Selfishness and the Art of Living
Selfishness and living. Some of us seem better at one than the other but I believe they they are inextricably linked. One cannot exist without the other. Selfishness is at the core of everything. It’s chemistry, it’s energy. It’s at the very base of existence. Competition is selfishness but it’s also the way of things. The difference between humans and pure energy is that we believe we have some choice. Generally, we chose to live with others. Why?Think of anything that you do from day to day. You can chose anything, from the most apparently inconsequential right up to the path you have chosen in education, work and relationships and at its very centre you can trace the driving force down to selfishness. The need for us do do things which satisfy our own needs above the needs of any other entity in the universe. Even this text serves my own purposes. Anything that someone else might gain from it is, unfortunately, just a happy coincidence.
Selfishness. The term itself brings up negative connotations. Selfishness opposes selflessness, an goal toward which surely all good people head. Yet understanding the natural selfish inclinations we have can help us to direct it in a way that is beneficial to those other than the self. To try to suppress our selfishness is possibly a futile goal and could be sapping the motivation and drive to take action. I will attempt to describe how the two are actually different paths to the one. How selfishness is actually the driving motivation for all human action and interaction. In order to grasp this concept it might be useful to look at an example of a common action which might be construed normally as selflessness. We will start with a simple example. One which doesn’t delve to deeply into moral motivations. Making a cup of tea for your partner in the morning. What is the possible motivation for this act. It seems fairly simple. One possible one could be simply doing something nice for a person who you care about. Another might be that to wait for your partner to make their own tea could slow you down and take time away from the ‘important’ things that you have to do that day. Both motivations lead to the same result. The tea is made and everyone is happy. Lets take on the latter reasoning first as this would seem to have a much closer correlation to selfishness. I could not agree more. When taking into consideration the tasks that need to be completed in the day, one has to make a decision about priorities. What is the best order of events which suit my greater needs. If the coming events take place at work then there is nothing I can do to complete the allotted tasks until I arrive at work. The doors don’t open until x o’clock, therefore at this moment it is a lesser priority. I desire a cup of coffee and I am aware that my partner will desire a cup of tea. We both need to get ready and it will add only the smallest amount of energy to make a cup of tea at the same time so as to facilitate both a speedier exit to complete the subsequent tasks and will also invoke a pleasurable outcome from my partner which will make me feel better, more comfortable. If I make myself a cup of coffee and no tea for my partner, there will be time added the partner makes theirs plus the negative consequences of the displeasure of my partner. Therefore the choice is easy. Make the tea and relax. In the earlier scenario, the person makes the tea purely out of ’selflessness’. Here the motivation is more complex. What would drive someone to commit this selfless act. I would argue that the basic principal is the same. On possibly a less conscious level the person wishes to gain from the act. What could the person possibly be looking to gain from this. Probably some of the same things as the first person. The ’selfless’ person does it for the love of the other. Here we have a gain. Love. The feeling of safety that comes in numbers. The ’selfless’ person might do it because they know that they would do it for them. So there is a reciprocal understanding whereby each works for the other and each’s needs are met with the least amount of effort. This is a different slant on what one might usually associate with selfishness. Normally we would say that a selfish person would just make themselves a cup of coffee in spite of the needs or desires of the other. I believe that this is a distortion of the meaning of the word. This is a case where the individual feels that they need no other’s assistance or approval to get things done. The selfish person uses the assistance of others to get things done and takes into consideration the implications of their action to get the best possible outcomes for themselves in any particular situation, while priming the way for an easier path when the next event takes place.
The selfless person has developed the art of selfishness to the point where these are not conscious decisions but ones which facilitate personal needs with the least possible emotional effort. One might ask, if people are all so selfish, then why aren’t people just out killing each other. Well, in answer to that, they are. All over the world they are. People give a myriad of reasons for this from personal grievances right through to religion but kill each other they do and for the same reason that causes people to love. Selfishness. This is the key. The thing is that selfishness is our primal drive. It is the thing that is at the base of every decision we make.
But there is a mechanism whereby we can get what we want without killing each other. Compromise. Compromise is the tool of the most skilled artisan of selfishness. When wielded with care it is the tool that returns the most net gain in the majority of situations. How does compromise fit into this scenario when it seems to fly in the face of selfishness? Again you need to come back to the fact that the prime goal of humans is to fulfill their needs. Facilitation of those needs can often be achieved by coming to a compromise with another person. Perhaps the task can be done quicker and easier with two people. Perhaps you are incapable of completing the task at all on your own. This is where the art of compromise comes in. Fulfilling your own needs with the least possible effort. Certain compromises may seem to not be an even balance of gain over loss. One might agree to something where they seem to be doing more work or giving up more than the other person. Not to worry, the imbalance won’t last for long. There are not many situations where the balance isn’t forthcoming. That doesn’t mean that both parties are necessarily happy about it. Each party involved in the compromising contract is looking for something. If not a gain at least an even trade. Usually, in the case of the even trade, the balance is swayed in the direction of one of the parties, at least in perception, in the form of emotional debt or in ‘credit’ built with a third party. The credit of which I speak is the belief of the third party that I am a person of worth, who might justify a good deed sometime in the future. Of course, the third party succumbs to the same rules as the others and undoubtedly will be looking for a return in the future. These compromises are a transaction where perception can be the loose change at the bottom of the couch that makes everything worth it. It’s like playing the stock market, pride forcing up the value of your commodities. This is the fundamental basis of human relationships. The compromise is just an expansion of the basic unit of selfishness. The power of two. Working together, each looking for the greatest gain for the least possible work. The good work throwing in that extra credit for good measure. Nothing is for free. We may not feel it but it is there, the money is in the meter and I don’t plan on going anywhere until it’s run out even if I have to stand here for an hour doing absolutely nothing. Nothing. That is the goal, to get as close to doing nothing as possible.
Filed under Philosophy | Comment (0)On The Iraq War
copied and pasted from my posts on PhysicsForums)
Ahhh, mmmmmm, errrrr. I have a hard time dealing with the hardcore, pro-war stance.
“A world court, world government or any international body restricting the activities of the USA in protecting its citizens and interests is a complete anathema to me.”
I don’t think that anyone believes otherwise. The debatable point is whether Iraq posed a direct threat to US citizens to protect against.
“In all matters, the USA will try to proceed in a manner agreeable to the 45 nations who supported us in the war.”
I know Australia’s one but the vast majority of the population of Oz wouldn’t agree. The US also has unilateral agreements with other nations which effectively exempt them from being accused of war crimes. Who is manipulating the UN and does the US really care if they do things which are agreeable? (I also marched in a 100,000 protest)
“The Palestinians must have a secure and economically viable homeland. Israel must help economically and be much less rigid in its policies. An economic partnership of Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel would be a wonderful thing.”
Agreed.
“N. Korea is not an immediate threat to the USA. It is an immediate threat to its neighbors, who must act in their own self-interest to avoid preemptive action by the USA.”
Huh???
“Iran, with some covert help from the USA, is likely to align itself with the USA once it achieves a totally secular government.”
What the…???
“Well Zero, I would like to agree with you. Other peoples, however, have interests in violent opposition to our interests. What course of action do we follow when peaceful means fail?”
I’m in shock and awe???
I don’t usually resort to this and I know that this is not an argument which holds much water, but you are obviously on drugs. Or maybe it’s me and your post is all just an hallucination. Seriously, wake up and smell the public opinion.
In answer to the original questions
Will the Iraqi people be free to decide the fate of their oil?
Of course not. The majority of oil will go to the US under rules set down by the US. After they put US contractors in, they will probably change the food for oil program into a oil for rebuilding program.
“Do they have the right to have it traded in EU Dollars after the ‘rebuild’?”
Seems like a fair question. Why anyone should think they they should trade in US dollars is beyond me. The US does not own the world, even though they might hold them to ransom
“Who should be the ones deciding?”
After the disaster of the war, that’s a difficult question to answer. Iraq will probably be split into a whole heap of political factions, but should free elections be held then it would be logical that the new Iraqi government do it.
——–
I was actually saying that saying he was on drugs wasn’t an argument, but the drug induced reference was based on the quotes I posted. Have a look at them again. You mustn’t have read them the first time. The comments range from extreme fantasy to completely missed irony.
I don’t agree with terrorism. It is a horrible thing. The US government is out and proud about it though under the guise of a war against it. It is a frustrating and all too real joke. If the US directed the money they are putting into this war into more helpful programs, maybe we wouldn’t have come to this. We could have won the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people long ago. Maybe they would have had the courage to overthrow the government themselves. At the risk of sounding melodramatic, the US is flexing it’s muscles to make the rest of the world terrified. What ever you do don’t cross the US decision makers. They are nuts. If I was a conspiricy theorist I would almost say that the US government is deliberately putting the US at risk in order to justify it’s gradual taking over of the rest of the world. But I’m not, so I won’t
——–
It’s very unlike me to resort to name calling. This situation unfortunately reduces me to a childlike state. I sit in complete wonderment at how this situation has arisen for any other reason than American financial interests.
I saw today that the coalition troops had found a store of chemicals. If the footage they showed was this store, it was basically a shed with 20 or so 44 gallon drums. The soldiers wore gas masks but not chemical suits. How bad could it actually be.
The WOMD are simply not there. Even if they were, it would seem that there is no way that the Iraqis could deliver them. The Al Samoud missiles that were destroyed before the beginning of the conflict had a range, from memory, 13kms beyond the maximum allowed under the UN charter.
I saw some footage this morning of Basra, where locals were cheering on the coalition troops. Thank god someone is happy.
I am no supporter of dictatorships. Especially tyrranical dictatorships, but that is not the reason this war has been waged. It has been waged because the US government is not interested in working with Islamic states to become self sustaining without having control over them, so they need to set up a base within the middle east. The fact that they are weak, that Saddam was not particularly liked by his neighbours, and that they have heaps of oil, is a huge bonus as well.
If American people want to believe that they are not complicit in an empire building project, or recognise it and think it’s a good idea, that is a sad thing. It is also of grave concern to anyone who actually values freedom.
Like I said before, don’t cross the US.
Filed under Physics, Uncategorized | Comment (0)Noah Theorem
Introduction
I’m taking the time now to try to put down some of the ideas I have been thinking about for some time into some sort of order. The reality is that these ideas might, or to be more accurate, probably won’t amount to anything but, in the happy event that they do mean something I want to have some sort of record.
The following is a Manifesto of sorts. It describes my personal beliefs and gut feelings about the way the universe works. I must also say that as far as mathematics and the deeper intricacies of physics go, I’m a bit lacking. I love both but just haven’t had the education in either. I try to pick up what I can here and there but, although I would like to, I don’t have the time required to learn what I need. Maybe the years to come will offer me more. Because of this, I work with analogies which give a vague idea of the concepts without providing mathematical proofs. Where I can I’ll try to identify elements that I feel need to be included or might be connected from my fairly basic understanding. When it comes down to it though, I don’t pretend I have the slightest idea of what I’m talking about. This is all a bit of fun. A geeky game of fantasy. At the absolute worst, they may be some interesting sci-fi concepts. At best they might trigger an idea in the mind of someone who does have a clue. This is what I think reality is.
I originally started thinking about this stuff inspired by a dream. I had been trying to teach myself chemistry at the time and was just starting to get a grip on it. After the dream I started reading about cosmology which lead me onto theoretical physics. Because I had no mathematics background I started with Cosmos by Carl Sagan and got some other books that were expressed in lay term. I think Dancing Wu Li Masters was my greatest inspiration. It described all sorts of amazing things it terms I could sort of understand. One of the things that came up was an experiment, the results of which were described as ’spooky action at a distance’. From memory, the experiment basically resulted in two remote particles reacting instantaneously with each other. I finished the book and started to think about the different things that had come up. One of the first things I thought about was this spooky action. Another thing that had come up was anther experiment where a particle seemed to split into two identical particles. Something coming from nothing. My first conclusion, from these two experiments was that perhaps they were the same particle and that some force for an instant had made it appear in two places at once.
As time went on I started to learn bit by bit, more about the current ideas about particle wave duality and other elements of physics. My ignorance was matched by my enthusiasm if not by my ability to fully understand what all these things meant.
Just yesterday I started reading a book called Genius. It is a biography of Richard Feynman’s life and discoveries. I was all fairly standard stuff until, about 100 or so pages in I read something that nearly made me fall off of my chair. Some of the stuff I had come up with had already been considered by Feynman himself. Some was different but other bits were so similar it was, well…spooky. I had been searching for anything similar to my ideas for what was coming up to years. This was almost the same amount of time that I had had the book in my house. I have a two year old son and with work and him I had not had the time to read it thinking it was a pure life biography. It talked about things that he had considered but discarded so there was possibly no way that I would have ever found it had I not read this particular book. The weird thing is that I had just started to add some changes to my concepts that seemed to tighten them further but had some, well lots of gaps to fill. I think I now might be able to move things forward. I’m going to try to hunt down what I can and get some physics geeks through a friend to apply what seem to be some novel additions to the equations.
Here’s the story so far.
Filed under Physics, Uncategorized | Comment (0)On Gravitation
Now here’s the fun part. How does this theory tie in with gravitation? Let’s consider again what we have previously discussed about the wave theory of distance. Take an ideal system with only a few particles. Each has an associated element of their wave function which denotes the ratio of perceived distance between each particle. Let’s say that the positional wave acts like interference on the waves of the other particles and that they are out of phase. The waves interact with each other and try to cancel each other out. As they do this the ‘value’ of the wave decreases and with it the perceived distance also decreases. If two of the particles are closer, their wave functions are already closer in phase and act constructively to create a more powerful combined wave. The single wave is pulled into phase with the combined wave. This is the basic idea anyway. I need to tighten this up considerably. There seems to me to be a problem in that it would seem that two particles would eventually come completely into phase and be occupying the same perceived position which doesn’t happen under normal conditions. The wave must behave in a more complicated fashion. The other implication of the parallel between the light and distance waves is the ability to extrapolate the idea to the graviton. If light could be perceived as displaying particle behavior in observable space then might we be able to see a graviton working. I don’t think so. I would imagine that any influence that a ‘graviton’ under this model would have would result in a change in position invisibly. Not sure if that in itself would be what you would expect from a graviton or not but that’s my feeling. The theory doesn’t really support the idea that photons and ‘gravitons’ are anything like real particles any more than we would say that light waves are like water waves. They might follow similar rules but are entirely different entities.
Filed under Physics, Uncategorized | Comment (1)
