Staying Cool

Here's to doing whatever it takes to stay cool:

Don't Mess With Texas!

Texas is an interesting state.  Today they executed a death sentence on a Mexican citizen, in spite of the fact, as it turns out, that he was denied one (at least) of his rights under the U.S. Constitution, which states that " ... all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The right which this Mexican citizen was denied concerns a foreign treaty, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, for what that's worth, and states that all foreign nationals have the right to "counsel with their consul."  ;  )

Texas, Governor Rick Perry in particular, feels that in Texas they do whatever they want; the federal government can't dictate to them, foreign governments sure as hell can't.  Perry, at times, when his poll numbers are dropping I suppose, will trot out the old secession talk.  So I started thinking about that.

Suppose we said, you want out?  OK, you're out.  Texas, you are now a foreign country, to us.  And keep your damn "citizens" out of our country!  Then we build a wall.  A nice high one.  And we put some signs up, No Texans Allowed!  We require any Texan that wishes to travel in the U.S. to get a passport.  If any Texan wishes to move to the U.S. he must go through a lengthy and somewhat arbitrary approval process.  If any Texan is found in the U.S. and cannot produce the necessary passport or proof of citizenship, or some sort of "work permit" he is to be immediately tossed into a jail, which will be run by a warden who hates Texans.  He'll get to appear before a judge and explain himself.  Eventually. 

Think that's what he has in mind?

       

Some More William James

Continuing with the History of American Thought, and William James's contribution to it, I suggest that the idea that we may very well exist in a "God"-less universe leads to two philosophical questions, both of which were formerly answered by the existence of God.

The first asks what is the source of morality, or maybe, what is the ultimate moral authority? We covered that a little in the previous post regarding James's The Will To Believe.

The second question, with which we will now begin to deal, is, what is the source of ultimate Truth?  Is there even one?  Another way to look at this question, a beginning point anyway, is, what do we mean when we say we "know" something?  Is there a difference in belief and knowledge?  If we claim to know something that turns out to be false, is it fair to say that we did not actually "know" it, we only thought we did?  And if we believe something is true, what is the point of claiming knowledge of this truth if we recognize that at some future time we may discover that we are wrong.  Is there such a thing as knowledge or is it all just belief?

Whew!  Why did I think this would be easy?  Anyway, knowledge claims are based on various foundations.  Aristotle believed that reason led to knowledge.  The empiricists believed that examination of "the facts" would lead to knowledge of truth.  Generations of thinkers relied on the authority of Aristotle.  Others insisted that "holy scripture," "The Bible," were the only true authority, that God was the one sure source of knowledge, the determinant of Truth.

In What Pragmatism Means, James argues that truth is what "works."  If we have a question and a possible answer, we "test" the answer, see if it "holds up."  Against what do we test it though?  Something in the writings of Aristotle?  Look in the Bible?  James says that the pragmatist doesn't rule this appeal to authority out, it can be used as a starting point, at least, but he doesn't accept "authority."  He treats it more like informed opinion.  What we also do, he says, is try it in the real world.  Think about Aristotle and his idea that a bigger stone would fall at a greater velocity than a smaller stone.  The pragmatist, indeed even the empiricist, says, "let's see."  And if we determine that the stones fall at the same rate then we consider what we have (Aristotle says this, we just saw that) and we decide.  The pragmatist sees no reason to distrust his own eyes simply for the sake of being faithful to the statement of a man who lived 2,000 years ago and can no longer be questioned, so he decides that, at least for now, the truth appears to be (is?) that two different sized stones fall at the same rate.

But the question remains, what IS the Truth?  Have we found it?  How can we know?  The urge to check our findings is strong.  But how?  We would like to consult some ultimate authority, someone who "knows."  That was always "God."  God would know.  If only we could ask Him.  Which led many to the Bible.  The Bible is God's word, God wouldn't lie to us (would He?); try to find the answer in there.  Of course the Bible is finite and the number of possible questions is infinite so we can see that the Bible cannot answer all questions.  Right?  And anyway, the thinking is, what is the source of Truth if there IS no "God"?

James, as far as I can tell, says that there is no such source, there is only what works.  We hold these truths, then, until new information comes to light and then we incorporate the new information into our new Truth.  Obviously, then, we cannot afford to get to married to any particular truth, since new information may show us to be at least slightky in error.

So, do we ever really "know" anything or don't we?  What do you think?  (There is more in this vein coming, it's kind of a major philosophical question.  ;  ) ) 
      

Here's What I Wrote For My Class

The class is Comm. Arts 368: Theory and Practice of Persuasion.  I thought it might be a lot more about politics; so far it's been a lot about advertising.  Today we did see some political stuff and last night's reading used Abraham Lincoln and Rush Limbaugh to make a point about "factoids."

Anyway, the assignment was to write a two page critcal analysis of some print ad or TV commercial.  I used this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YOeCd03_tA

Here's what I wrote:

Visa: It’s everywhere you want to be.  Who has not heard that slogan?  It has been ubiquitous for more than twenty years.  It works because it is true (Visa is accepted just about everywhere) and it describes something we want (a card that works like gold).  Take it wherever you go and you don’t need money.  This TV commercial adds another element: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YOeCd03_tA

This paper will analyze this commercial, beginning with the concepts upon which its appeal is based (there are two), evaluating the effectiveness and suggesting ways in which the appeal could be increased. 

            The commercial begins with action footage of NBA stars and a voiceover, “They’ve been called the greatest team in Olympic history … “  This is an appeal based upon the “Social identity-promotion” model.   This model plays on people’s desire to feel a part of the “in” crowd.  Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan; these three and the others are ideals of athletic excellence.  If we can have ourselves identified with these “heroes” we will happily do so.  Plus, it is also the Olympics.  They only happen once every four years.  Players on the Olympic team are perceived as the “best of the best.”  The Olympics also play on national pride and feelings of patriotism.  So we see widely admired superstar basketball players traveling across the ocean to demonstrate their excellence in a quadrennial event while wearing the red, white and blue, with a high likelihood that they will “bring the gold” back to America (they’ve been called the greatest team in Olympic history).  I want to be a part!

            So how can I share in this moment of glory and national pride?  Obviously I can’t be on the team.  But I can go as a spectator.  That sounds exciting.  But, I have a problem.  I am not an experienced world traveler.  How much money will I need?  Will I have to convert my dollars to something else?  What?  Can I trust the “money changers”?  What to do?

            Enter appeal number two, based on the “ego defensive” model.  This commercial plays on the promotion angle and the prevention.  If I take the Visa card my problems are solved.  It spends like cash.  I am also warned that American Express will not cut it, “because once again the Olympics don’t take American Express.  Visa: It’s everywhere you want to be.”  I cannot go wrong with Visa, can I?  Count me in!

            Still, the commercial does leave room for improvement.  If they really want to allay all of my fears, telling me that Visa is good “at the ticket window” does not go very far.  What about food?  What about the hotels?  Is Visa really everywhere I want (and need) to be?  Or is that just a slogan?  I need to know this.  Also, at the end, when they show the card, it’s blue.  I would make it gold.  The whole premise of the commercial, the part based on the ego defensive appeal anyway, is that my Visa card is as good as gold.  It spends everywhere!  Just like gold.  The card should be gold.  Why pass up this obvious and easy symbolism?  It is true that the term “gold card” has a specific meaning to a credit card company but why would they assume that I am not a gold card candidate?  Or even already a gold cardholder?  And they could color the card gold regardless of whether or not is an actual gold card.  AND, even if they would rather not do that, the one in the commercial can certainly be gold.

            This commercial plays on the viewer’s desire to be part of the “in crowd” and invokes feelings of national pride.  It makes the viewer want to somehow be a part of an exciting event, the Olympics.  It then plays on the viewer’s fear of being “caught short.”  It does this cleverly, however, not giving him time to begin to counter-argue and talk himself out of going, by offering the solution to the problem at the beginning of the presentation of the problem.  “But if you think they’re tough, wait’ll you see the guys at the ticket window if you don’t have your Visa card.”  As they show the card being slid across.  Problem introduced and solved in the same sentence.  Very effective commercial.

What Else?

OK, I just wrote a paper for my summer class and unlike all those damn history papers I spent the last four years writing, this one took just under two hours.  And that included watching a TV commercial on youtube about 14 times (I was critiquing it).  So, I've got my writing brain revved up and extra time.

My favorite class of all of them (there are 2 or 3 other contenders but this one is it) was History 302: History of American Thought, 1859 to the present.  As you might guess from the title this class dealt with American philosophy. 

So what is American philosophy?  Lots of things, no doubt.  This course begins with 1859, not 1620 or 1776, or 1789.  Why 1859?  John Brown?  The looming Civil War?  Nope.  Charles Darwin.  A Brit?  Yup.  Why?  Well, a lot of our ideas and ideal came from England, right?  Still, that's not really the point.  We started with Darwin (1859 was the publication date of his On the Origin of Species) because, basically, Darwin changed everything.  Origin of Species affected a lot more than just how we looked at evolutionary biology.  Darwinism implied that there was no real need for a "God" explanation of the Universe (something that had been evolving for a while, as Geologists and Paleontologists had already thrown serious doubt into the Biblical time line).

If God didn't create us, if there was in fact no "Creation" at all, just long, slow evolution, then how do we know that there even IS a God?  We don't, right?  That was always the basis for the belief; how ELSE could we have gotten here?  Bit by bit, over the years, science had answered many of the questions that had once been considered unanswerable, except by "God did it."  Certainly people could still argue that God created the universe and the earth, and life on earth, just as lower forms, knowing all along that eventually the human race would result.  Kind of chips away at the Bible as absolutely true, though, as Genesis pretty specifically refers to God making Adam as a fully realized human being.

Anyway, the point of the class, then, was how did this new idea, or set of ideas, influence American philosophy.  Basically, if there is no God (still an "if") from where do morals or ethics derive?  People had been taught for ages that we shouldn't kill, or steal, because God has handed down laws forbidding it, and God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, etc.  If there is no God, then ... ?

We read three pieces by William James http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James, including (we'll get to the others, too) The Will to Believe (1897).  In this piece James argues that whether or not there is a God, which might well be unanswerable, it is beneficial to behave in such a way as to win the approval of an ultimate judge.  This goes well beyond Pascal's Wager, which he dismisses early in the piece as being "worse than silly, vile."  James's point isn't just that we need to guard against future punishment by a supreme being but that living as if one's life matters, as if being "good" has value, leads to positive outcomes in this world. He will have more friends, he will be considered trustworthy, people will treat him with respect.

He also makes the strongest case I have ever heard or read for "believing" in spite of a shortage of hard evidence.  Frequently in life, he writes, we must decide between two options when we would really like more information.  So we decide; we do the best we can with what we have.  Why should the matter of belief in "God" be different.  It is no different, he says.  Even the agnostic makes a decision.  One either believes or one does not, there is no third option.  If one does not believe, he has decided, based upon this same shortage of evidence he points to when confronting the believer.  The argument that the agnostic is awaiting further information is a specious one, he says.  No more information is likely to come.  Meanwhile, the agnostic is still living his life based on his non-belief, as the believer is living his, based on his belief.  There is no call for the agnostic to feel superior, he has done the exact same thing as the believer by choosing option B.

Read it for yourself, if you like: http://educ.jmu.edu/~omearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html

In this piece James touches on the idea od universal truth, an idea which he develops further in our next piece.   

Well ...

... I'm back.  1,100 miles driven, one 50 question test taken (I killed it), some Jeopardy playing and an interview.  I think I'm in.  Won't know until I find out.  ;  )

Here I Go!

I'm off to Kansas City to try out for Jeopardy! (well, after my first summer class, which starts in two hours).  I'll let you know how it comes out.