Parameters and Paradigms

I posted a tweet, recently, asking,

"Do your paradigms define your parameters,

or do your parameters define your paradigms?"

At some point during Jr High math, the concept of parameters was introduced which I found to be quite enlightening. I grew to see life and people in terms of individual parameters - that which defines boundaries of possible action such as values, circumstances, experience, personality, etc... While any number of possible actions could be a response to a given situation, an individual's parameters will identify which options are automatically excluded and which are most likely. (This is likely a large part of how I started noticing people's patterns and anticipating their responses.)

Paradigms are more like existing templates, usually of an external source. Politics, school of thought, nationality, ethnicity, science vs humanities, religion vs atheism, etc... This concept was brought to my attention in an anthropology class in which the liberal, feminist teacher liked to challenge and dismiss religion for its common sense of 'Tradition' (complete with singing and hands raised as known from Fiddle on the Roof). While I am not seeking to start a debate about which is 'right' - a ridiculous waste of energy, usually - I hope the evidence of the chosen paradigms is clear.

The point of my question is to consider whether your parameters are constricted to the boundaries of the paradigms you choose to accept or do you build your own boundaries, with what paradigm influences you choose, be they more or less evident?

Simple example.

American government has formed into a two party system. Other parties exist and people even run for office under those parties. But the strength of the democrat and republican parties is such that, without a major revolution of sorts, no other party will replace those two. The parties are the paradigms. To vote a person of a particular party means you ultimately vote for the whole party's platform. Does that mean you are obligated to therefore view the world and American issues according to that party's paradigm and only that paradigm? I sincerely hope not. 

Laying my thoughts out like this, it may well seem obvious, in the 'duh' kind of way, that people consciously would prefer to define their own parameters. In many ways, we all do. I would posit, however, that many are more rigid in their thought patterns than they might expect.

Wait, what do thought patterns have to do with this?

How do you think we define our parameters?

Food for thought.

On a side-note, if you can observe and discern another person's parameters - their motivations and principles, their character and so-forth - you can learn to anticipate the reactions and behaviors of those around you. This takes attention/observation and a certain level of active awareness. It also takes time, which may vary from person to person, influenced by many factors such as openness, self-awareness, how talkative they are, etc.

For example, one man I knew suggested at my speaking a need for help due to my illness that I should go back to the one he knew was my abuser rather than bothering people like him. Clearly troubling and upsetting. Months later, I heard him state his deep belief that under all the 'problems' a family might have, they are all actually good in the end. Suddenly, his dismissal (though still inappropriate) made much more sense.

I call it 'tipping the hand'. We all do it eventually. Some might feel threatened by that idea, but if you are introspective enough to be self-aware and honest about it, I think it would only feel threatening if you don't like what you find. If you know yourself, you might find that it makes things easier to simply be up front about things to begin with. Many don't understand why I am open and immediately so, but these very concepts are what help build my parameters.

Past the Classroom

I know I frequently fall outside of the general norms so this may fall into that same category, but for many years I have found myself reflecting on past education - various classes, assignments, and teachers' critical teachings efforts. Sometimes this means I wish I could go back and add better insights to papers long since graded and forgotten. Sometimes it means I finally understand what the professor was getting at and I wish I could go back and tell them so.

The desire, the drive, to learn, to understand more fully, has always been core to my personality. I had not realized quite how much until a conversation with my grandmother during which she related a memory of when they came to visit. Her relayed memory was one shared to her by my grandfather. I was 6. We had been outside - he working to fix the window of their vehicle, and me keeping company. Apparently I had been a standard child and was asking questions about everything. This does not surprise me. In exasperation, he returned with, "Will you stop asking so many questions?!" I burst into giggles of delight when my grandmother relayed my reply. "But how am I supposed to learn anything if I can't ask questions?"

I would, admittedly, be perfectly happy being a career student. My bank account disagrees with tuition prices and my dysautonomia disagrees with pretty much everything, so the Bachelor's Degree I worked so hard to attain may well prove the top limit to my formalized education. That does not mean, however, that it is the end of my learning. There are many resources readily available to those who open themselves to the idea that there is always more you can learn. I have noticed that many opportunities don't appear as learning opportunities, but I think you will be surprised if you start watching for them. It could be in observing how someone performs a skill. It could be a random tidbit of information hidden in a conversation. It could be a link on social media to something you don't know much about. It is often found simply by being interested in life, people, and the world around you.

All knowledge gained fills in the great abstract construct that is my understanding which allows comprehending of further truth and the applications of truths and the ability to intuit patterns even before they are fully expressed. Others have skill for memorization which gives them direct recall to important information. Skills come in many forms: physical, theoretical, applied, creative, social, organizational, motivational, educational, etc... I challenge you to consider yourself past the classroom. Bring that learning with you, but add to it and find out more about people around you and how the world works. Let your mind pick at thoughts as they come and go and consider new applications to them. Allow the excitement of new discover sink deep and you will find that life is far from the 'boring' that so many think it to be.

The Holiday Battle

It's that time of year again, when the trappings of Christmas appear ever earlier than the year just past. When the seasonal isle could leave one confused to which holiday comes next - is it Halloween? Or Thanksgiving? No, it's Christmas. When radio stations provide alternative channels for those who want to sneak in as much Christmas as possible. When the rants and despite appear against those who should know better than to mix their holidays.

Mostly, I just ignore the anger and judgment. Why spend my precious energy being upset about how someone else chooses to celebrate a holiday? Why turn my focus away from value and waste it on contentions that can only distract from the good I seek? Why attack traditions others embrace for not being as 'pure' as they should be? Why draw battle lines by stating 'you must stand in line, wait your turn, keep quiet, stop bothering us!'?

How much hubris is it to state that celebrating Christ's birth and all that means for the world can and should only happen in the manner you feel fitting? What? Is this: My way or the highway? Everyone knows that such an attitude only breeds antagonism and enmity. Why does this keep happening?

I actually asked a girl on twitter why she would choose to hate Christmas because other people aren't celebrating the right thing, in other words - celebrating wrong. It was an honest question, but she chose not to see it that way. She got mad that I dared question her and ended by claiming I was accusing her of being Marxist. What does Marxism have to do with this? Frankly, I haven't bothered looking it up to figure it out.

Part of the reason this is so troubling to me is because I am one who tends to be ready for Christmas earlier than most. I do not understand why this should be attacked. I have tried to express this conflict before (see post from last year - You Say, Sir, You Hate Christmas, inspired by the 'I Hate Christmas' song/refrain). Yet it never seems to translate to others. So I will try to explain, again, better, I hope, here.

I think I must have formed a different sort of relationship with the season of Christmas. This only occurred to me last month when discussing it with a friend. He has never had much connection with holidays in general and, as we talked, it appeared that as his family had never engaged much with holidays, he had no real emotional attachment. If anything, it seemed to me that everyone must appear to him as quite carried away by holidays all around.

Once I finally wrapped my head around the different perspective, I saw that my own is not only a reflection of my past, but very likely foreign to the perspectives of others. As I've seen the complaints and condemning, I have pondered how I can better express why I am so ready to embrace Christmas earlier than the average person on the street.

I have not hidden the fact that my years at home were far from ideal. Those issues are addressed in other posts. Simply stated - they were a time of what is known as hyper-vigilance, an uber-awareness that comes from long-term exposure to unfriendly/hostile environments. In many ways, home was a trap I could not escape, and deep in my sub-conscious was a fear that it would always be that way.

Except for Christmas.

It wasn't that home dynamics changed during Christmas. It was that the dynamics of the world change during the Christmas season. Unlike any other time of year, so many people open their hearts to love, to think of others, to give, to help, to spreading kindness and cheer. These are all characteristics of charity - the pure love of Christ. The event that inspires this is celebrating His birth. It is shown in music and lights and food and decorations and programs and even in fictive, festive characters. And this spirit envelopes the world and touches even the hearts of misers. Of course it would resonate so deeply with me.

Christmas has always been the time where I've felt peace and even a safety - like everything would work out. I crave that feeling. And Christmas lights in the tree help me feel it. I don't think of it so much as a tradition. It's like how a candle's glow is comforting, too. Only the lights are colored and they make pretty patterns on the walls as they gently fade in and out. They are a symbol of Christmas which is when things are better. And things are better because of Christ. Christmas is my lifeline to hope. And I cling to it.

Consider the bleakness in the world without Christ - a mortal world bound to Murphy's law, where nations destroy nations and only records are left, until, they, too, fall to dust. Where there is no reason to expect that anything done in life has meaning so why not give in to our baser natures? Why respect any other living being like unto ourselves? Perhaps when the emptiness and despair of such an outlook is comprehended can the depth of my yearning for the joy and light and peace and promise that Christ's birth brings.

Consider that it is a time when everyone gets the chance to be shown they matter. To us. To Him.
The child's delight at the special things possible this one time of year.
The deeper symbolism if paired with the pagan festival celebrating the successful passage once again past the longest night of the year.

Consider that His birth is the greatest promise ever made, fulfilled on Easter, and we get to share that light and truth and joy with others - that we are the 'lower lights' to His great beacon. Like in candles, and Christmas lights set under the star.

So, yes, my tree is up and has been for weeks. With so many dark things happening in the world, I wanted the comfort that the Christmas spirit brings. The spirit of promise and hope and love and peace and cleansing and healing. Even if it angers others, I will turn to those things which help me 'always remember Him' and keep His spirit to be with me. And I will welcome this season as early as I can.

Original and Also-rans

The issue of 'original' and intrinsic verses extraneously applied value.

This is an idea that I have heard referenced directly and by implication multiple times in the past months, and I'm sure if you stop to consider it, you will will realize the same is true for you. Have you not heard the lament that, 'Nothing is new in the world', as if 'newness' is a core requirement for anything to be considered worthy of our short attention spans? Or what about the idea that if someone else 'discovered' or 'thought of' something before someone else, the second person's individual path to understanding has no merit because they weren't 'first'? Consider the following quote from Clive Cussler's Treasure.

'If Junius Venator's voyage to the Americas was absolutely proved ... history books needed to be revised and new chapters written.
'Poor Leif Eriksson and Christopher Columbus would be relegated to also-ran footnotes!'(p. 455 italics added for emphasis)

Granted, Cussler explores historical possibilities and modern implications of such fascinating possibilities in his adventures rather than known fact, but I think my stance on the matter shines through clearly. Why, why, why does a thing have to be the first one ever to have full merit? Two people come up with the same eureka moment completely separately from each other but one does it a few years before the other, so the second person's journey doesn't measure up? 

Or consider in the more mundane world as opposed to the cutting-edge of the arts and sciences. (Odd that they can be paired at all, no?) One community faces a difficulty and after much struggle, they come upon a solution that finally gets things back in order. Another community comes to be in the same situation. If so much value and worth is declared in doing something no one else has done before, do they ignore the solution right in front of them because it is devalued as unoriginal? Is the modern world so stubborn that we insist on seeking something different just because we can't respect or even see any value in something classic?

I know that there are places and venues where the drive for the new is something we all understandably appreciate. Most of us would abhor being bound to the original generations of the computers and cell-phones. I'm not saying that thinking should be confined to the list of what has been done before. They did that in the dark ages, and society rather decayed. I am saying that it might be good to consider the 'also-rans' in another light.

According to dictionary.com, 'original' has five top-listed definitions.

o·rig·i·nal

  [uh-rij-uh-nl]

adjective

1.

belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something, or to a thing at its beginning: The book still has its original binding.

2.

new; fresh; inventive; novel: an original way of advertising.

3.

arising or proceeding independently of anything else: an original view of history.

4.

capable of or given to thinking or acting in an independent, creative, or individual manner: an original thinker.

5.

created, undertaken, or presented for the first time: to give the original performance of a string quartet.

The modern world seems to have an obsession with definitions two and five while disregarding one, three, and four. They only want something new, ever looking, never satisfied, simply because as soon as the something 'new' is found, it becomes 'old' and invalidated. Rather, consider the terms 'independent' and 'individual'. If we chose to focus on the value of the person's journey for its value to them rather than whether it entertained our own boredom, we would discover a world overflowing with value. Lots of 'value' there, but then that is the point. I still remember the moment, around age seven, when I made the connection between 'pancake' and 'pan' + 'cake', i.e. a cake made in a pan. I was quite excited when I explained it to another but they just looked at me like 'Yeah, so? Duh. Why even mention it?' Despite being impressionable, I knew that my discovery was my own, even if all the adults already knew it. And truly, a young child making the connection between language patterns and etymology without help is worth respect.

Consider also, that the human race has a similar genesis and similar experience to draw upon. We are born, we live, we learn, we work to survive, we have families, we die. We have the same earth, and the same general resources. Despite local variations of climate and geography, the need for earth and water also tie us together. Ultimately, we are all pulling from the same bag of resources to create our expectations and interactions in life. While the more variables mathematically increases the possible combinations exponentially, there will always be themes of commonality, especially the more people there are to make the combinations. Rather than finding these patterns as distasteful and boring, consider the beauty implied therein.

A human does not need to invent something no one else has ever seen to be valid as a human. They are already their own unique person. No one else has experienced my combination of personality, history, thoughts, tests and trials, hopes and dreams, failures and successes. Others have experienced abuse. Others have experienced serious illness and death of a parent. Others are riding the disorienting roller coaster called dysautonomia. There is even a pattern of dysautonomia patients with traumatic childhoods and trigger illnesses. But rather than invalidating my experience, or those of another, having a community of shared experience brings strength, comfort, support, and courage. If it works this way with the hard things in life, why can we not see the creative and productive in the same way?

A sibling has a particular gift but feels threatened when another expresses interest in the same activity? Or the second sibling doesn't dare express their interest for fear of being a 'copycat' or trying to steal the show or crowding the first sibling's scene? If we learn to value each person for who they are rather than seeing everything as a competition for fleeting value, I suspect life would be much more fulfilling for everyone.

I first heard the term 'also-ran' in the lyrics to Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. His brothers resented the legitimate heir because they feared who he was meant they didn't count. Not having been there, I can't say much to the family dynamics involved, but the jealousy was real and it nearly led to Joseph's murder. The end of the story has Joseph testing his unknowing brothers to see if they still hold the biases that broke the family in the first place.

Sibling rivalry is only one manifestation of the obsession with all things original. The biases evident in the story are indicative of the larger picture, all the same. I have known those who are what I call 'purists' of the classics, such that only the six-hour Pride and Prejudice has any real value, for example. I have always loved adaptations of classic stories for how they allow another perspective on a previously one-dimensional picture. The more perspectives, the richer the possible understanding. In stating this, it occurs that adaptations are a combination of first-time/beginning original and fresh-take/inventive original. Not all adaptations are equally appealing, but to blame any failure on the fact that it was an adaptation, on the fact that it is patterned after something already done, is superbly short-sighted.

Likewise, not all similarities in stories are derivative. My creative writing short story about an underground culture could not have been inspired by The City of Ember for the simple reason that I'd never heard of it before the class workshop critique on my already written short story. I can't say it was the best story written, but to dismiss it because it was like another was to miss what value it had on its own merits. (Dr. P said it was a novel in disguise, so even if I think the point I was trying to express has value, my dislike for writing means it won't get attention for a good long time, if ever...)

I am not arguing this post because of my personal examples, but I am using them to demonstrate my meaning simply by virtue of them being the most ready examples for me to work with. I am somewhat creative by nature in that I don't see a purpose in recreating the wheel when others already do so and far better than I could. I get the inclination to find a new way to do things, to organize things, to present things. The creative urge is a means of introducing originality to our world. I think we just get hung up on thinking that is how things must be judged rather than being an indication of seeking growth. The very notion of the 'shame' of 'also-rans' is evidence of this flawed judgment. If we can encourage and praise growth in every individual, however repetitive it may seem, I think it will naturally lead to a creative world. And if we focus on our own growth instead of comparing and judging, I think we will find ourselves less bored, burned-out, and biased against the patterns natural to life.

Seeing the Forest BY Seeing the Trees

Have you ever been accused of 'not being able to see the forest for the trees'? It seems to mean, in the mind of the speaker, that the person they are dismissing is so focused on a specific detail that they're missing 'the big picture'. My experience has usually been that the meaning of the picture changes if you recognize the very details the other person wants to ignore. Kinda like the difference a single letter can make.

The following example is a bit absurd, but for example: a friend's recent status update on Facebook reads, "Don't know what to say, except I'm so bored. Everyday. Guess I need a new hobby. " My comment reads as follows. "... for a second, my brain replaced the 'o' with a 'u'... my bad!" Had her final word been 'hubby' rather than 'hobby', the sentence would have taken on a completely different meaning. Obviously, in this case it wasn't but it is an innocuous example.

A more disturbing example would be the abuser or criminal no-one ever suspected. I only bring this part up because there is an element that can be seen that is missing in the more entertaining one above. When the truth of whatever situation comes out, people often look back and realize there were clues that they hadn't been able to see. Or rather, they saw them, but didn't recognize them for what they were. We all hear this most frequently in the cases of school shootings and terror attacks.

I was introduced to a Malcolm Gladwell book entitled Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking around the beginning of 2011 by a couple of friends. While the sub-title sounds a little hokey, it's a pop-science book about rapid-cognition. It's essentially the idea that the more familiar a person is with a subject, the quicker and better able they are to make almost instant assessments regarding that subject. And they do it so quickly that to the outsider, it seems spurious, an impossible, boastful claim with no true basis.

It is curious, therefore, that the book's very reception fits this very category. Being written for the common reader, it brings examples from science, culture, even sociology and presents them in ways easy to follow. A quick look on Wikipedia, however, will show that there are those in the sciences who look at his observations with that same dismissal and some definite annoyance that popular culture would actually listen to it. (It occurs that, just perhaps, if the sciences made their findings more accessible, there wouldn't be such a jealousy factor...)

So is there any legitimacy to Gladwell's idea? You tell me. His claim is that the person who becomes a master in his field of study does so by accumulating 10,000 hours practicing, studying, learning, applying the ins and outs (no, not burgers) and intricacies involved in said field. It becomes second nature to them, so much so that they don't have to be consciously thinking about it to perform the needed functions. Does that sound absurd to you? If you break the math down into a full-time work week, say 50 weeks a year, that comes to 5 years of full-time application.

In more simple terms, think of a piano student. I did not have piano lessons, but I did learn to read music in choir and was shown the respective keys on the piano. When I first tried to play, I had to keep stopping to count out the lines to tell what the note was supposed to be. The longer in choir, the easier it became. I'd also wander off to play hymns in the seminary building before class or at lunch time and became quite quick at reading the right hand. The left hand was still in the counting stages, though, until I took a music theory class. I recall very little from it except that having constant assignments where I had to deal with the bass clef as well ultimately meant that I can actually read the notes now without having to count. (My brain is still rather slow in combining the hands...)

Now think of someone who actually has skill, has lessons, and spends that much time working with music. They can listen to it and hear the key, the chord progressions, and even deduce who the composer was. How? If you ask them, they can go back and point to all the parts to prove it, but do they have to think about all the parts to come to the conclusion? Gladwell's point is that such things become so natural to the point that it actually frees up the brain to skip the steps in between. It is like my grade-school math where I hated it when teachers made you prove your work, every single step. Like geometry proofs. A > B. "Work, please." (Really?!?) A=12.8 centimeters. B=7.6 centimeters. 12.8>7.6. Therefore... DUH! So is the idea of rapid cognition absurd? I think not.

One of his examples, also noted in Wikipedia, is of a marriage counselor who could predict the stability of a couple's future marriage simply by listening to an hour's worth of conversation. (I have to admit, when I read this part of the book, my background of always being on guard in an abusive home meant that I saw the elements the Dr. and the author related after the snippet of conversation included before reaching that part of the text.) In maybe two minutes worth of talking there were a number of signifiers of a troubled relationship. To the average person (or the concrete, methodical teacher or scientist) the conversation would seem like no big deal. But when you realize that each time the husband tried to say anything and the wife disregarded it, dismissed it, or made a joke of it, you just might realize that something's up. Sure, the husband didn't put up a fuss, so why be bothered? Speaking from experience which I will not actually entail here, little things, the 'o' or the 'u' can hint at a very big deal. 'Are you sure?'

I actually like watching science, history kinds of shows. Imagine my delight when one of them gave a direct parallel to what I've been trying to say here, things I've been thinking for nearly ten years. You can watch it on hulu.com, which is where I saw it. It's a Nova special entitled Hunting the Hidden Dimension, about fractal geometry. While the whole show is interesting and may be helpful in understanding what it all means, the applicable part is in the last ten minutes.

Fractal geometry is the math that shows a basic discovery: that nature follows the same patterns on the large scale as the same patterns found in smaller scales. (Again, please watch the show for further details.) The final example they began studying in the show was how one tree in the rain-forest actually was representative of the whole forest. They found that measuring the limbs of the single tree directly paralleled the measurements of the trees in general throughout the forest. As of the shows release in 2008, fractals fall under the category of recognized but not fully understood. The truth is, however, that they are there, and their influence in the field of technology alone is profound.

Do you follow my leaps between the sciences and the humanities? Can you see that a single piece can actually represent a much larger scenario? I hope so. For when an old, broken-down camel warns you about the straw and all you see is a dinky piece of hay and you're tempted to think the old fogie is senile, perhaps you might pause for a second and consider. Or when the child tries to tell you something is important, maybe you will see the actual forest by looking at the tree. It's possible they just might know what they're talking about.

Writings from 2011: Considering the Constitution and Slavery

I have heard a number of people complain and condemn the Constitution of the United States for permitting and even safe-guarding the institution of slavery for the following 20 years. 'Surely this is proof that the Founding Fathers weren't nearly as great as people claim!' 'Of course they'd protect it - look how many were slave-owners themselves?!' I've often wondered if those people have ever actually given the situation any serious thought.

While I wonder if people recognize how many different forms slavery can take, it is true that the idea of slavery is hated by many in this modern day. There were even some who hated it back then. But slavery was also part of their culture just as it has been across cultures from the beginning of written histories. And it provided the basis of economy for the southern colonies.

Then consider that these colonies had temporarily joined forces with each other to fight off their mother country and claim their own freedom. Against all odds. It was not an easy fight. And war weakens all who participate. Some might even consider the colonies ripe for the picking.

The only way to ensure their hard won freedom would be maintainable was to band together and form an alliance of sorts. They created an early version of the united States and a simple authority system to direct any combined armies should it become necessary. But they ran into trouble pretty quickly. Because the states were, in essence, individual countries with their own right to rule, there was no legal means to gain funding for the simple allied government or military force.

The conventions met because some leaders from each state saw the problem and sought to fix it. Many of the states had little interest but those who did participate had two basic purposes. One - to determine if a better alliance, or union, was possible; two - to protect the interests of their nation-state if it was.

Perhaps it is becoming clearer what problems the situation of slavery presented. Every other element of the agreement we now call the Constitution was debated into the ground. Managing to hammer out every detail to the approval of such different governing bodies was a miracle in and of itself, especially as it was hand-crafted to try to prevent all the troubles they had faced as colonies and before. No government in their existence was like it. They were breaking completely new ground and their greatest minds were giving their all to try to make it work.

But had the issue of slavery been forced, it would have failed. It was too divisive. 80 years later it nearly tore our country in two. Moral or not, had that judgment been required then, there would have been no United States. Instead, the drafters of the Constitution tabled it for 20 years ensuring at least that much time to solidify the nation.

It was not an easy process getting the Constitution approved by the people of the separate states. Many approved of it only on condition that a bill of right be added. These amendments are, in essence, the post-script.

I do not speak to the roughly 60 years after 1808, before the Civil War, when slavery was legally addressable. Those for and against it were active during that time period. You are free to judge how you will. It is my belief, however, that the Founders recognized that their culture was not yet ready to handle that issue. Their own personal positions aside, they instead focused on what they could do, giving us a solid political foundation and framework. For that, I am grateful.