them in models is too large. Adequate theorizing may require a variety of perspectives and models—a point worth keeping in mind in discussing what the “right” account of evo-devo is. p.38

One primary candidates for an adequate account is Susan Oyama’s developmental systems theory. Oyama is both a psychologist and philosopher of science, and her work The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution, is regarded as the foundational text in the field. Evan Thompson’s enactive approach attempts to carry DST (developmental systems theory) forward by interweaving through it a theory of the phenomenology of autopoeitic systems.

Not surprisingly, given its postmodern sensibilities, the naturalistic turn in science has also embarked on a re-conceptualization of socio-cultural evolution. There is an interesting twist here in which the notion of socio-cultural evolution is being extended “back” into biological evolutionary theory by asking new questions about the “fundamental unit of evolution,” The answer it seems, may turn out to look more like socio-cultural adaptation and its relatedness to the environment, than any current theory based on a combination of genetic and epigenetic forces and natural selection processes in the environment.

Again, in Lewontin’s words,

Any theory of the evolution of human life which begins with what are said to be individual biological constraints on individuals, and tries to create a picture of society as the sum of those constraints, misses what is really essential about the social environment, which is that in moving from the individual to the social level we actually change the properties of objects at the lower level. This whole problem of levels of explanation, of levels of evolution, of levels of action, is one of the deepest ones with which we have to deal in our understanding not only of sociobiology, but of evolution in general.[2]

I hope this short introduction to my research gives you a taste of how exciting these times are for evolutionary and developmental theory as well as for philosophers who are looking at the activity from a meta-theoretical level.

John Landy - In Defense of Humanities

http://www.slcc.edu/humanities/images/collage2a.jpg

It's insane to me that educators feel a need to fight for the existence of the humanities. The university was founded on the study of the humanities. I have a masters degree in humanities that gave me a more rounded education that if I had specialized in literature or writing.

Our educational system has become too focused on turning out employees rather than educated people. In AZ, where we have a 1.2 billion dollar state budget deficit, higher education is always the first thing to get cut - and when the cuts come, humanities classes/programs are often first to go. Meanwhile, the dumbass governor wants to cut taxes even more . . . which means more education cuts.

A well-rounded education is once again becoming something only available to the wealthy.

John Landy - In Defense of Humanities - via Stanford University.
As universities across the country question the need for humanities education, John Landy, co-director of Stanford's Philosophy and Literature Initiative comes to the defense of literature. "Spending time in the presence of works of great beauty can powerfully change your life," he says.

Related story:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/de...



Monday, December 06, 2010

Peter Hacker tells James Garvey that neuroscientists are talking nonsense

This is a good post from The Philosopher's Magazine - I'm not sure I agree with Hacker that cognitive neuroscience is a load of nonsense. However, I am convinced (after reading this article - which is almost but not quite an interview) that I need to read Hacker's book on the topic, Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience (2003).

Hack is mostly opposed to scientism as near as I can tell - and I am with him on that regard. There is much about human experience that cannot be explained with brains and neuroscience.

Hacker’s challenge

Written by: James Garvey | Appears in: Issue 51

Posted by: TPM October 25, 2010

Peter Hacker tells James Garvey that neuroscientists are talking nonsense

Peter Hacker

Peter Hacker

So long as people read Wittgenstein, people will read Peter Hacker. It’s hard to imagine how his work on the monumental Analytical Commentary on Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations could possibly be superseded. He spent nearly twenty years on that project (ten of them in cooperation with his friend and colleague Gordon Baker), following in Wittgenstein’s footsteps, and producing a large number of important articles and books on topics in the philosophy of mind and language along the way. Nearer the end than the beginning of a distinguished career as an Oxford don, at a time of life when most academics would be happy to leave the lectern behind and collapse somewhere with a nice glass of wine, Hacker is in the middle of another huge project, this time on human nature. He also seems keen to pick a fight with almost anyone doing the philosophy of mind.

This has much to do with his view of philosophy as a contribution to human understanding, not knowledge. One might think that philosophy has the same general aim as science – securing knowledge of ourselves and the world we live in – even if its subject matter is more abstract and its methods more armchair. What is philosophy if not an attempt to secure new knowledge about the mind or events or beauty or right conduct or what have you? According to Hacker, philosophy is not a cognitive discipline. It’s something else entirely.

“Philosophy does not contribute to our knowledge of the world we live in after the manner of any of the natural sciences. You can ask any scientist to show you the achievements of science over the past millennium, and they have much to show: libraries full of well-established facts and well-confirmed theories. If you ask a philosopher to produce a handbook of well-established and unchallengeable philosophical truths, there’s nothing to show. I think that is because philosophy is not a quest for knowledge about the world, but rather a quest for understanding the conceptual scheme in terms of which we conceive of the knowledge we achieve about the world. One of the rewards of doing philosophy is a clearer understanding of the way we think about ourselves and about the world we live in, not fresh facts about reality.”

His account of the nature of philosophy is Wittgensteinian through and through. It’s a conception of philosophy which regards philosophical problems as confusions in language rather than deep mysteries encountered in the world. The job of the philosopher is to make these conceptual errors clear to us and in so doing help us out of our muddles. Philosophical questions aren’t solved; they’re dissolved. There is knowledge here, in a sense, but it’s not the sort of knowledge most philosophers think they are pursuing.

“By doing philosophy you come to realise things about the structure of our conceptual scheme that you would never have realised otherwise. Realization is indeed a dawning of knowledge. But the knowledge here is not knowledge of the world we live in. It is knowledge of the structure of our conceptual scheme. It very often looks like “metaphysical knowledge” of reality – as it were knowledge of the scaffolding of the world. But it’s no such thing. The world doesn’t have scaffolding. Rather, in doing philosophy, we come to realise the character of the grammatical and linguistic scaffolding from which we describe the world, not the scaffolding of the world.”

Because he thinks of philosophy is a quest for understanding, on Hacker’s view it can’t be transmitted from generation to generation as knowledge can. Each generation has to earn insight, has to face its own obstacles and work out an understanding for itself. This strikes a chord. I wonder about the present generation and what Hacker thinks might get in the way of our understanding.

“The main barrier is the scientism that pervades our mentality and our culture. We are prone to think that if there’s a serious problem, science will find the answer. If science cannot find the answer, then it cannot be a serious problem at all. That seems to me altogether wrong. It goes hand in hand with the thought that philosophy is in the same business as science, as either a handmaiden or as the vanguard of science. This prevailing scientism is manifest in the infatuation of the mass media with cognitive neuroscience. The associated misconceptions have started to filter down into the ordinary discourse of educated people. You just have to listen to the BBC to hear people nattering on about their brains and what their brains do or don’t do, what their brains make them do and tell them to do. I think this is pretty pernicious – anything but trivial.”

In the last decade Hacker has turned his attention from the philosophy of language to the philosophy of mind, dealing with what he sees as a whole raft of conceptual confusions in cognitive neuroscience. Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience, which he co-authored with the neurophysiologist M. R. Bennett, works through a number of tangles in detail. As we talk about some of them, I begin to see that there is a straight line from his Wittgensteinian thoughts about the nature of philosophy to his work on the mind.

Read the whole article.


"Wayfinding" as a Life Strategy

This is an interesting concept and series of posts from Tomorrow Makers - they are developing a newish life strategy called Wayfinding - a way of developing a "sense of curiosity and adventure… a process for seeing and sensing and coming to know."

Wayfinding

Over the past several months, we—Gail and Todd, mother and son, partners in business, have been developing a long essay on what we call Wayfinding. We have been working together as collaborative process designers and facilitators for nearly twenty years. In this time, we have jointly designed and facilitated more conferences, workshops, sessions, happenings and other forms of convening than we can count. While we have coauthored numerous essays, white papers and letters, this may be our most substantive written collaboration to date.

As we continue to iterate, refine, illustrate and hone our writing into a form that can be independently published, we have decided to post the paper as a series of journals, welcoming your thoughts and comments to help us move and shape our ideas going forward. (Online publishing dates in parenthesis.)

I. In which we share our background and perspectives
This first section is the exception in that we have written it as two individuals. Beyond this, we’ve forged our writing into a single narrative that we believe provides a more compelling and complete picture of wayfinding that either of us could have produced on our own, or from the sum of our individual vantage points.

Gail - Seeing, feeling and engaging differently (Nov 15)
Todd - Memory, meaning and the making of impactful events (Nov 15)

II. In which we define wayfinding, past and present (Nov 15)

III. In which we tie wayfinding and this moment in time together (Nov 22)

IV. In which we speak of living our way into a new paradigm (Nov 22)

V. In which we explore wayfinding’s role in steering toward best case futures (Dec 3)

VI. In which we tell stories of wayfinding (Dec 3)

VII. In which we offer a process for the play and practice of wayfinding (Dec 10)

VIII. In which we restate guiding principles, pose questions to perturb your wayfinding practices, and offer resources for your further exploration (Dec 10)

Here is Part II of their project, an attempt to define their use of the term Wayfinding and what the idea means:

Wayfinding, part two

In which we define wayfinding, past and present

The name Wayfinding was inspired by the Polynesian seamen who set forth to find new lands. Often traveling many hundreds of miles over long periods of time, these men were brilliant at finding new routes into the unknown using signals like weather, planets, sun, moon, waves, animals, and tides. They combined and recombined elements according to their understanding of each part, bringing together - with each exploration - a new whole, a new sense of direction for safe travel. While a vision of greater opportunity attracted them, they realized their goals through incremental steps and measures. Wayfinding was the process of discerning “if this, then that” within every hour. They brought the forces of their intuitive and intellectual knowing together in seemingly mysterious ways and allowed for exploration into unknown territories. They were some of yesterday’s best discoverers of new worlds.

In modern times, wayfinding has been adopted by architects, urban planners and designers to refer to the orientation and signage within the built environment. While not in any way adverse to this usage, it is not a significant factor in our application of the term.

Our concept of wayfinding harks back to the original willingness to step into the future with a sense of curiosity and adventure… a process for seeing and sensing and coming to know. Our wayfinders use modern tools and processes but how they combine intuitive and intellectual knowledge is probably very similar.

While wayfinders of yore often kept their knowledge private, not willing to share since this kind of knowledge was power and control, a core distinction of how we use the term is that wayfinding is, by necessity, a social endeavor, sharing and collaborating openly, knowing that it is this connecting and meshing together that brings new answers, new riches.

Wayfinders step into the future and design with it, getting into a sense of flow and seeing all kinds of new and interesting information and patterns. By living in the future, by engaging with it and generating many options, they can more easily see ways forward and make linkages that guide ideas and energy. Modern wayfinders are not bent on controlling the future or being right, but rather working with the future and the abundant opportunities and ingenuity that it offers to steer it toward best case.

Living within a long now enables wayfinders to see differently and make connections that few others see. Wayfinders reach into the past and bring forward information that seemed trivial but now has new relevance and connection. Uncovering “hidden” assumptions, reading between lines, constantly course correcting, wayfinders thrive on feedback, re-creation, and collaboration. Their tools are simulations, synthesizing, storytelling, mapping and visualizing. They connect ideas through and with individuals, governments, corporations, and communities. Wayfinders are non ideological and quite willing to play with and connect outlandish ideas to those that are most revered. Wayfinding is an infinite game composed of finite games whose outcomes shape each moment in time. Wayfinders place bets on healthy outcomes and then seek ways to win the bet. 


Brad Wittwer - Who Cares If It’s All Meaningless Anyway?

Interesting article from Miller-McCune a week or so ago. Apparently, a lot of people either do not think about whether or not their life has meaning - and if they do, they are so sure that it does.

Who Cares If It’s All Meaningless Anyway?

A startling proportion of the population, the existentially indifferent, demonstrates little concern for meaning in their lives.

Now that Westerners no longer have to fight for their existence, they have more time and inclination to ponder it. The resulting existential arguments are perhaps more prevalent than ever in a time where technology, leisure, resources and freedom make pursuing whatever an individual finds meaningful a real option.

New quantitative psychological research suggests a considerable percentage of the population can’t be bothered by these ambitious if ambiguous questions, and when pressed don’t really care that they feel their lives, in the big picture, are meaningless.

Tatjana Schnell, a research psychologist at the University of Innsbruck in Austria, surveyed perceived meaningfulness in a modern population. She found, as many might intuit, that many find no meaning in their lives, and those actively wrestling with meaning suffer from increased anxiety, depression and dissatisfaction with life. But this either/or result — either meaningful or meaningless — is over-simplified, Schnell argues; it’s not just a matter of someone feeling their life has meaning or no meaning, but whether they care that their life has no meaning.

The research, reminiscent of a European art-house flick, puts numbers to something humanist psychologist Abraham Maslow cited as a “valuelessness” in Western societies, “a rather bleak, boring, unexciting, unemotional, cool philosophy of life.” Psychologist Victor Frankl referred to an “existential vacuum” due to a lack of commitment to values. Empirical psychological research has avoided the topic, partly because meaningfulness is hard to measure while the detachment generally congruent with its absence is subtle compared to outright psychopathology — is this hipster irony or mild depression?

Participants were surveyed using the SoMe scale, which measures people on a scale from those who believe they have a total lack of meaning in their lives to those who feel their lives are full of meaning, and breaks down individuals into four groups. Schnell categorizes people in this way:

• High meaningfulness, low crisis of meaning (meaningful)

• Low meaningfulness, low crisis of meaning (existentially indifferent)

• High meaningfulness, high crisis of meaning (conflicting)

• Low meaningfulness, high crisis of meaning (crisis of meaning)

The meaningfulness value is based upon one’s appraisal of life as “coherent, significant, directed, and belonging.” The crisis of meaning variable measures absence or presence of suffering drawn from meaninglessness.

Looking at a sample of 603 Germans, Schnell found that 61 percent were “meaningful,” 4 percent suffered a “crisis of meaning,” and 35 percent were “existentially indifferent,” those who “neither experience their lives as meaningful nor suffer from this lack of meaning.” So of the people who felt their lives lacked meaning, it really only bothered one in 10 of them.

Schnell found no strong trend in gender or extent of education among the indifferent, but age did matter. The indifferent skewed younger, on average five years younger, than those who found meaning in their lives. Think: The Graduate‘s Ben Braddock floating in his pool after returning home. And for those who hadn’t graduated — adults who were students — existential indifference was present in 53 percent.

Relationship, or the lack of them, also mattered. Singles and those living with a partner could go either way, but the married were much more likely to be in the meaningful category (70 percent). Schnell hypothesizes that marriage provides an individual with belonging and commitment, “direction through the implicit aim of building a home and raising children” and a sense of responsibility for children that all promote a feeling of meaning in one’s life.

Crises of meaning, on the other hand, occurred most often among those married but living apart and singles. Maybe taking out the trash when she tells you to is a meaningful endeavor after all.

Employment status, however, was not a solid predictor — 58 percent of unemployed and 59 percent of employed saw their lives as meaningful, although the unemployed were the most likely to have a crisis of meaning. Schnell posits that work is a potentially great source of meaning, but the shift in labor toward temporary and short-term jobs does not encourage the commitment and identity employment once provided.

The academics identified 26 “sources of meaning” in their study, and noted that the indifferent lacked sources like love, social commitment and unison of nature. They were especially low in self-knowledge, spirituality, explicit religiosity and generativity, even compared to those in a crisis.

Schnell stresses the low self-awareness among the apathetic. They do not face their own personal strengths and weaknesses because they are of little importance to them. Exceedingly little energy is invested in reflecting on themselves, their needs and motives.

Those in a crisis showed greater self-knowledge. As Schnell describes, “Combined with the awareness of a lack of meaning, the active search for self-understanding might more likely lead to the detection or construction of meaning than the passive and disinterested condition of existential indifference.”

On the other hand, Schnell noted that overzealous self-analysis can impede the path to good mental health. Just ask Woody Allen!

Ironically, the indifferent still found life satisfying (more so than those suffering a crisis of meaning), though still less than those with meaning in their lives. The indifferent experienced less anxiety and depression than those with a crisis of meaning, and those traits measured similarly to those who viewed their lives as meaningful.

The existentially indifferent appear to live a life of complacency, with few highs and little or no introspection. As Schnell puts it, “Without commitment to sources of meaning, life remains superficial. But superficiality is not necessarily a state of suffering.” They aren’t classified as having “psychological stress,” but they “can hardly be viewed as living a life of health and well-being,” according to Schnell. An existentialist would say they are asleep.

“Existential philosophers and psychologists, from Heidegger to Frankl … have discussed distinctions between an authentic, complex life and a shallow, ‘everydayness’ mode of existence,” Schnell comments. The existentially indifferent characterize this “everyday” mode of existence, and as if to defy existentialism, are perfectly fine with it. To replace meaningful pursuits, they have a wide array of superficial weaponry. “Surrogates for meaningful commitment abound: They range from material possessions to pleasure seeking, from busy-ness to sexuality.”

NPR - Darren Aronofsky On Budgets, Bad Apples, And 'Black Swan'

http://www.empiremovies.com/_word_press/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/natalie-portman.jpg

Darren Aronofsky is my favorite young director. Even since Pi, I have seen all of his films and have been intrigued by his perspective. While The Fountain was not as well-reviewed as his other films, it is one of my all-time favorite films. When he made The Wrestler, he seemed to have done a 180 in his material, but he continues that theme (I think) with his new film, Black Swan.

As always, Aronofsky seems to be mixing his genres - this one has all the basics of a cliche sports film - fading star, new kid who wants to be the best at any cost, and then the rival who would block her success - all done with sex and swagger. But he also brings the art house feel of a small budget film, and an eye for character that transcends genres. Black Swans has an 8.9/10 on IMDb, and an 86% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Trailer:


For Natalie Portman, this film marks a bit of a comeback after 2 years away from film-making, and a stint in rehab. She has gotten some good press for this performance, as in this New York Times review:
Ms. Portman’s performance in “Black Swan” is more art than autobiography, and as a consequence more honest, but because it’s so demandingly physical the lines that usually divide actresses from their characters are also blurred. This is, after all, Ms. Portman’s own thin body on display, her jutting chest bones as sharply defined as a picket fence.

Although Mr. Aronofsky focuses on her head, shoulders and arms, mostly avoiding long shots that might betray a lack of technique, Ms. Portman does most of her own dancing (and plausibly, at least to this ballet naïf). The vision of Ms. Portman’s own body straining with so much tremulous, tremendous effort, her pale arms fluttering in desperation, grounds the story in the real, as do the totemic Lincoln Center buildings, the clattering subway and the grubby, claustrophobic apartment Nina shares with her mother. Together they create the solid foundation of truth that makes the slow-creeping hallucinatory flights of fantasy all the more jolting and powerful. Much like the new version of “Swan Lake” that Thomas creates, “Black Swan” is visceral and real even while it’s one delirious, phantasmagoric freakout.

This interview with Aronofsky is from NPR's All Things Considered.

by Linda Holmes
Natalie Portman in Black Swan
Fox Searchlight

Natalie Portman plays Nina in Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan.

Filmmaker Darren Aronofsky is getting significant Oscar buzz for his new film Black Swan, starring Natalie Portman as a very troubled ballet star. On today's All Things Considered, Aronofsky talks to Robert Siegel about filmmaking in general and Black Swan in particular.

Darren Aronofsky
Michael Loccisano/Getty Images North America

NEW YORK, NY - NOVEMBER 30: Director Darren Aronofsky attends the New York Premiere of "Black Swan" at Ziegfeld Theatre on November 30, 2010 in New York City.

If it's been a while since you checked in with Aronofsky, you might have been surprised to hear that he was making a movie about ballet. His previous project, after all, was the brutal film The Wrestler, for which star Mickey Rourke received an Oscar nomination.

As the director says, however, there are things that unite the dancers and wrestlers he places on screen: "Both films are about performers and performance."

While you'll hear in the interview about Black Swan's limited budget (he points out that $13 million really isn't that much), you'll also learn a little about the way those close to a filmmaker do their part to pitch in. Having his family help out on the set is, as Aronofsky explains, a tradition that started back when he made his first film, Pi, on a relative shoestring:

There was only eight people on the crew, so we really needed as many people as we could get. My mom did catering every day with her best friend, my Aunt Jo, and my dad filled in a few — when we needed another extra, he showed up in a suit and slicked back his hair and carried a suitcase.

But whether working with big budgets or small, Aronofsky works with some tortured, sometimes unpleasant main characters. Asked about the fact that Portman's Nina isn't treated with great sympathy in Black Swan, he says:

Movies have really turned our heroes into one-dimensional characters, and you sort of really have to love these characters in most films. And I just — people aren't really that way, and so this dancer is filled with ambition and stress, and she's trapped, and she's a prisoner. I was able to go there partly because I know people love Natalie Portman. So I got the sympathy votes very early from her, so I was comfortable with her pushing away.

But in the end, as much as he speaks enthusiastically about his films, look to this quintessentially independent director to deliver a ringing endorsement of his field. Aronofsky admits to having mixed feelings, even about the indie arena:

I'm on the fence with it. I used to be really encouraging, telling people, "Just go make the most original thing you can, the thing you think is best for your friends." And I still — I teach, and I still talk about that. ... [But] with the economic realities, there's less money around; it's a really tough time. But then again, for $2,000 you can buy cameras now that give any camera that Hollywood's using a run for their money. And so you can make a small, interesting little film. So I don't know. But it is buying a lottery ticket; I guess it comes down to persistence. If you really, really want to do it and you really want to work hard, there's probably a future.

That is, you will note, quite a number of repetitions of the word "really." Apparently, for that future to emerge, this particular director thinks you really, really have to want it.


Sunday, December 05, 2010

Roshi John Tarrant - The Bodhisattva's Rice (a Koan Seminar)

I found this series of videos via Monkey Mind - Roshi John Tarrant, Zen monk and Jungian psychologist, is another of my favorite Buddhist teachers. His book, The Light Inside the Dark: Zen, Soul, and the Spiritual Life, almost literally saved my life a few years back.

I didn't realize he was in Phoenix - might need to head up there.
John Tarrant, Roshi is Director and Senior Faculty for Pacific Zen Institute and Senior Teacher for Desert Lotus Zen Sangha in Phoenix, AZ.

One:


Two:


Three:


Four:


Perceptual changes – a key to our consciousness

Cool - the different ways that our mind processes visual information can apparently provide some clues to how our brain creates consciousness.

Perceptual changes – a key to our consciousness

19 November 2010 Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics

With his coat billowing behind him and his right eye tightly closed, Captain Blackbeard watches the endless sea with his telescope. Suddenly the sea disappears as the pirate opens his right eye. The only thing he sees is his hand holding the telescope. And then, a moment later, the sea is back again. What happened was a change in perception. Our brain usually combines the two slightly divergent images of our eyes into a single consistent perception. However, if the visual information does not match, only one image is seen at a time. This phenomenon is called "binocular rivalry". Researchers around Andreas Bartels at the Werner Reichardt Centre for Integrative Neurosciences (CIN) and the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics in Tübingen, Germany used this phenomenon to decipher a key mechanism of the brain functions that contributes to conscious visual perception.

We do not consciously perceive everything around us, even if it falls into our field of vision. The overwhelming abundance of information forces our brain to focus on a few important things; our perception is an ongoing process of selecting, grouping and interpreting visual information. Even though we have two eyes, our brain combines the two impressions. Experts call this binocular vision. Yet, if conflicting information is presented to the eyes, only the input to one eye is perceived at a time, while the other is suppressed. Our perception changes at specific intervals between the two images - a phenomenon called “binocular rivalry”. This process occurs automatically without voluntary control.

The scientists, Natalia Zaretskaya, Axel Thielscher, Nikos Logothetis and Andreas Bartels demonstrated that the frequency at which alternations between the visual information occurred could be experimentally reduced: Two different stimuli, a house and a face, were projected into the right and left eyes, respectively, of 15 experimental subjects. Since the brain could not match the pictures, alternations in perception occurred. When the scientists temporarily applied an alternating magnetic field to the subjects’ posterior parietal cortex, a higher-order area of the brain, the perception of each individual image was prolonged.

“Our findings suggest that the parietal cortex is causally involved in selecting the information that is consciously perceived,” explains Natalia Zaretskaya, a Ph.D. student involved in the project. „It also demonstrates the important role of this area in visual awareness.”

“Understanding the neural circuits underlying the percepts and their switches might give us some insight into how consciousness is implemented in the brain, or at least into the dynamic processes underlying it“, explains Andreas Bartels, scientist at the CIN.

http://tuebingen.mpg.de/en/homepage/detail/perceptual-changes-a-key-to-our-consciousness.html

Full bibliographic information:
Natalia Zaretskaya, Axel Thielscher, Nikos K. Logothetis, Andreas Bartels: Disrupting parietal function prolongs dominance durations in binocular rivalry, Current Biology (2010); doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.10.046

A Fate That Narcissists Will Hate: Being Ignored

The psychiatrists who are assembling the DSM-5 have deemed it useful to eliminate five of the Axis-II personality disorders from the new version of psychiatry's diagnostic manual.

A Fate That Narcissists Will Hate: Being Ignored

Narcissists, much to the surprise of many experts, are in the process of becoming an endangered species.


Not that they face imminent extinction — it’s a fate much worse than that. They will still be around, but they will be ignored.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (due out in 2013, and known as DSM-5) has eliminated five of the 10 personality disorders that are listed in the current edition.

Narcissistic personality disorder is the most well-known of the five, and its absence has caused the most stir in professional circles.

Most nonprofessionals have a pretty good sense of what narcissism means, but the formal definition is more precise than the dictionary meaning of the term.

Our everyday picture of a narcissist is that of someone who is very self-involved — the conversation is always about them. While this characterization does apply to people with narcissistic personality disorder, it is too broad. There are many people who are completely self-absorbed who would not qualify for a diagnosis of N.P.D.

The central requirement for N.P.D. is a special kind of self-absorption: a grandiose sense of self, a serious miscalculation of one’s abilities and potential that is often accompanied by fantasies of greatness. It is the difference between two high school baseball players of moderate ability: one is absolutely convinced he’ll be a major-league player, the other is hoping for a college scholarship.

Of course, it would be premature to call the major-league hopeful a narcissist at such an early age, but imagine that same kind of unstoppable, unrealistic attitude 10 or 20 years later.

The second requirement for N.P.D.: since the narcissist is so convinced of his high station (most are men), he automatically expects that others will recognize his superior qualities and will tell him so. This is often referred to as “mirroring.” It’s not enough that he knows he’s great. Others must confirm it as well, and they must do so in the spirit of “vote early, and vote often.”

Finally, the narcissist, who longs for the approval and admiration of others, is often clueless about how things look from someone else’s perspective. Narcissists are very sensitive to being overlooked or slighted in the smallest fashion, but they often fail to recognize when they are doing it to others.

Most of us would agree that this is an easily recognizable profile, and it is a puzzle why the manual’s committee on personality disorders has decided to throw N.P.D. off the bus. Many experts in the field are not happy about it.

Actually, they aren’t happy about the elimination of the other four disorders either, and they’re not shy about saying so.

One of the sharpest critics of the DSM committee on personality disorders is a Harvard psychiatrist, Dr. John Gunderson, an old lion in the field of personality disorders and the person who led the personality disorders committee for the current manual.

Asked what he thought about the elimination of narcissistic personality disorder, he said it showed how “unenlightened” the personality disorders committee is.

“They have little appreciation for the damage they could be doing.” He said the diagnosis is important in terms of organizing and planning treatment.

“It’s draconian,” he said of the decision, “and the first of its kind, I think, that half of a group of disorders are eliminated by committee.”

He also blamed a so-called dimensional approach, which is a method of diagnosing personality disorders that is new to the DSM. It consists of making an overall, general diagnosis of personality disorder for a given patient, and then selecting particular traits from a long list in order to best describe that specific patient.

This is in contrast to the prototype approach that has been used for the past 30 years: the narcissistic syndrome is defined by a cluster of related traits, and the clinician matches patients to that profile.

The dimensional approach has the appeal of ordering à la carte — you get what you want, no more and no less. But it is precisely because of this narrow focus that it has never gained much traction with clinicians.

It is one thing to call someone a neat and careful dresser. It is another to call that person a dandy, or a clotheshorse, or a boulevardier. Each of these terms has slightly different meanings and conjures up a type.

And clinicians like types. The idea of replacing the prototypic diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder with a dimensional diagnosis like “personality disorder with narcissistic and manipulative traits” just doesn’t cut it.

Jonathan Shedler, a psychologist at the University of Colorado Medical School, said: “Clinicians are accustomed to thinking in terms of syndromes, not deconstructed trait ratings. Researchers think in terms of variables, and there’s just a huge schism.” He said the committee was stacked “with a lot of academic researchers who really don’t do a lot of clinical work. We’re seeing yet another manifestation of what’s called in psychology the science-practice schism.”

Schism is probably not an overstatement. For 30 years the DSM has been the undisputed standard that clinicians consult when diagnosing mental disorders. When a new diagnosis is introduced, or an established diagnosis is substantially modified or deleted, it is not a small deal. As Dr. Gunderson said, it will affect the way professionals think about and treat patients.

Given the stakes, the blow-back from experts in personality disorders should come as no surprise.

Dr. Gunderson has written a letter co-signed by other clinical and research leaders to the trustees of the American Psychiatric Association and the task force that governs DSM-5. And Dr. Shedler and seven colleagues published an editorial in the September issue of The American Journal of Psychiatry. In the relatively small world of mental health diagnostics, this is most certainly a battle worth watching.

Right now, this much seems clear: It is way too early for the narcissists to give up their seat on the bus.

Charles Zanor is a psychologist in West Springfield, Mass.
Here is a follow-up article.

Saturday, December 04, 2010

Gail Hochachka - A Closer Look at Integral Theory

This is a cool article (Gail Hochachka is a major player in the Integral world) from a cool blog, Zero Integral - check it out.

A Closer Look at Integral Theory

Adapted from the Drishti Centre for Integral Action website:

A Closer Look at Integral Theory


By Gail Hochachka

Integral is the farthest reach of inter-disciplinary to date. It links "divergent" disciplines (such as the natural sciences, economics, politics, culture, psychology, and spirituality), including both the exterior (objective) aspects of life with the interior invisible (subjective and inter-subjective) aspects of individuals and cultures. In doing so, the integral approach provides a more comprehensive framework for analyzing problems and for crafting elegant solutions that more appropriately reflect the complexity of life. This makes the integral approach useful for understanding, and working with, the current eco-social issues prevalent in communities throughout the world.

What follows is an overview of three key tenets of integral theory, with a final note on how these are brought together in an integral approach to social change and sustainable development.

The integral approach reveals the interior side of life

The integral approach weaves together the internal and external components of reality. Alongside an understanding of the nature and complexity of interconnected systems, there is also recognition of interior dynamics (psychological, cultural and spiritual) in the system. An integral approach, therefore, retains the existing practices that focus on the "exterior" components of life, such as biological systems, economic initiatives, social organizing, governance and sustainability, and also works with the interior components, such as worldviews, values, and awareness. These interior parts of society inform our opinions and decision-making, essentially guiding the ways we make meaning of our surroundings and interactions.

With an understanding of interiority, it becomes easier to identify the underlying values, needs, worldviews and motivations that arise when engaged in the work of social change. This enables a more effective working dynamic between and among individuals and communities, as well as more psychologically sophisticated way of collaborating with colleagues, staff, employees and project coordinators.
The integral approach recognizes and includes the individual and collective domains Integral theory recognizes both individual and the collective, interior and exterior domains of reality, or the four quadrants. These are depicted in diagram 3 and include:
  • Behavior and physiology (individual, exterior, such as physical health, actions, land-use practices.
  • Self and experience (individual, interior), such as awareness, values, and mental models.
  • Systems (collective, exterior) like economic systems, political systems, judicial systems, and ecosystems; and
  • Culture (collective, interior) like social norms, shared beliefs and worldviews, and traditions.
Why is this important? Well, firstly, each quadrant has its own methodologies, validity claims, and perspectives--all of which are important to understand and include in social change work. For example, the UL quadrant of self and experience has unique methodologies of reflection, phenomenology, and developmental psychology. The UR quadrant, on the other hand, has unique methodologies of the life sciences, like physics, chemistry, biology, as well as the behavioral sciences. The LR quadrant is where we find methodologies relating to the systems sciences, like ecology, political science, and economics. The LL quadrant we find methodologies relating to the socio-cultural domain, such as social psychology, cultural studies, anthropology, and participatory methodologies. Each of these domains influence the global issues we seek to address. Each cannot be reduced to the other, and each must be engaged based on their own particular validity claims and methodologies. (That is, we cannot be assessing the validity of systems in the LR quadrant with the validity claims from psychology, or vice versa.)

However, this does not mean everyone must become an interdisciplinary expert.
Read the whole article.


TEDxWoodsHole - Dan Ariely - Temptations and Self-Control

Nice talk. Dan Ariely is the author of the New York Times Bestseller Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions and of The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Ways We Defy Logic at Work and at Home. Ariely is the James B. Duke Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Economics at Duke University.
Temptations and Self-Control
One of the challenges of human life is what's good for us in the long term often doesn't seem good for us right now. Dieting, for example, is not so much fun now, but good for the future; the same goes for saving money or submitting to preventive medical tests. When we face such tradeoffs, we often focus on the short term rather than our long-terms goals, and in the process we get ourselves into trouble. But wait! There is hope. By understanding where we fall short, there are methods we can use to overcome our natural (and less than desirable) inclinations.

Using simple experiments, Dan Ariely studies how people actually act in the marketplace, as opposed to how they should or would perform if they were completely rational. His interests span a wide range of daily behaviors and his experiments are consistently interesting, amusing, and informative, demonstrating profound ideas that fly in the face of common wisdom.



The Dalai Lama on Seeking Refuge


THE UNION OF BLISS AND EMPTINESS:
Teachings on the
Practice of Guru Yoga

by the Dalai Lama
translated by Thupten Jinpa

more...

Dalai Lama Quote of the Week

What is meant by going for refuge is that you are seeking refuge from some fear. All the objects [Buddha, lama, guru, etc.] in front of you are what is known as the causal refuge, because they serve as the cause for bringing about the resultant refuge within you. You should entrust yourself to these objects from the depth of your heart, and you should see the objects as protectors. The resultant state of your own future realizations, becoming an arya being and attaining buddhahood--which depends on your own actualization of the path--is called the resultant refuge. Someone in difficulty seeking the assistance of a high official is analogous to someone seeking refuge in the causal refuge.

But depending upon others' protection forever is not a courageous way of life; therefore, one has to try to achieve a state where one is no longer dependent upon such a refuge, and this is likened to taking refuge in the resultant buddha, dharma, and sangha. That is the process of taking refuge by a person of high faculty and courage. This practice should be done not for the sake of oneself alone but rather for the sake of all other sentient beings. When you cultivate such an aspiration focused toward the achievement of the omniscient state, it is very much like the generation of the bodhichitta mind.

--from The Union of Bliss and Emptiness: Teachings on the Practice of Guru Yoga by the Dalai Lama, translated by Thupten Jinpa, published by Snow Lion Publications

The Union of Bliss and Emptiness • 5O% off • for this week only
(Good through December 10th).



Friday, December 03, 2010

Current Research on the Human Experience of Spirituality Following the Ingestion of Psilocybin Mushrooms: An Annotated Bibliography

Excellent resource for those who are interested in this quickly advancing area of research.

Citation:
Jade, R. (2010, November 23). Current Research on the Human Experience of Spirituality Following the Ingestion of ‘Magic’ Psilocybin Mushrooms: An Annotated Bibliography for Social Workers and Other Health Care Professionals. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1714051


Rose Jade
Rose Jade, Attorney

November 23, 2010

Abstract:

Brief review of the current scientific research on the therapeutic effects of psilocybin and psilocin on humans, reported rates of use of psilocybin in the United States, the types of social and legal discrimination and stigma surrounding the illegal possession and use of psilocybin, and providing internet-based resources for clinicians. Provides list of questionnaires and other research tools used to assess psilocybin-induced spiritual and mystical experiences.

One-Click Download


Chogyal Namkhai Norbu - Dharma practice in lucid dreams


DREAM YOGA
AND THE PRACTICE OF NATURAL LIGHT

by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
ed. & intro. by Michael Katz

more...

Dharma Quote of the Week

Many of the methods of practicing Dharma that are learned during waking can, upon development of dream awareness, be applied in the dream condition. In fact, one may develop these practices more easily and speedily within the Dream State if one has the capacity to dream lucidly. There are even some books that say that if a person applies a practice within a dream, the practice is nine times more effective than when it is applied during the waking hours.

The dream condition is unreal. When we discover this for ourselves within the dream, the immense power of this realization can eliminate obstacles related to conditioned vision. For this reason, dream practice is very important for liberating us from habits. We need this powerful assistance in particular because the emotional attachments, conditioning, and ego enhancement which compose our normal life have been strengthened over our many, many years.

In a real sense, all the visions that we see in our lifetime are like the images of a dream. If we examine them well, the big dream of life and the smaller dreams of one night are not very different. If we truly see the essential nature of both, we will find that there really is no difference between them. If we can finally liberate ourselves from the chains of emotions, attachments, and ego by this realization, we have the possibility of ultimately becoming enlightened.

--from Dream Yoga and the Practice of Natural Light by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, ed. & intro. by Michael Katz, published by Snow Lion Publications

Dream Yoga • Now at 5O% off
(Good through December 10th).