Wednesday, October 6, 2010

plain brown plain

Is this dream responsible?

Does the bird fly because it can or because it is supposed to soar?

Does a worm crawl because wings are the whores

of lofty decadence? Does the lion kill because it has found the best meat?

Does the zebra find it a patriotic feat

to stand against the plain brown plain - Black and white and eat’n

Is this dream virtuous?

Does the fish swim in schools

like conformity’s fools

deciding the tools

of individuality are less appealing than keeping the rules?

And do the stubborn mules

find compliance to suit their nature best

Monday, September 20, 2010

Less of me…

As many of you know by now, I am in the process of becoming substantially less. That is to say that the substance that makes up my corporeal essence is decreasing in mass and volume. There are two usual ways that this is noted in popular discourse – in weight (specifically -- kg’s or lb’s) and in size (specifically in the circumference measurement around one’s waist). In honour of these conventions I testify that as of the writing of this I am 70lbs lighter than I used to be and I have dropped 6/7 inches in the circumference around my waist. All this since the first of June.

Dear reader, I know you are tempted to insert your congratulatory notes here or even boldly call me to wish me well in my endeavour. Please refrain from doing so. As you will learn shortly, I doubt that congratulations are entirely appropriate even if they would make me feel good.

Most people want to know what I am doing to lose this weight. So here is the regimen. I am taking a prescription of Meridia which is NOT an appetite suppressant but it works to send signals of satiation sooner to the brain which helps me to eat much less than I routinely have over the years. Those of you with neurotic predilection to discover the damaging effects of pharmaceuticals will within a few click realize that this drug has a controversial history. None of the problematic symptoms have occurred in my case – I have only improved in all of the indicators of health (blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.) So again your well-intended warnings are largely unwelcome. On its own the drug has been instrumental in causing my weight loss but perhaps not in the way that you might expect. Yes I do feel fuller faster and consequently eat much less food – approximately 750 calories/day (or one small meal). However, the drug has acted in another way. It is an expensive medication even with an insurance plan without which it would be impossible to afford. Realizing that a financial outlay was going to be necessary has motivated me to work at my weight loss more diligently. I spend roughly between an 1 1/2 and 2 hours a day in cardio and weight training. That is how the pounds are coming off.

Not very many people are truly interested in why I am losing weight. I suspect this is largely because they assume that I have chosen one of the common public discourses on weight loss as my motivation (a.)gain a more acceptable body image in conformity with public notions of sexiness, fitness, and other general features of attractiveness b.) reduce my weight to reduce my risk of serious health problems in the future c.) some variation on the theme of mid-life crisis) For me the public discourse on weight loss seems to reflect both the superficiality and neurosis of our popular culture. That is not to say that is a weak or meaningless discourse at all. Quite the contrary it is very powerful and provocative. I can already tell that acquaintances treat me differently. They predictably speak about my improved looks and then in more extended conversations they move toward reinforcements of health concerns. So predictable have these topics become that it has become a veritable annoyance to be in public. However, I have begun to treat this experience as a social/sociological experiment. So now these predictable responses serve as a fascinating outline of how the public discourse around weight loss is reinforced. I may speak more on this in the future as it is a potential topic for my term paper this semester…

My actual motivation for losing weight is to prove a point. Namely, that I cannot eat the same way most people eat and maintain an acceptable body weight/figure. I was not eating anymore food than an average person eats. In fact I know that my wife routinely used to eat more than I did (before I started losing). Many of my friends ate much more than me and ate a diet that was substantially less healthy. Sure I probably ate too much right before bed etc – but compared to other around me I could not usually be accused of over eating as far as others are concerned. The only time I was able to maintain a healthy weight was when I was 19 years old working 14 hour days in construction and eating basically one small meal a day. I have made that claim for years and yet for the most part I don’t think that people believed me. The reason i was gaining weight was that I was eating an average amount of food according social conventions and was not nearly active enough to take any weight off. So now I am proving my point. Obviously, the most difficult part of this task has been to break out of the social conventions that typically form around the consumption of food. Thankfully Char has stopped asking me if I am sure I don’t want more to eat. But then she can already see my point. It is hard to go to someone’s house for a meal and not participate in the social aspects of food. But that too has been a unique opportunity for me to reflect on some of the social conventions that exist beneath the surface of our interaction with food.

Obviously, it has been great to be able to be more active, to fit into clothes I thought i never again would and be able to do things I had not been able to do. These are all awesome benefits of my weight loss – ones I would like to maintain.

There is a surreal aspect to all of this as well. I am still whole and complete (several caveats could be discretely mentioned here but…). There is the equivalent of a fourth grade student missing from my physical form. That is substantial yet it almost feels like I should have some residual evidence of the weight that has gone  - but it is as if it has disintegrated. So that in many ways the bathroom scale forms the main way that I can measure my own achievement. This too becomes an interesting place for social evaluation since there is clearly a connection between the abject known as a scale and one’s ability to measure the decreasing body size that might otherwise be virtually imperceptible.

So there you go. We’ll see where this experiment ends up. I appreciate your encouragement and would love to hear from anyone else who has any reflections on the way weight has affect their social interactions.

Thursday, September 2, 2010

The Communism of Wal-Mart

Up front I have a revulsion toward the idea of walking into a Wal-Mart. So it was that my stomach was dancing a slow waltz with my uvula as I stepped out of my mini-van and approached the doors of said establishment. My repugnance is based largely on how Wal-Mart has come to represent the iconic evils of corporate capitalism. I know that my own aversion to this particular retailer is over-drawn in light of the myriad of corporate retailers who employ similar if not worse practices. Nevertheless my feelings are not appeased in anyway by the clear evaluation (in my ever so unrefined sense of taste) of their goods as largely being subpar in quality. (When’s the last time you heard someone say, “boy that ___________ that I bought at Wal-Mart has sure lasted a long time”)

It was precisely at the moment when all those ideas were flooding my mind in the gleeful criticism that I was revelling in, that a curious thought approached the waiting line of my elucidatory mental rollercoaster thrill ride. As I watched what seemingly mindless dupes giving in to their most base carnal materialism, I was struck by a conviction of another sort. Scanning the blank-eyed senior in the blue vest at the door it occurred to me that perhaps I was entering the beguiling bastion of communism itself. You’d be justified in noticing the incredible irony and even ludicrous nature of this idea.

Wal-Mart consistently finds favour in the annals of Fortune 500 as a respected company. It is lauded as one of the few global corporations that has not suffered in the blustery winds of recession. It likely that my mutual funds are deeply invested in Wal-Mart (as are many investment vehicles). Clearly this company is a wide representative of the glory of the free-market system entrenched in capitalism’s doctrinal evangelism. This company has managed to garner a meagre 60% of market share in many retail domains. This without succumbing to the pressures of unionization of it employees.

So how does the communist label fit? We’d like to believe that because under one expansive roof we can such a wide variety of products we have the opportunity to exercise democracy over our purchasing choices. But when this one corporation can negotiate pricing and production deals with manufactures that are un-paralleled in the rest of retail. When its retail dominance can not only influence the price but the brand and constitution of the products being produced and then is successfully able to market these products to consumers in such a way that any other competitor must account for the price and type of good that Wal-Mart produces – is that not essentially what a successful communist system is able to do? When the this store can enter a community a displace other viable enterprises in months – is this also not the same sort of conformity of service and access that is typical in communist ideals? If a corporation can dictate to its employees the terms of their employment in such a way as to keep them needing the welfare funding of governments (average Wal-Mart yearly wage is 15000) is that also not precisely the kind of state-dependence that Lenin and Stalin wanted? And if this corporation has the ability to reach beyond its head office to dictate the terms of production and manufacturing in developing nations controlling development of manufacturing and production technologies and systems – do we also not see the grand agenda of communist control that history reminds us of in the soviet project…?

Now not only was my stomach upset but my brain was hurting as well. Ding ding ding ding beep beep beep beep bing bing bing…..

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Altruism: a useful fiction?

If we agree that an altruistic act is characterized as the unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others. Is it really possible to be altruistic?

On the surface one might suggest that it is possible. When I go shovel my neighbour's driveway when he is terminally ill with cancer – that could be considered truly selfless. Right? I mean he has does not have the ability to repay me for it in kind and if I refuse to accept any other sort of payment for the work then I have indeed met the obligation of a truly altruistic action. Right?

Could it be that there is more to it than that? Is it possible to think about every human action in the same way that Newton thought about physical objects in motion? If this is true than we should be able to construct something akin to a relational action equation with a zero SUM. What happens on one side of the relationship must be balanced with an equally significant action on the other part.

So I mow your lawn when you are out of town and you mow mine when I am out of town. This then in mathematical terms is a reciprocal relationship. You can easily see how we can put an equal sign between these two actions. But what about the snow shoveling scenario? It would seem that the two sides of the relationship are not equal since I will not be getting anything in return for my action. But is that really true?

If I do something for my neighbour, I still actually get some things coming back to me across that equation even if they do not come directly from the person I am serving. The first thing I get back is a good feeling. Add to that the idea that by doing this action I am meeting my obligations to my religious beliefs which add to my sense of accomplishment (in some religious systems these acts of kindness might qualify me for greater eternal rewards as well). Not only that this action gives me a better standing in society. When my neighbour’s kids come over and he mentions that I did this nice thing for him well they are impressed and feel they owe me something. Even if I refuse to accept anything – they will talk to their friends and family and in the end my personal rating go up. I have more money in the relationship bank. Now in fairness if I did it completely anonymously no one would know that I did it so that social capital would not increase for me.

But even in the case of the anonymous giver – the gift itself can be enough payment. Think of the anonymous donor of a million dollars to a hospital. Does she get increased status? Well it would seem not except that when it comes to being sick this person will ultimately benefit from the increased capacity of the organization to which they have given money. So we can’t say that the action is disinterested or that there is no return on investment.

If I do something out of a sense of duty – it means that I accept that there is already a deficit in my relational account. I accept that I owe society a debt of selflessness for what I have already received. Duty works like a mortgage in this case and it forces us to accept that we are inherently in a deficit position toward others. Duty constructs the self as a perpetually deficient entity that necessarily needs to repay the debt which the self has accrued – naturally.

So maybe there is no such a thing as a truly altruistic action. Maybe real selflessness is a fiction that works conveniently to reinforce our sense of duty toward each other which in turns us into depreciated goods in constant need to redeem our deficit…

Sunday, March 14, 2010

My new favorite song...

Last nights concert was exceptional for many reasons. One of them was the much anticipated performance of Alexisonfire. The song "The Northern" performed in their inimitable style was a definate highlight. Here is an interesting acoustic version of it. I think there are some pretty fascinating messages behind this adaptation of this old spiritual...

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

God is in our Brain

So Lionel Tiger says (basically) that God is a creation of our brain. Religion is essentially beneficial to humanity because of the effect that it produces on the neurochemistry of the brain. He contends that people like Dawkins are silly to argue against religion since about 90% of human population finds religion to be beneficial. What Tiger is forced to admit that this in no way can definitively prove or disprove the existence of God. He contends that whether God exists or not the brain is uniquely structured to produce and interact with religion.

This is good news on several accounts:

1. Atheist claims that the belief in God is a less evolved and therefore evidence of a less developed intellect is greatly unsubstantiated. In other words, just because you believe in something doesn’t make you a less intelligent being.

2. Any rigidity (dogmatism) about the nature and content of faith must be challenged against the knowledge of central role that the brain plays in producing religious content.

3. Vital importance can be placed in how religious discourse can inform the common values that will enable greater harmony and peace in humanity.

Of course many will be concerned that this claim only serves to limit God to the manufacturing process of our cerebral cortex. This is a narrow view of this important work. Instead it can hopefully provide an impetus to explore the mysteries of the brain in order to better understand the interaction between the divine and humanity…

Here is an interview on the Current if you are interested…

 

God's Brain: Amazon.ca: Lionel Tiger: Books

God's Brain

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Public money to be spent to support Christian project?

Here’s the story:

Winnipeg youth centre run by evangelical Christians wins federal, city funding - Winnipeg Free Press

What do you figure?

Placebos and Antidepressants

 

Please understand that I mean no disrespect to anyone for whom psychoactive drugs are a part of their regimen. This article does not deny that these drugs work but I think it is worth a look. There is a related article in reaction to these findings from a doctor so take it as you like…

Why Antidepressants Are No Better Than Placebos - Newsweek.com