1.29.2013

The salt of the earth; BB post; frdb;gb

I have had brushes with unreasonable superiors. A good example would be when I was dietary manager in a Nursing Home. The Administrator of this facility was a career RN before going into administration. She was notorious for not wanting to give employees decent raises, and commonly referred to CNAs (certified nursing assistants) as "a dime a dozen". When I took over management of the dietary department (I was promoted from head cook, one of the few long-term employees), I was the first person in ten years to get the food budget down to where it was supposed to be; my predecessors had a habit of running it up, sometimes doubling it. The administrator was excited for me and very glad that I was able to do that. Next came the labor budget. At this facility at that time, staff hours for the kitchen were not to exceed 41 hours per day. This left room for three full-timers on day shift, and three part-timers on night shift. It was nearly impossible to maintain this 41hr maximum and still make sure resident needs were being met. I frequently filled in for staff who had called in sick on weekends, essentially working for free, in order to give me a few extra hours to work with, a little elbow room.

In Nursing Facility work, there are yearly state surveys, which are four to five day affairs, in which all aspects of patient care are monitored, from top to bottom, to make sure regs are followed and that the staff are well trained. It was during my second state survey, after my second year as manager of this department, that I gave up as a manager. I felt as if I was in a situation that was doomed to failure. The staff I had were being paid a little bit above minimum, because very few did these jobs for very long and you mostly worked with newbies and semi-long-termers, had zero benefits, no union (this is Arizona), and virtually no real incentive to work hard, since merit raises were forbidden. I had tried to initiate raises based on merit but when you talked of this people looked at you as if you were Atilla the Hun. People are trained to believe that they are entitled to the same raise as anyone else, it's only fair, and how hard a worker is doesn't factor in. It's TEAMWORK!!!!!PEOPLE!!!!! That was the rallying cry against any crazy ideas like pay-raises based on merit. Administration wanted nothing to do with merit raises either. "Give em 3 to 4%. That's how it is."

Anyway, I was forced to encourage a group of very unenthusiastic people to obey all the regs and to do their jobs to the best of their ability, but I was not able to pay them what I thought they were worth, or work with their hourly allotment. It was also hard to fire people, because you had precious little to choose from by way of replacement. It was sometimes easier to keep at someone who was not very good in the hope that they would improve than it was to fire them and, most likely, get someone even less capable.

My administrator begged me to stay, but I went back to my job as a cook, at a new facility, which, as it happens, paid me MORE than I was being paid to manage the dietary department at the first facility. When the dietary manager of the new facility was fired for drug use, the admin there offered me the job. The pay would have been somewhere in the 40k per year area, but I refused. I did not want to go through all that frustration again.

As a manager I was upset by the absurd expectations of my administrator: get this rag-tag group of unskilled workers to toe the line and be perfect at their jobs, which in such facilities entails knowing a lot about food handling, prep, sanitation, therapeutic diets, various patient needs, when they could just as easily have gone to flip burgers for the same pay; but I was equally upset by the people who were at the bottom. To be honest, they disgusted me more. There are so many people who DO NOT know how to handle money, who spend way too much time on barstools, who spend far too much money on beer and/or drugs, who are unreliable, untrustworthy, belligerent, careless, selfish, what have you, the list goes on.

I've been working with the common worker my whole life, and it aint no picnic. If there is to be any real understanding, this myth of the noble working class hero needs to be taken down a few notches. Yes, there are millions of very fine people who work at unskilled jobs and who are wonderful all around, and many of these people are mistreated and/or exploited; and yes, the world is full of fat greedy bastards in high places; but let us at least look at the whole picture and be realistic.

For every bastard of a boss you have an anecdote about, I have one for some hapless loser who simply can't get his shit together, no matter how much help is offered.

1.28.2013

Review of "The Hero", by Somerset Maugham; @ Amazon

This is the first novel by Maugham that I've read, and I'm glad I decided to read one of his lesser celebrated books first. It was short, and free, so it was a no-brainer, but it so happens it was a good choice.

I'm surprised by certain things I've read about Maugham's style, that he lacks an original voice, or that his prose is not as colorful as other celebrated authors, that he makes use of convenient forms of rhetoric, speech, and cliche, that kind of thing; because it seems to me that he's just as good a writer as Henry James, for example, while not as lyrical and mellifluous as Galsworthy, nor as expansive as George Eliot. The thing I take most powerfully from this novel is its honesty. It is at times brutally honest. Maugham lays open his protagonist to total scrutiny, allows us to see every feeling, every desire, every thought and raw nerve, and lets us feel the final sensation of claustrophobic moral constraint and helpless entrapment and resolve.

I'm almost inclined to give the novel only four stars, because if I'm honest myself I have to admit the narrative is unbalanced: there is too much 'telly' reportage and probably not enough 'show' ie: graphic description. If it were a poem, it would be heavy-handed and didactic. But as a novel, it redeems itself of its artistic faults by being so absolutely straightforward, and painfully accurate, especially for the period in which it was written. James loathes Mary and is in love with Mrs. Wallace; these are plain facts not dithered over or danced around in the least, in the way they would be if George Eliot had told the story. Had Eliot penned it, it would have been twice as long, beautifully delineated, and we might have been more accepting of its climax due to her authorial command; but from Maugham we get it straight and without any delicacy at all.

Unfortunately, Nature is the way it is, and tragic, pointlessly terrible things occur all the time. One could argue, should it be the job of the artist to bring Nature's losers into the spotlight? We know, as Thoreau had said, "that most men lead lives of quiet desperation", but do we need to open a novel for entertainment and have this desperation and seeming purposelessness paraded before us? Shouldn't we focus on the good, on the brighter side, on the greener pastures of our human experience?

Two years ago I would have said, yes, the artist ought to point to man's possibilities, his meaning, his purpose and intentionality in an ostensibly hostile world and cosmos. And I still do say, yes, this is what artists ought to do. But then again, what of those among us who don't get the happy ending and the sweeping music as the credits roll up? There are undoubtedly far more of those in the world, and in our history, than the happy winners who catch the golden ring and go out with a kiss and a smile and a symphony orchestra.

The Hero is a great and tragic book, and it paints its story without shallow, degrading anti-humanism and mockery. This is not a misanthropic novel. It probably perfectly reflects the lives and sufferings of many, many millions of human beings past and present. Read it.


1.28.2013

1.22.2013

God; ideas and definitions; navel-gazing; BB post; as WilliamB

I've defended the god-idea, and capitalize the word God out of respect for English grammar as much as out of respect for whatever or Whomever it is I am referring to. Having said that, I'd be happy to dispense with the word god, or the idea of a being called God which automatically calls to mind tyrannical and irrational beings like Jehovah, and replace it with a term that better clarifies the idea I'm referring to when I use the word God.

Like Spinoza, my notion of God is not as a supernatural being. The word supernatural is a nonsense word, like the word 'nothing'; they both refer to...nothing (I realize the word 'God' may also be a candidate for the category of nonsense words). I conceive of God (and it's only my personal conception) as an extremely advanced, extremely intelligent Agent of some kind which is beyond human capacity, which means beyond the capacity of modern science, to even study, let alone understand. Or, when I'm feeling like an atheist (which is most of the time), God refers to all that going on in the Universe, macro and micro, which is beyond human understanding. It's a matter of reverence. I believe the idea that we understand all there is to know about physics is plain old hubris. It's fine to be an empiricist, a skeptic, a totally objective scientist with a deep respect for facts and truth and reality; but if someone like Einstein can contemplate God, or use the term without feeling embarrassed, than that should mean something. I think it should mean something also that the majority of scientists are not atheists. It DOES NOT mean that atheism is wrong; not hardly. Majority doesn't equal correctness; all I mean is that these highly trained numbers of individuals, a lot of them, feel a reverence and awe about the universe and have not committed themselves to the idea that the human brain can understand all there is to know about the world, and that any kind of romantic view of reality ought to be tossed into the rubbish bin automatically. Such treatment of eccentric, radical visions and ideas is akin to book-burning, in my opinion, it solves very little and doesn't progress humanity. Tolerance, even in the face of a radical theory, like those of Hameroff and Penrose, and others like them (there are many) should be common practice. Offhand dismissals and mockery won't improve the effort to find common ground amongst one another. It never has worked. Even Carl Sagan, as pure an atheist as could be, who never, ever gave an inch when it came to the idea of gods or God, was tolerant, kind, and patient in his rebuttals of such, and held an undying awe and reverence for the universe, and for those "as subtle as we."

The word God, at least how I use it, refers to that which we do not understand about the Universe, or it refers to a sublime Entity that really exists. It depends on my mood. I'm sure the term is offensive to people who respect facts and who reject Woo and any kind of mental masturbation and navel gazing. I apologize for that offense.

edit: It depends on my mood. << I understand how stupid that statement is, but I'll let it stay in there anyway.

1.19.2013

Parenting; defense of Objectivism, contra altruism; BB post; as gb

Originally Posted by P*
Quote: Originally Posted by Gulielmus Beta


This is one of the silliest things I've ever read. Caring for one's child is not altruism. If you think it is, then you do not understand what altruism is. Caring for your child is a moral and legal obligation. One ought to go about it with love, but how that love should be selfless and unrewarding for the parent I have no idea. Do you? Can you explain it to me?

P*: Of course it is altruistic. Do you seriously mean to suggest that changing dirty diapers is a pleasure for you? And for most people? (And you accuse me of silliness!) I think you are the one needing to look up the words "altruism" and "selfish", as being selfish, by definition, means to pretty much disregard the effects on others. Thus, caring for a child that involves actually caring for the child is inherently unselfish. And altruism does not entail not getting anything out of something, though it does entail a primary concern for someone else. And that is what raising a child in a manner that most people would regard as being proper entails.

Yes, changing dirty diapers was a pleasure for me, because leaving my child in dirty diapers would have meant enduring the feeling of allowing my child to suffer in discomfort. It is in my best interest as well as the child's to change its diapers, unless I become a parent by accident rather than by choice and if I consider raising a child an unwelcome burden. Altruism has connotations of disinteredness and self-sacrifice, and there are many who believe that the lesser the reward for doing a certain action, the more virtuous it is.

Your definition of selfish does not jibe with the definition Objectivists are referring to when they talk about rational self-interest. Objectivists are strong defenders of the concept of rights, and any person whose ethical system recognizes the value of individual rights would not behave in complete disregard for how their behavior affects others, for doing so would be to live in disregard of the rights of others.

Ayn Rand knew that writing a book called "The Virtue of Selfishness" would cause an unholy shit-storm, and she did it with a purpose: to get people to think about what they have been force-fed to believe about morality for so long. But if you actually crack open the book you will see that what she means by selfishness is not a crass, conceited, arrogant disregard for other people. It is not the selfishness of a knuckle-dragging brute who can't see past the end of his own nose, who is blind to the consequences of his actions and doesn't give a damn about them. That's the selfishness of a rapist, a mugger, or a junkie, not the rational self-interest of a law-abiding human being who recognizes his right to exist for his own sake and not for the sake of everyone else but him.

 Now, for myself personally, I don't describe myself as a selfish person nor do I go around extolling the virtue of selfishness, but I do understand the necessity of a strong defense for enlightened self-interest and I am dead-set against all of this anti-ego "there is no I, there is no self" nonsense that is in vogue in so many philosophy forums. Those sentiments are dangerous and stupid, and I will fight them as long as I have breath to speak and fingertips to type.

Wishy-washy theism; BB post frdb; as gb

I labeled myself a Spinozan Theist after a bout with depression resulting from a very painful divorce and a bunch of other issues I've been toting around for a good many years. I had a breakdown and experienced something which now seems like a distant memory. From my reading I gathered that what I went through is not that unusual, a sudden burst of religious certitude, a seeming transformation, or "regeneration", I suppose the evangelicals might call it. I kept it mostly to myself except for a few rather silly outbursts here, and over time this feeling of sudden faith and newfound purpose gradually evaporated. I literally cannot believe some of the things I was thinking during those few weeks. At no point did I feel like a Christian or anything nameable, I just felt as if God had grabbed hold of me. It felt very real. I believed it. All in all it was not as dramatic as it may sound since I've always had a strong interest in religion and theology, my whole life. I love cathedrals and churches, religious iconography, particularly old Catholic. I love sacred music, Tallis, Byrd, Bach, Haydn, etc; but at the same time I was essentially an atheist, in that I didn't believe in God, gods, souls or anything supernatural. It happens. George Santayana was a famous poet and philosopher who spent his last days in a convent. He loved the Catholic church but had no actual god-belief.

I explain it to people by trying to get across the idea of reverence. There seems to be precious little reverence left in modern society. One of the things I admire about Ayn Rand was that she was a reverent person. She revered reason and Man. Man (and Woman!) was a being deserving of reverence and admiration, not the whole species, lock, stock, and barrel, but one at a time, individually, and certainly not every man. Not hardly. There were, and still are, real heroes in the world, and were it not for the intellectual giants who stood head and shoulders above their fellow men and women, I would not have the way of life I have now, nor the general safety and security in which to live it. I'm a reverent and grateful person. Someone asked Einstein if he believed in God, and Einstein's answer was, "I believe in the God of Spinoza." Though I had heard of Spinoza all my life I never read him. After my depression and breakdown, I bought his complete works, and fell in love with them. I'm trying to heal myself, to stay alive so I can continue to work and save money and hopefully fund the education of my two sons, should they choose to continue with it after high school. They are both extremely bright and it would be a shame if they allowed their fears and phobias to hold them back the way I did. 'At's about it
.

1.17.2013

BB post; re: Jose Delgado; freewill; political impact

Originally Posted by WilliamB

OK. Gotchya. Would you mind venturing an opinion on this quite well-known quote from Delgado? I've put it up before in another thread. Does this sound like a healthy, rational vision of the future of humanity?


If anyone thinks this is off-topic, I would only wonder how anyone could possibly fail to see how such statements relate to the Freewill debate.

I also wonder how any rational adult person could fail to see how malignant those statements are.

D*: I agree, the statement is malignant. But what has that to do with free will? 

What it has to do with the freewill debate is that a lot of nasty political ideas have as a priority the abolition of the concept of human freedom. If you can get rid of these pesky notions of freewill you are a giant leap closer to getting rid of the concept of political freedom. A society divested of the concept of human freedom will be one made up of sheep and sheep-herders, with no in-between. It would be a tragic, dystopian nightmare.

What I am saying is that there is a lot riding on the things we are discussing here. I only mean to suggest that people take a measure of caution, that they continue to think for themselves and refuse to be swayed by what the intellectuals seem to think is so obvious, that they remind themselves of their ability to reason and to identify stupid ideas when they hear them. That there is no freewill, no autonomy, no self, no "I", that these are outmoded and obsolete terms, is a stupid idea, and I have no reluctance whatsoever in naming it so.

Nothing bothers a tyrant more than the idea of a free-thinking, free-acting people. It bothered the imaginary God of the Bible (and the authors who made him up), and it bothered all of the real butchers and tyrants who have plagued mankind from the beginning. What tyrants hate the most is not that people are self-deluded into believing that they are free-thinking and self-determining, what they hate is the fact that they are. This is exactly why Delgado, and no doubt many others of his stripe, believes that a mind-controlled society would be preferable to a free society: he knows that the only way to rid the human consciousness of self-identity, ego, determination, volition, and all those other good things, is to physically manipulate the brain. He knows that no amount of intellectual posturing, scientific theorizing, or pseudo-philosophical bullshit will alter the reality of nature.

In other words, Delgado believes in freewill. Try that on for size. Notice he says, "Man does not have the right to develop his own mind"; he does not say that man cannot develop his own mind. His own words betray him.