Café Philos: an internet café

I suppose the short answer is: Evolution. That is, the short answer to the question, "Why is understanding human sexuality so important to understanding human nature?"

From the theory of evolution, we know that reproductive success determines which species will hang around. Then when you combine that with the simple fact we reproduce sexually, you get the short answer. It's not sexual desire that makes understanding our sexuality so important to understanding human nature. It's evolution.

That understanding human sexuality is crucial to understanding human nature is so obvious even some of our politicians know it. That's why they seldom speak of the future in abstract terms -- instead, they speak of "the world we will leave to our children". The distant future is just a fantasy to most people -- until you link it to their reproductive success. Then, of a sudden, it becomes something to be taken seriously.

Sex, of course, is not everything. Human nature is not synonymous with human sexuality, and all efforts to reduce human nature to human sexuality have failed. Yet, our sexuality so pervades us that it is impossible in many ways to understand people without understanding their sexuality. The affair Bill Clinton had with Monica Lewinsky told us at least as much about Bill Clinton the man as his decision to bomb Serbia.

I have always wondered why Clinton chose Lewinsky. A president can pick from a host of women. Why didn't he pick an extraordinarily gifted, talented, sophisticated, and intelligent woman? Put differently, why didn't he pick someone who challenged him, inspired him, made him want to be the best he could be?

This morning, I poured myself a glass of milk and noticed as I poured it that I was thinking the same random thought I'd had the day before when I poured myself a glass of milk. But that wasn't all, for yesterday I'd noticed that very same thing repetitious thought when I poured myself a glass of milk.

Moreover, in recent days, I've discovered more repetitious thoughts. It seems when I put on my shoes, the same thought pops into my head as when I last put them on. When I brush my teeth, I have the same thought as the last time I brushed my teeth. These are all different thoughts -- I don't think the same thing putting on my shoes as I do brushing my teeth -- but they are in each circumstance the same thought today as they were in that same circumstance yesterday.

It seems so many of the spontaneous thoughts I have on a given day are repetitious.

I can guess at a simple explanation for it. Some of the neurons in my brain have made more or less random associations between, say, putting on my shoes and my memories of the weather on a certain day last week. So, when I put on my shoes those neurons are prompted to fire and I remember the weather on that day. It doesn't surprise me that happens. What has surprised me in recent days is how much it happens.

So many of my thoughts are familiar to me that I'm beginning to suspect the brain is an extraordinarily repetitious animal. It seems to like ruts. As I was going to the laundry room a few minutes ago, it occurred to me (for the first time, apparently), "These repetitious thoughts are comforting. They reassure me I am the same person I was the day before. They provide a semblance of stability in an ever changing world. Yet, that semblance of stability is based on the mere repetition of thoughts, the repeated firing of the same neurons, rather than on the stability of events. Is it therefore illusionary?"

I didn't pursue the idea very far. It's one of those notions that can be tested through observation, so I decided to simply wait and watch rather than try to reason it out.

"Every real thought on every real subject knocks the wind out of somebody or other."

- Oliver Wendell Holmes

"Don't flatter yourself that friendship authorizes you to say disagreeable things to your intimates. The nearer you come into relation with a person, the more necessary do tact and courtesy become."

- Oliver Wendell Holmes

I think it's ironic that at the very moment communication and transportation technologies are creating a "global world", specialization is fragmenting each of our societies into expert little niches that often do not understand one another.

It's no longer much of an exaggeration these days to say the only people who understand the law are lawyers, the only people who understand medicine are doctors, the only people who understand information technologies are IT specialists, the only people who understand plumbing are plumbers, and the only people who understand carpentry are carpenters.

Yet, all of those people are increasingly using each other's products and services. I'm typing this on a computer whose components are made in several countries to be read by people from several countries -- and yet much of what I know about the world is so highly specialized that I avoid discussing it except in general terms. Likewise, I can only follow general discussions of what my friends for whom I'm typing this know about the world.

It's not just that we are becoming one world: We are also at the same time dividing into many worlds. I think that is one of the reasons the internet is so important to the future of humanity. It seems to have the power to bring together people from diverse backgrounds, from diverse skill and information niches, into unified online communities. Without that, the world could unite economically -- and even politically -- but perhaps not in a very humane way.

Formal philosophy is just as much a matter of unlearning the mistakes of the past as it is a matter of creating new mistakes for future generations to unlearn.

I pulled up an old article published on the web by Discover Magazine this morning and read, "Harvard psychologist Marc Hauser's new theory says evolution hardwired us to know right from wrong." Yet, that's not quite what Marc Hauser is saying.

Instead, it would be more correct to say, Hauser is asserting something along these lines: Our concept that there is such a thing as right and wrong is hardwired into us by our evolution. We have a sort of universal "moral grammar", but not a universal "moral language". For instance: The notion it is wrong to harm an innocent person is universal, but specific notions of who is innocent and who is not innocent are far from being universal.

Yet, most certainly, Hauser is not saying right and wrong exist independent of us. In Hauser's world, man is the measure of right and wrong -- not some metaphysical standard of right and wrong.

Oddly enough, saying "man is the measure of right and wrong" does not preclude a god having something to do with that measure. For, if I were religious, I could always say something like, "God inscribed a universal moral grammar upon the human heart."

Of course, were I both religious and uncomprehending, I could say something like, "God inscribed morality upon the human heart." But that implies there is only one true morality -- and implying that is just as silly as asserting there is only one true human language.

Another way of illustrating the distinction between moral grammar and moral language would be to say morality is hardwired into us much like tool use is hardwired into us. Humans naturally create and use tools. But the specific kinds of tools humans use can vary from culture to culture. And how tools are used can even vary from person to person. So, too, morality is hardwired into us on one level, yet is determined by our culture on another level, and on yet a third level is individual.

Earlier, Don and I drove out of town south into a hazy fall afternoon. We speculated the haze could be coming from the large California fires, for there seemed no other source for it. It's happened before that smoke has drifted hundreds of miles into Colorado from large fires as far away as California. Was that happening today?

No way of to be certain. But the distant mountains to the south and west were obscured by the haze while above us the sky still embraced the royal blue depth of a perfect autumn day.

I hadn't driven south of Colorado Springs in well over two years. You forget how beautiful the hills and canyons are. The colors are mostly understated and subtle in the fall. Olive junipers dot the yellow grasses, cling to the sandy red cliffs like freckles. The deeper greens of Ponderosa and pinon pines crowd the junipers, and the scrub oak has copper leaves. All respectable earth tones. But then along the water courses, the light bursts as it falls into the luminous yellow leaves of the cottonwoods.

Gorges and canyons, mesas and buttes. The land seems eternal here. It's hard to believe people own it -- you think more of the land owning them.

There's defiance of the land in some of the houses people have built. Houses whose architecture is traditional in distant parts of America -- in the northeast, for instance -- but not here in Colorado. You can't look at those houses without imagining some newcomer has tried to transplant a bit of the lush eastern United States, complete with well watered bluegrass lawns, to the rocky, thin soils of the arid west. Maybe he got homesick for a more congenial landscape. Maybe he's in denial he no longer lives in Massachusetts, Georgia or Kentucky. Whatever the case, it's not really your problem -- yet in this land, his home is an alien.

Some miles south of the Springs, Don and I turned off the main road and, after a few miles, entered Phantom Canyon. Phantom Canyon is a narrow gorge whose rock walls rise 150 or 200 feet. It winds for miles up into the Rockie Mountains -- right into the heart of the high gold country. The road changed from asphalt to gravel, and then from gravel to earth. The walls were mostly red rock deeply fractured by the weather, like an old man's face; and brilliant cottonwoods lined the floor of the canyon.

It's strange how in some parts of Colorado you can see everywhere the evidence of people -- you are after all, traveling a road built by people -- and yet you almost feel you are the first person to explore the land. Twice in the Canyon cars passed us coming from the other direction and each time the occupants waved to us as if we were the first people they'd seen all month. I think that feeling of being a little bit beyond the boundaries of society doesn't just come from the scarcity of people on the Phantom Canyon road. I think it comes from the way the world rises up 150 to 200 feet above you. I think it comes from the way the trees, the grasses, and the brush obey their own laws -- not some gardener's laws. I think it comes from the uncivilized quiet that confronts you when you finally stop and step out of your car. But whatever the source of it, the effect is to give you a slightly different perspective on yourself.

It's not the beauty of nature that most inspires me to reflect on myself. Nature is not always beautiful. But nature is always indifferent. And it's that indifference that inspires both thought and feeling about the human condition.

You can never really put what you learn about yourself from nature in words because what you learned, you didn't learn from words. Rather, you simply experienced a truth. You can write all the commentaries you want about your experiences, but you cannot recreate them through those commentaries. Words never brought a fractured rock cliff into existence.

At times, it seems that societies revolve around the ego. Perhaps it can even seem they are huge conspiracies to make the ego primary in this world. I think the ego is just as much a part of us -- of who we are as a species -- as our eyes and noses, and I reject any ideology that calls for the annihilation of the ego. Yet, I don't think the ego is of primary importance. I think it has its place, but that place is not central.

I believe I see that most clearly when I am out in nature, away from society, away from its tendency to make the ego primary. Yet, it is also out in nature when I feel I am being most true to myself. Is that a paradox?

“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing… after they’ve tried everything else.”

- Winston Churchill

I spent today with my brother, sister-in-law, and my two nephews. Although my brother and his family live just an hour's drive north of me, both my brother and his wife are often traveling on business (one of today's two career families) and so the time we have together is somewhat rare and always precious.

I'm far from being an expert on parenting, so I might have missed a lot of what was going on, but I was amazed at how gentle and patient the two adults are and how well behaved, yet confident, spontaneous and alive, the two boys are.

They are five and six years old -- and I unexpectedly found myself worried about their future.

The last thing I expected today was to be worried about my nephew's future. But there are so many traps laid for children as they grow up. Drugs, bullies, consumerism -- to name just three. As I watched the kids take delight in anything and everything today, I reflected that no matter what opportunities the boys are given in life, no matter how excellent their parents, and no matter how good their education, the risk of tragedy will always be there for them. How do parents do it?

How do parents live with the uncertainty of life without going nuts? If an uncle can feel how fragile the future can be for his nephews, how much more must that feeling be for the parents themselves?

It seems to me that one must learn how to deal with such thoughts.

Four Stone Hearth -- an excellent anthropology carnival -- is up at Primate Diaries. The available articles cover all major branches of anthropology, and Eric's descriptions of them are intriguing and concise. Visit the carnival here.

The other day I was listening to a bimbo talk show host who was scandalized that a nudist resort in Virginia or someplace allowed teens. He seemed to feel that while it was OK for consenting adults to practice nudity, it was horrifying that teens would be allowed to practice nudity. In fact, he thought it was downright immoral of the resort to allow teens in.

Now, I happen to think the talk show host was making a moutain out of a mole hill. For some years ago, I was acquainted with many teens in this town, several of whom would invite me to go along with them on their various excursions, which were often to a nude resort up in the mountains. I recall a number of things about those trips, including staying up until three in the morning in the sauna listening to the teens discuss relationships, sex and God, or being sought out by one teen or another for private chats about their anxieties, but I don't recall that any kids were traumatized by their experiences on these trips. So, I tend to think the bimbo talk show host was just being a bimbo.

But what do you think? Do you think the bimbo talk show host for once had a point? Is there a danger to teen nudity that I didn't see (wouldn't be the first time I haven't seen something)? Should teens be allowed in nudist resorts?

Folks have been leaving some excellent comments on this blog. I've been at a loss responding to them, but I wish you to know that I've been reading the comments with pleasure. I'm deeply grateful to all who have been commenting. Thank you so much for the happiness you've given me!

I've begun to notice that every three months or four months, my brain spontaneously takes a break from blogging. That's what's happened this past week or so -- and it also happened about three or four months ago for a couple of weeks.

I think it's a bit like what happens when you eat too much of your favorite food. You sooner or later get to a place where your favorite food fails to excite your enthusiasm for a while. This past week or two I've been at a loss for ideas of what to write about. Or, more precisely, the ideas I've had have seemed bland and unappetizing to me. I suspect, though, that I'm coming out of it -- otherwise I might not be writing this.

My blog is a long term project. I plan on keeping it up for years. But perhaps I should just accept as natural that I will want a vacation from it every now and then. Otherwise, I might get permanently burnt out -- which would be as life negating as getting permanently burnt out on chocolate.

I'm sorry to say the blog is getting hit by spam for medications so I've enabled comment moderation for a while. That means your comments will not appear immediately. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I'm aware that it has been a very long while since I have posted here. It makes me feel guilty to see my name at the side of this page, particularly because I haven't even conversed with Paul in quite a while.

I hate being one of those subtly-stressed floundering career women who always blame everything on not having enough time. I know that I waste a lot of time chain-smoking and petting my cat. So it would be lame of me to try and justify my prolonged absence. I do enough of that when I call in sick (three cheers for mental health days!).

Instead I will kiss all of your virtual feet and beg for your quiet forgiveness.

An incredibly brief synopsis: Migraines not yet subsided, life in splinters, cat box perpetually dirty, can't find ANY of the twenty some-odd spoons I know are in this house somewhere.
And that is the extent of my knowledge regarding my latent realization that I haven't been happy in months.

Enough whining.

After reading Paul's frighteningly visceral post, "Changes", I felt compelled to share a little secret of mine that makes seasons more bearable and beautiful, even if one hates all four of them.

A long time ago I decided to rename the seasons to suit what they actually DO to me. It's obvious that changes in weather aren't gentle in their violent rearrangement of my outlook and substance. In fact, it may have nothing at all to do with the weather, but rather, my life may follow some twisted cycle of phases that lines up perfectly with Mother Nature's, and it's all pure coincidence.

(Thanks go out to my grade twelve sociology teacher for drilling it into my brain that "correlation is not causation", and forcing me to remove all natural assumption from my daily thought process.)

I don't suggest that anyone adopt the same labels for seasons that I have, as they're likely influenced by my own experience, and the fact that I live in Canada. However, I think 'renaming' the seasons to accommodate one's feelings toward them can promote self-awareness. Because really, who actually knows what the heck "summer" means anyway.

These are mine, respectively:

Boring, Rainy, Miserable Days

Arid, Thoughtless Days crammed full of Denial

Sleepy Days when everything smells Pleasantly Dead

Desperate, Freshly Frozen Days

Also, my personal blog, Lipstick Without Borders, has been flagged for objectionable content. *VICTORY DANCE*
Cheers to my no longer being viewed as the Milk and Cookies of the online literary world.

The wind sounds so beautiful this morning. Now and then, it brings a burst of rain. With the windows open, I can smell the rain and feel the chill of Fall.

I know I shall refuse to close those windows until at last it becomes too cold this year to leave them open. I don't want to miss the change in the seasons -- not even when I'm inside. Not even for a moment.

I wonder this morning why that's so. What is it about the change in seasons that I love it so much? It's more to me than just the novelty of a new season.

Sometimes I think it's the absolute proof of nature's power I love so much. Inexorable, nature puts me in my place. Only our egos, it seems, want us to be the biggest thing in the world. Something else, something much deeper than ego, wants only to have its proper place in this world. Perhaps it's only when we have found that place that we can connect to the world -- authentically.

In his new memoir, Wesley Clark relates being told by a high up in the Pentagon that neocons in the US had plans to invade seven Middle Eastern countries in five years. Joe Conason has the story here.

Via WobbleWax

Eric, at the Primate Diaries, has posted his picks for the Intellectual Blogger Award here, while Hume's Ghost, at the Daily Doubter, has posted his picks here. Both have selected what look to be exceptional and excellent blogs for the award, well worth checking out.

UPDATE:

Ed, at Not Exactly Rocket Science, has put up his picks for the award here. They, too, look well worth checking out.

Suppose your favorite deity commanded you to do something that was not true to yourself? Would you be justified in not obeying your god because s/he commanded you to do something that was not true to yourself?

Suppose you believed your favorite deity had created you, and that, consequently, you are being true to your deity by being true to yourself. If you believed that, and your favorite deity commanded you to to do something that was not true to yourself, would you be justified in not obeying your god?

"Satan is the one who plants wicked thoughts in our minds." I read those words on a site yesterday and they stopped me for a while as I wondered what kind of fearful struggle their author must experience to believe that each time he has a wicked thought it comes from Satan. Can you imagine?

Suppose he thinks, as it seems so many religious people do, that even his sexual desires are wicked? Well, according to some psychologists, one thinks of sex every few minutes. Does he feel he's wrestling with Satan every few minutes?

How can one cope with such a monstrous notion -- the notion one's mind is wrestling with Satan? How could one ever be at peace with oneself?

I'm certain I have thoughts he would consider wicked, and therefore from Satan. But I don't see my thoughts the way he does. I'm not in a struggle against any of my thoughts -- to struggle against an unpleasant thought just prolongs it in consciousness. To be frightened of a thought reinforces it, makes it stronger. To condemn a thought just fixes it in memory.

As best I can, I watch my thoughts. I'm attentive to them. But I don't struggle with them. I don't condemn them. I just idly watch them come and go.

I think that poor man must go around in circles, like a puppy chasing his own tail. Perhaps he's struggled so hard against his wicked thoughts that he's committed all of them to memory, where they ever lie in wait to pop up again and again. Perhaps he's reinforced the neural pathways of those wicked thoughts so much they are extremely robust and crowd out most other thoughts.

It would be ironic if I had more wicked thoughts than he did with the difference being I forget my many while he never forgets his few.

The net was full of good articles last week. Here are a few you might not want to miss:

Ed Brayton analyzes the threat of the Religious Right to pull its support of the Republican Party if the Republicans fail to nominate a candidate who is socially conservative enough for them here.

Dan Harlow discusses the history of nudes in art here as a way of explaining why he believes Spencer Tunick is the most important living artist. (Thanks to DOF for alerting me to this fascinating article).

Chanson vividly discusses the morality of the Judeo-Christian God here and finds it wanting. Her essay is sharp, illustrative and damning.

AOS writes about the quite disturbing fact that life feeds on life in his essay aptly titled, "I Exist, Therefore I Destroy", which is here.

Mystic Wing writes a beautifully styled essay on the passage of all things here.

Loren has put up a series of insightful posts on the poetry of Howard Nemerov which begin here, and continue here, here, and here. Loren's introductions to poets are beautiful in their simple intimacy -- like a good conversation.

The worse epidemic of rape in the world is currently taking place in the Congo -- unknown to most people. Captive Diaries has the story here.

McCullagh creates a new law of politics and convincingly explains how it works here. (Thanks to Mahendra for alerting me to this great article.)

Eric has somehow managed to combine two seemingly unrelated topics -- evolution and erotic lap dancing -- in a way that could shake up your preconceptions of female sexuality. His article is here.

What strengths should a writer have? That's a meme currently making its way around the net. In separate posts, four remarkable writers share their insights and wisdom: Nita, Mahendra, Ordinary Girl, and Rambodoc.

Ed has put up a post on the evolution of verbs in the English language here. Interestingly, there is now a way to predict how verbs will change in the future!

Decrepit Old Fool posts on the astounding story of Curt Herzstark, who was captured by the Nazis and sent to a concentration camp to die -- He not only survived but thrived. Article here.

Eolake briefly reports the next new horror in bad taste here.

I absolutely cannot resist mentioning the poignant beauty of this photograph by Steve.

Gary writes engagingly about the remarkably beautiful working relationship he has with his co-teacher, Lauren, here.

"Pride is never justified. It is based on a mistaken evaluation of oneself, or on successes that are only temporary and superficial. We should remember its negative effects. We should also be aware of our defects and limitations, and realize that fundamentally we are no different from those we see as inferior."

- Dalai Lama

Yesterday, former President Jimmy Carter went on record stating the United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law.

But first some background: The New York Times disclosed on October 4th the existence of secret Justice Department memorandums supporting the use of "harsh interrogation techniques", including "head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures."

In response to The Times article, President Bush defended the techniques last Friday and said, "This government does not torture people."

Yesterday, Carter went on CNN and all but called the President a liar.

The CNN interview was conducted by Wolf Blitzer, no friend of Carter's:

BLITZER: President Bush said as recently as this week the United States does not torture detainees.

CARTER: That's not an accurate statement. If you use the international norms of torture as has always been honored, certainly in the last 60 years, since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated. But you can make your own definition of human rights and say, we don't violate them. And we can — you can make your own definition of torture and say we don't violate it.

BLITZER: But by your definition, you believe the United States, under this administration, has used torture.

CARTER: I don't think it, I know it, certainly.

BLITZER: So is the president lying?

CARTER: The president is self-defining what we have done and authorized in the torture of prisoners, yes.

I suppose this means presidents no longer lie -- they merely "self-define". Yet, whatever one might think of his euphemisms, Carter pretty much stated what the world knows -- the US is torturing prisoners and the Administration is bullshitting. Carter, it seems, is one politician who is being honest with us -- and he's likely to get crucified for it.

After the CNN interview, Carter went on BBC World News America. This time his target was Dick Cheney:

He's a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world.

You know he's been a disaster for our country. I think he's been overly persuasive on President George Bush and quite often he's prevailed.

At the rate he's going, I'm definitely going to miss Carter when he passes on. The man was a failed president, but I think he has since redeemed himself through his moral activism as an ex-president. Basically, he's turned himself into a statesman. And whether one agrees with him or not, one most likely does not get the impression that Jimmy Carter is hiding what he genuinely thinks or feels.

A couple more quotes from Carter -- this time on the GOP candidates for president:

They all seem to be outdoing each other in who wants to go to war first with Iran, who wants to keep Guantanamo open longer and expand its capacity -- things of that kind.

They're competing with each other to appeal to the ultra-right-wing, war-mongering element in our country, which I think is the minority of our total population.

Yesterday, Jimmy Carter spoke more truth to the world in two interviews than the Bush Administration speaks in twenty.


References:

Carter Says US Tortures Prisoners

Jimmy Carter Unplugged: Former President Takes Aim at Bush and Cheney

Jimmy Carter Calls Cheney a "Disaster" for US

Jimmy Carter: US Tortures Prisoners

Today, 138 leading Muslim scholars from around the world will present an unprecedented open letter to the Pope and many other Christian leaders.

The letter calls for peace between Christians and Muslims, and notes that:

Together they [Christians and Muslims] make up more than 55 per cent of the population, making the relationship between these two religious communities the most important factor in contributing to meaningful peace around the world. If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace.

The scholars state:

As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes.

The scholars then continue:

With the terrible weaponry of the modern world; with Muslims and Christians intertwined everywhere as never before, no side can unilaterally win a conflict between more than half of the world's inhabitants. Thus our common future is at stake. The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake.

Well, they've got that right -- a religious war between Muslims and Christians would turn the whole world into a Northern Ireland.

Yet, what makes this letter remarkable is, not just the call for peace between Christians and Muslims, but -- and this may be of more lasting importance -- the Muslim scholars assert that Christianity and Islam share a profound common ground: "The Unity of God, the necessity of love for [God], and the necessity of love of the neighbour is thus the common ground between Islam and Christianity." According to the BBC radio this morning, the 29 page letter even asserts that Christians and Muslims worship the same god, and that all the prophets, including Jesus and Mohamed, were revealed the same truths. The 138 scholars are from every school in Islam.

The way I figure it, this is a necessary and long overdue -- but rather small step -- towards peace.

For it to be of any lasting significance, it must lead to much greater things than a few conferences. The notion that Islam and Christianity are not inherently at odds with each other must become commonplace wisdom everywhere in the world. For something like that to happen will certainly take a lot of time and effort -- if it happens at all. Still, a journey of 10,000 miles begins with one step. This could be that step.

References:

Pope Told 'Survival of World' at Stake if Muslims and Christians do not Make Peace

Muslim Statement on Peace Among the Religions 'Historic', Says Academic

"What one seems to want in art, in experiencing it, is the same thing that is necessary for its creation, a self-forgetful, perfectly useless concentration."

- Elizabeth Bishop

Some people believe that atheists should quit calling themselves "atheists".

Atheist means "non-theist", and many people feel it is no more appropriate to call oneself a "non-theist" than it is to call oneself a "non-astrologist" or a "non-UFO believer". Sam Harris, for instance, writes extensively about the issue here. Why should anyone define themselves by what they are not?

So, do you agree with Harris and others that it's silly for atheists to call themselves "atheists", or is there something Harris et al. are not seeing?

"One problem with atheism as a category of thought, is that it seems more or less synonymous with not being interested in what someone like the Buddha or Jesus may have actually experienced. In fact, many atheists reject such experiences out of hand, as either impossible, or if possible, not worth wanting. Another common mistake is to imagine that such experiences are necessarily equivalent to states of mind with which many of us are already familiar—the feeling of scientific awe, or ordinary states of aesthetic appreciation, artistic inspiration, etc."

"As someone who has made his own modest efforts in this area, let me assure you, that when a person goes into solitude and trains himself in meditation for 15 or 18 hours a day, for months or years at a time, in silence, doing nothing else—not talking, not reading, not writing—just making a sustained moment to moment effort to merely observe the contents of consciousness and to not get lost in thought, he experiences things that most scientists and artists are not likely to have experienced, unless they have made precisely the same efforts at introspection. And these experiences have a lot to say about the plasticity of the human mind and about the possibilities of human happiness."

"So, apart from just commending these phenomena to your attention, I’d like to point out that, as atheists, our neglect of this area of human experience puts us at a rhetorical disadvantage. Because millions of people have had these experiences, and many millions more have had glimmers of them, and we, as atheists, ignore such phenomena, almost in principle, because of their religious associations—and yet these experiences often constitute the most important and transformative moments in a person’s life. Not recognizing that such experiences are possible or important can make us appear less wise even than our craziest religious opponents."

- Sam Harris

"[O]ur habitual identification with discursive thought, our failure moment to moment to recognize thoughts as thoughts, is a primary source of human suffering."

- Sam Harris

"There's No One Driving the Plane" is largely a political blog -- and one of the funniest I've come across on the net. It's written by Mark (a.k.a. "Marxsny") who brings to it not only his sharp sense of humor, but also his background in both science and business.

The articles are not overtly intellectual. They are neither footnoted, nor cry out for footnotes, and Mark sometimes buries the weight of his analysis under a sort of uncertain fatalism -- or perhaps, "a light hearted despair" -- that at the last moment turns away from emphasizing his conclusions in a typically intellectual manner. But those things are just issues of style: "There's No One Driving the Plane" is an intellectual blog.

Along with the exceptional analytical skills he probably honed by studying science and business, Mark uses sarcasm to cut through the smoke of politics and get to something approaching the truth -- as close as anyone ever gets to the truth. He is both incisive and insightful. But I sometimes think Mark would be happier writing about music and the arts than about politics. So far as I know, writing about music and the arts seldom makes you want to take a shower afterwards, whereas writing about politics so often does.

In a typical post, Mark strings together several seemingly unrelated ideas in a way that might disconcert someone who does not love ideas -- but if you love ideas, then it's easy to think of his string of ideas as a string of diamonds. At least, that's what I imagine them to be.

For those and other reasons, I am very pleased to tag Mark and "There's No One Driving the Plane" with the Intellectual Blogger Award.

As I was writing my tags for the Intellectual Blogger Award, the realization came to me that, time and again, when I've needed to be reassured there is beauty in this world, I've turned to Amuirin's blog, "Stop and Wander", to find beauty not only in the wonder of her poetic prose, but also in her wisdom. (Thank you, Amuirin!)

People sometimes complain that intellectuals are so in awe of ideas they turn them into clumsy, ponderous things. If so, Amuirin is certainly the exception. She is either such a gifted intellectual -- or she is such a gifted writer -- or she is both -- that she makes ideas dance.

She is so creative, unassuming, and even casual in the way she offers up an idea that you are almost never aware until later that she's actually smacked you upside the head with something quite profound. I find this is especially true of her writings on love, living, and spirituality.

She is an independent, creative thinker, who happens to be a beautiful thinker too, and so I am very pleased to tag her for the Intellectual Blogger Award.

Hume's Ghost is the author of "The Daily Doubter", whose motto is taken from Voltaire: "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." His blog is one of the most perfectly intellectual blogs I've come across on the net, and so I am tagging Hume's Ghost and "The Daily Doubter" with the Intellectual Blogger Award.

What makes "The Daily Doubter" a perfect example of intellectual blogging at its best? To be sure, it is certainly not because Hume's Ghost writes mainly about politics. Instead, it's the almost unique way in which he writes about politics.

Most of the political writing I've come across on the net is far from intellectual. At times it's about political reportage, at times about drama, and at times about scoring points for one's own views, but it is rarely about the lasting and underlying principles involved in politics. "The Daily Doubter" is different.

Hume's Ghost has one of the most sure footed grasps of the principles at stake in politics that I've yet to encounter on the net. His insight into those principles makes his writing universal. Even though he is nominally talking about American politics, the fact he talks about those politics in terms of the principles involved should make his discussions relevant to nearly everyone. In that respect, he's very much like Mahendra, who created the Intellectual Blogger Award, and Nita, one of the first bloggers to win it. All three authors are capable of transcending their own cultures to get at things in ways that are universally relevant and important.

"The Daily Doubter" is also one of those blogs I turn to when I need to be reassured there is reason and sanity in this world. Hume's Ghost thoroughly documents his reasoning, fairly quotes the other side to any argument, and is prepared to change his views if presented with compelling evidence that contradicts them. His intellectual honesty is beyond reproach. He's the sort of person you could point an intellectually gifted child to, saying, "See! That's the kind of intellectual you should aspire to become!"

For those and other reasons, I am very pleased to tag Hume's Ghost and "The Daily Doubter" with the Intellectual Blogger's Award.

"The Primate Diaries" is one of those blogs I gratefully turn to after I've had a day dealing with the inanity and hysteria that, at times, so many humans seem slave to. Eric's combination of reason, insight and deep sense never fails to refresh me. On more than a few occasions, he's been an oasis.

Another reason I love "The Primate Diaries" is because Eric challenges me to think sharper and better, to improve my reasoning, and to grow in my understanding.

Some of the best articles I've read on the net have been Eric's. I'm especially fond of when he writes about how common human traits -- such as altruism -- came about through evolution. But Eric writes engagingly on a wide variety of subjects besides the evolutionary origin of human behavior -- including articles on politics, culture, and religion.

For all of those reasons and more, I am very pleased to tag Eric and "The Primate Diaries" with the Intellectual Blogger Award. Congratulations, Eric, and thank you so much for your wonderful blog!

Hear ye! Here ye! Let it be known far and wide by this proclamation that, by the powers invested in me by Mahendra, I hereby tag Ed Yong and his most excellent "Not Exactly Rocket Science" with the Intellectual Blogger Award.

Ed describes his mission thus: "This blog is my small attempt to celebrate science and to make it interesting and fun, by giving jargon, confusion and elitism a solid beating with the stick of good writing."

The thing is, Ed lives up to that mission. Anyone who wants to see a mission statement turn into reality (as opposed to empty words) should visit Ed's blog for that reason alone. But there are other reasons too, besides his integrity, that I'm pleased to tag Ed's blog.

What Ed has done on "Not Exactly Rocket Science" is make genuine science accessible to people who do not hold an advanced degree in the fields he writes about. His articles not only lay out the conclusions of scientific papers, but also the reasoning behind the conclusions. And he often corrects mistakes made by the popular media in reporting science news.

Beyond that, Ed is a superb writer. He is a genius at clarity, a master of the apt phrase, and he is even downright witty. I've said this before, but Ed's writing is not mere reportage -- it's literature.

I strongly suspect Ed of being a genius in more ways than in his writing -- how else can any one person read, understand, and explain the findings of so many different branches of science?

Ed richly deserves the Intellectual Blogger Award, and it gives me immense pleasure to tag him with it.

For the first time in months, my blog reading was forced to take a back seat to other concerns last week. So, while I have some articles that I think you will find interesting -- and even excellent -- I have certainly missed others I would have liked to post here. That's why I think I'm going to post the first few now, and then update this list over the next day or so.

If you have a child in the house, you probably already know just how extremely important it is that you are well informed about which dinosaurs had feathers and which didn't. Other than that, it's simply fascinating to find out about those critters. There is now very good evidence that velociraptor had feathers, which you can read about on Ed's blog here.

Ken Ham recently updated his site "Answers in Genesis" with an article that argues science should be redefined to allow for supernatural explanations of why the universe works as it does. Zeno takes on Ham's absurd notion here.

Bill Hulet discusses those sometimes very subtle social walls we throw up between ourselves and others here.

In a brief, humorous article, The Rational Fool writes about "vocal terrorism" -- a form of terrorism we might all see one day and should prepare ourselves for. For some reason, I can't establish a permanent link to the exact article, so this link is just to the Rational Fool's blog. But search down the sidebar for the article, "Vocal Terrorism".

Glenn Greenwald writes here about a mystery that's puzzled me: Why are so many "liberal Democrats" voting with the President on the key issues on which they should have ideological differences with him?

The Daily Doubter has put up a really beautiful essay that on the surface only discusses the politics of DDT, but on reflection says so much about ideological thinking in general. Find it here.

Think Buddha looks very deeply into the relationships between various religious views and the tendency of people to murder their fellow humans here. I found his article both illuminating and thought provoking.

Good news (for some)! The Religious Right in America might pull out of the next presidential election by refusing to vote -- or by voting third party -- thus in all likelihood handing the election to the Democrats. Read about it on Ed Brayton's blog here.

Those are the "first ups" for this Friday, but I will be adding more to this list soon, so look for updates!


UPDATE:

Steve has put up an interesting article on his response to some rap lyrics here, and a genuinely awesome photo here.

Mahendra researches and reports on a threat to internet free speech here.

Very recently, Mahendra over at An Unquiet Mind absolutely stunned me by granting Café Philos the Intellectual Blogger Award.

I confess I've secretly coveted the Award ever since I first saw it displayed on Nita's site. But being the dense person that I am at times, I didn't realize that Mahendra himself had created the Award until he granted it to me in this post.

Have you ever gotten something you really wanted but didn't think you had a shot at? If so, then perhaps you can imagine my astonishment at being granted the Intellectual Blogger Award -- and by no less than the creator of the Award himself! I've been walking on air for a week!

Mahendra describes the purpose of the Award thus:

This award is intended for those bloggers who demonstrate an inclination to think on their own. This is what I think is needed in today’s blogosphere. The term ‘Intellectual’ has often been derided in recent times, and this is one way to resurrect the true meaning: “An intellectual is one who tries to use his or her intellect to work, study, reflect, speculate on, or ask and answer questions with regard to a variety of different ideas.”

And he gives the simple rules here:

1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with nominations for 5 blogs that you think are of “Intellectual Bloggers”.
2. Optional: Link to this page so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme.
3. Optional: Proudly display the ‘Intellectual Blogger Award’ with a link to the post that you wrote.

So, it is now my duty to tag five other bloggers with this wonderful Award. I have already decided on three of them, and will give each a brief separate post to follow this one.

Thank you so much, Mahendra for the honor you do me.

UPDATE:

Tags:

Ed Yong at "Not Exactly Rocket Science" tagged here.

Eric Micheal Johnson at "The Primate Diaries" tagged here.

Hume's Ghost at "The Daily Doubter" tagged here.

Amuirin at "Stop and Wander" tagged here.

Mark at "There's No One Driving the Plane!" tagged here.

I'm back -- and twice as sexy as before!!!

Thank you, everyone, for sticking with me during my recent unexpected one week hiatus. It's deeply appreciated. I've been reading everyone's comments and finding them wonderful -- although I haven't had the time to respond to them.

Also, I will be putting up links to blogs from around the net on Friday. It is great to be back! My heart is with this online blogging community.

Does God have a pompadour like so many of his preachers?

"Religion is the idol of the mob; it adores everything it does not understand. "

- Frederick II

"The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."

- Anonymous