Philosophy

Observations about Tibet

From the film [_Tibet: Cry of the Snow Lion_](http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=60032579)

Monks read scriptures from short, really wide sheets of paper

Tibetans are really fighting a war for their inner peace; the ability to practice Buddhism. That can’t be fought by the West or anyone else…though a homeland could be.

In central, flat Tibet, farmers use donkeys harnessed together to grind the wheat by walking on it.

The Tibetan people look and act more like Peruvians than Chinese or Indians, their neighbors in Asia.

Great quote: “For centuries our best minds, our saints and our philosophers concentrated all their time and energy to understanding the nature of the mind. And who can say which would really matter in the end–the landing on the moon or the understanding of the mind?” – Lhasang Tsering

Also, the Dalai Lama really sounds like Yoda when he speaks English. Sorry, but it’s true; yet another reinforcement of [the links between Buddhism and Star Wars](http://buddhistfaith.tripod.com/pureland_sangha/id40.html)

Filmmaking and truth

A friend and I talked recently about his filmmaking and the way to create things of beauty. We discussed the interesting observation that things which don’t present strong opinions, and instead choose to mirror the world exactly without bias, can be more compelling than those pushing a strong point of view.

Another friend, the best photographer I’ve ever known, traveled the world practicing his craft. He created photos of incredible, paralyzing beauty, often framing perfectly a fiery sunset or unique flower bursting with color. But when he met with a National Geographic photographer to help perfect his shots, the photographer told him to widen his angle, capture scenes that weren’t perfectly prepared, and thus show the world as it really was. That, he said, would really tell a story.

The film [_Tibet: Cry of the Snow Lion_](http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=60032579) recently cemented this for me. The film itself was highly political–understandably, as Tibet is a hot political topic. The filmmakers however also included about an hour of extended footage, presented without commentary and with very simple editing.

Watching _that_ footage made me more empathic with the people of Tibet, more supportive of their crusade for freedom, than the rest of the film had. The scenes allowed me to see the Tibetan people as real human beings, with a full range of emotions, not as the caricatured victims portrayed in the main film. It also made the occupying Chinese seem more out of place than ever.

This might be a vestige of our culture’s adjustments to the growing sophistication of technology and storytelling, but it might also just be a natural reaction to strong argumentation. Hard selling turns us off, while honest, unbiased presentation lets us observe for ourselves and come to conclusions of our own, which will always be more powerful.

I wonder if the way that film technology immediately picked up the baton from staged theater influenced the way it was used. It became an entertainment tool first, and only recently has its communication potential been used to show two parts of the world to each other exactly as they are.

My college advisor taught a seminar on the “Powers of Observation”. In it, we did a lot of sketching, often told to do so without looking at the paper. When we asked how we were supposed to draw without knowing what the drawing looked like, he said “The problem is that you’re drawing what you _think_ it should look like, not what it really is. Don’t interpret–just copy what you see!

I wonder if there exist completely unbiased, unnarrated, lightly-edited documentary films. The closest I know of is [_Baraka_](http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=283136), but even there Ron Fricke does some obvious editorializing–chickens-humans-chickens-humans…

Notes from Daniel Kahneman

### Conditions for expertise

* Rapid and unequivocal feedback

### Error and Overconfidence

* “The best way of doing subjective judgment is as an input to an algorithm”

* The “experts” never learn from their mistakes

* As soon as something happens that they didn’t predict:

* They understand why, and immediately write it off as “I won’t do that again”

* They exaggerate any hedges that they had made in that direction

* They introduce counterfactuals: “Well, it almost happened”

### Model of the mind

General trend in psychology to split thinking into 2 groups

Intuition

Reasoning

Fast

Parallel

Automatic

Effortless

Associative

Slow-learning

Emotional

Slow

Serial

Controlled

Effortful

Rule-governed

Flexible

Neutral

Most judgments and actions are intuitive, and “good enough”

Perception and intuition similar in how they work; but DIFFERENT in what they work on!

* Perceptions: current situations, event-based, stimuli

* Intuition: cognitive tasks, other things reasoning deals with–but this comes from your culture, upbringing, language, etc

Framing/attribute substitution

* Questionnaire asked students “how happy are you” and “how many dates did you go on last month”?

* Correlation between the two was entirely based on which order they were asked in (dating then happy, strong correlation; happy then dating, no correlation)

Realize AIDS site

I just put the new [Realize AIDS](http://www.realizeaids.org) site online, in time for [Compassion Weekend](http://www.mppcfamily.org/w_page.php?id=61&type=section) at MPPC. It’s just a quick overview about the team, latest news, and upcoming events, but will hopefully help grow the group when people are looking for ways to follow up with Compassion Weekend activities.

Check it out and hopefully I’ll see you at Compassion Weekend!

Fred Rogers on Google Video

Mr. Rogers, one of my personal heroes, did an extended interview with the Archive of American Television in 1999. Google put the entire thing, 4 1/2 hours uncut, online recently and it’s amazing.

Watch the entire Mr. Rogers interview online.

Back already? Ok, here are my favorite quotes from the interview…

Read More »

G.K. Chesterton Quotes

Amazing quotes from G.K. Chesterton:

> * All conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change.

> * Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.

> * I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean.

> * If I had only one sermon to preach it would be a sermon against pride.

> * Lying in bed would be an altogether perfect and supreme experience if only one had a colored pencil long enough to draw on the ceiling.

> * Music with dinner is an insult both to the cook and the violinist.

> * The simplification of anything is always sensational.

Where Faith is Hard

“So where faith is easy, it is fading; where it’s a challenge, it thrives.”

Nicholas Kristof on Easter in Africa

This would normally be just a Psst! link, but I think it’s far more deserving than that. Convenience reduces value, indeed.

Notes from Learning in War-Time

By C.S. Lewis in 1939, Learning in Wartime is a sermon contained in his “Weight of Glory” collection. I received a print of this from a mentor in college and just dug it up again recently. After working for a while it has taken on new meaning, especially as I transition to a new job and search for my purpose in it.

Lewis struggled with being an academic in a time of war; I struggle with being a mere designer even in a time of peace (well, peace for me at least). His point that we should be always considering ourselves in urgent times is well-suited for our situation today.

> [Every Christian] must ask himself how it is right or even psychologically possible, for creatures who are every moment advancing either to heaven or to hell, to spend any fraction of the little time allowed them in this world on such comparative trivialities as literature or art, mathematics or biology.

And we worry about whether a _war_ should stop us from learning, when much more important matters have not?

> We are mistaken when we compare war with ‘normal life’. Life has never been normal.

Reminds me of the argument to do things “when we have time”. We will never “have” time; we have to _make_ it.

> The war will fail to absorb our whole attention because it is a finite object, and therefore intrinsically unfitted to support the whole attention of a human soul…He who surrenders himself without reservation to the temporal claims of a nation, or a part, or a class is rendering to Caesar that which, of all things, most emphatically belongs to God: himself.

Or to the claims of a job? The last sentence sounds like Tom Peters: “You are your calendar”.

> The work of a Beethoven, and the work of a charwoman, become spiritual on precisely the same condition, that of being offered to God, of being done humbly “as to the Lord”.

Offer whatever work you do to God and it becomes worship; but best when you do it to your intended vocation and your utmost.

> Humility, no less than the appetite, encourages us to concentrate simply on the knowledge or the beauty, not to much concerning ourselves with their ultimate relevance to the vision of God.

Autotelic worship?

> If it becomes irresistible, he must give up his scholarly work. The time for plucking out the right eye has arrived.

Hmm, so autotelism isn’t the end goal, but rather keeping God as the focus.

> Never, in peace or war, commit your virtue or your happiness to the future. Happy work is best done by the man who takes his long-term plans somewhat lightly and works from moment to moment “as to the Lord”. It is only our _daily_ bread that we are encouraged to ask for. The present is the only time in which any duty can be done, or any grace received.

More ammunition against planning and future-focus. God works in the _present_.

> But if we thought that for some souls, and at some times, the life of learning, humbly offered to God, was, in its own small way, one of the appointed approaches to the Divine reality and the Divine beauty which we hope to enjoy hereafter, we can think so still.

Yay!

Utility and Categories

Just two barely-related thoughts:

1. When you’re changing the world, you have to worry about more than just utility.

2. Categories always make you think about what you’re _not_ getting (additional search terms, however, are just that — _additional_)

A Horse is a Horse (Draft)

Here are some disappointing things I’ve noticed recently:

  1. Value of a stock is related to how much people want to buy a stock, not how good or nice the company is. Google may have issues with this.
  2. Doing well on tests means that you are good at taking tests, not necessarily that you are smart.
  3. Companies are in business to make money, not to be nice. Niceness must show up on the bottom line or you’re just wasting money that could be used to be even nicer.

At work there is a trend toward understanding the financial effect of everything we do. While tedious at times, it is important to respect the company’s need to make money. It’s not about being naughty or nice–no one can be nice to their employees if they go out of business.

But is this just the way things are, or a fault in the underlying structure of our economy? Why can’t our businesses be concerned with society at large just because it’s right? Why can’t we help others unless it’s financially intelligent to do so?

I’ve supported a number of causes because I believe that doing good things will “pay off” in the end; if it weren’t so, is it just stupid to follow that road?