Author: Rick Bolstler

Shifting the Paradigm

~ Rick Bolstler ~ Leave a comment

Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence.

Aristotle

What was Aristotle thinking! To even propose having happiness as the purpose of life itself is to invite a barrage of criticism from the Miss Grundy’s of the world. “There you go thinking of yourself again. How selfish! There are starving people in Somalia. Where’s the happiness for them?” Etc. So to talk about being happy requires one to approach the subject carefully, like walking gently on egg shells.

I’m not an eggshell type of guy however. Let’s start by using a sledgehammer. I think that the problem isn’t with happiness at all. I think the problem is with us, and the problem is that we are children in adult bodies going through life thinking we’re adults.

This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognised by yourself as a mighty one; the being a force of nature instead of a feverish selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy.

Man and Superman, George Bernard Shaw

I think that Shaw has captured the essence of the difference between an adult and a child in this famous quote. “Force of nature” versus “feverish selfish little clod”. Think of a three year old, on his back in the living room stomping his feet, eyes scrunched tight, fists clenched screaming “ME ME ME ME ME ME ME…” over and over until he gets whatever the happiness maker of the moment is, maybe a lolly or someone else’s toy. Happiness is now, now, now, me, me, me. Others do not exist. Happiness is pure emotion. Three year olds are meant to be feverish selfish little clods, but it wears a bit thin when the same techniques, polished up a bit and for bigger toys, are practiced by someone who’s middle-aged.

How often do you find yourself acting like that? Having to get your way whether it’s going to a movie that you want over what the others want or having that dish of ice cream just before bed even though you told your wife you were on a diet.

What’s the fundamental distinction of a child? He needs his mommy and daddy. He is dependent on someone big and strong because he’s small and weak. How many of our adult concerns are child-like in this way? I think that our entire relationship of citizen to government is one of looking for someone to look out for us, to provide us with assurance that it’s all going to be all right. How many of us go into our jobs looking for the management to watch out for us – sick pay, paternity leave, medical benefits? How many of us get jobs just to make a living rather than, as Shaw put it, being a force of nature?  Force of nature! What the hell is that?

Another trait of a child is to tell lies and to avoid responsibility for his actions. The trait that makes that child a man is called integrity, accepting responsibility rather than lying about things that went wrong.

A child thinks only of the moment, an adult looks at the big picture. An adult is self-directed, a child looks to grownups for direction.

An adult knows how to think rationally and thoroughly. A child feels things and hasn’t much capacity for reason.

An adult can be counted on, a child is dependent upon others.

A child looks to happiness through the eyes and experiences of a child. An adult looks to happiness as a direction, a moral compass. An adult still loves the experience of emotional happiness, but can act and thrive in the face of setbacks and disappointments.

Ultimately an adult strives to become a force of nature, being used by a mighty purpose. Each of us must find our personal purpose, as mighty as possible and then use that purpose to become a force of nature.

This idea was missing from my education. I had no idea of what it might mean to be an adult other than I would get a job and not live with my parents any more. The closest I ever came to purposeful guidance during my “education” was having a ten or fifteen minute chat with a counselor in grade twelve. We talked about what I might want to do after high school and concluded that university would be a good idea. Well it was, if going to university was intended to make me a better snooker, table tennis and contract bridge player. I was one of those children in an adult’s body who spent most of his time in the Students Union Building games room. But transitioning into an adult happened later when I began work at IBM.

I’ve studied happiness, purpose, philosophy, social systems, political systems, business, economics, relationships and so much of what it is to be human for over fifty years. I’ve concluded that when it comes to educating our children we have come up dreadfully short. We were not taught how to think and we were not taught how to discover a purpose. We woke up one day and found that we were old enough to vote and drink and began calling ourselves adult.

A big part of the purpose for me in creating this blog is to bring an awareness to the world that perhaps we are all mostly children living lives in adult bodies and are ignorant of our childish status. Looking back at Aristotle’s famous quote, perhaps he was being ironic, as he looked around him and saw all the children thinking they were adults. Or perhaps he was profoundly realizing that happiness is  something to be created moment by moment, being a force of nature, pursuing actions that are purposeful in our lives. In a previous post, I’ve invited you to Declare Your Independence. I’m thinking that  it’s better to first declare our childhood’s end. Now that would be a true paradigm shift. Easier said than done, I know, and I’ll be looking at that  future posts.

Welcome Home Julian

~ Rick Bolstler ~ Leave a comment

I’ve been holding my breath the last couple of days, fearing that Julian Assange’s sudden release from Belmarsh could all be some sort of ruse to get him out of prison so that the Americans could get their claws on him. Next stop Guantanamo Bay.

But a few minutes ago I watched the ABC Australia video of him arriving in Canberra and giving his wife Stella the biggest hug and kiss of all time. A tear-filled moment for Heather and me and so much of Australia and the world. Our hero is free again.

There is nothing that I can add to his saga that is new. I believe that he was used by the American government to send out a warning to journalists the world over to keep away from publishing stories that would embarrass the government. End of story.

I’m hoping that Julian Assange’s ordeal will have the opposite effect on journalists, that it will bring out courage in them that will be needed in the years ahead to reverse the slide into totalitarianism.

Bless you Julian and Wikileaks.

Something’s Afoot!

~ Rick Bolstler ~ Leave a comment

Good things are happening in the world. Some of what’s happening is explicitly libertarian. Some of what’s happening is anti-authoritarian, “anti” being pushed around and bullied by governments. It’s been unfolding for some time and hit the big-time this last year. Here’s a taste of the proof. what I’ve come across.

The biggest and brightest bit of evidence is certainly Javier Milei, elected as president of Argentina in December last year. This entry from Wikipedia accurately captures Senor Milei. I can’t remember the expression “anarcho-capitalist” being anything but libertarian phraseology before Milei. Murray Rothbard would be pleased. Here’s the Sydney Morning Herald no doubt reluctantly reporting on Elon Musk and Milei. And from yesterday, here’s some reporting on Milei’s recent speech speaking at Stanford.

Much closer to home is our own John Ruddick, member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, Australia since 20 April 2023. Check out this paragraph taken out of John’s maiden speech to the NSW Parliament:

I want to make the most radical statement said in this Chamber’s 200-year history. There is an element in my party that advocates for an entirely government-free society—a movement, founded by Murray Rothbard, known as anarcho-capitalism. It could also be called libertarianism on steroids. Anarcho-capitalists believe the best use of this beautiful Chamber is as museum—privately owned, of course. It is, at first glance, a shocking view, but one I am increasingly open to. Would a government-free society based on voluntary interaction be more humane, safe, vibrant, diverse and successful? I think it might, and it is definitely worth exploring. Anarcho‑capitalists are not revolutionaries; they certainly do not want social chaos. Even when my party wins towering majorities at the 2027 State election, government would be something that would be steadily phased out over decades and with democratic consent.

(my bold)

A speech like this is usually heard only in deep libertarian circles, not mainstream state politics in Australia. You can listen to the entire speech here on YouTube. And since John’s election to parliament as a Liberal Democrat, the party has officially changed its name to Libertarian Party (Australia). Click here to hear Victorian Libertarian MP David Limbrick announce the name change. For something that’s very timely, here’s John speaking to put the right to free speech into the NSW constitution. Finally, have a read of an article that John wrote for the mainstream Spectator of Australia.

Continuing on my Southern Hemisphere tour of change, the aforementioned article by John introduced me to New Zealand’s libertarian party, the ACT Party. I’m humbled to admit never having heard of the ACT Party prior to reading John’s article. According to their website, the party has five ministers in the New Zealand government! Although they don’t use the word “libertarian” in their website, here’s what they say about their principles:

We believe it is inherent in the nature of human beings as individuals that they are the owners of their own lives and must be free to act according to their own judgments so long as they accept and respect the like freedom of others.

Sounds pretty libertarian to me.

Is something going on that people are now craving liberty? Perhaps. Or are they simply sick and tired of stupid, of being treated with obvious contempt, of being pummelled over and over with too much coercion? This so captured by a book that I began last night, Australia Breaks Apart by John Stapleton. He has accurately portrayed the rage that grew roots in many gardens during the COVID persecutions.

And yet on an incredibly different front, here is Renato Moicano’s televised speech after a recent victory. He’s a Brazilian UFC fighter and in his speech he talks about Ludwig von Mises. I mean this is getting big! Go backward in time from his speech. How did he discover anything about Ludwig von Mises? Now that’s worthy of journalistic investigation.

Speaking of real journalists, one of the remaining greats is Glenn Greenwald. He recently did an interview with the U.K.’s George Galloway. Click on the link to get the full experience. From that interview, here’s an interesting statement by Glenn:

I think the reason George Galloway’s victory causes so much intense and unique and singular hatred among establishment forces is because they like it when things are liberal v. conservative, Labour v. Tory, Democrat v. Republican. What they fear the most is anti-establishment politics and they know George Galloway represents that. They know that increasingly more and more people are subscribing to that form of ethos as well. And they understand correctly that there’s nothing more threatening to them than that. 

I believe that Glenn is accurately depicting what is happening in Argentina, in New South Wales, in New Zealand and elsewhere. We the people are discovering that liberal v. conservative, Labour v. Tory, Democrat v. Republican, even left versus right is a false set of alternatives. Whichever way you vote, it’s choosing someone who will screw you over. The only alternative to being screwed over is to be respected and left alone. That of course leaves us with a libertarian alternative such as Milei or Ruddick.

Let’s look to Howard Beale from the 1976 film, Network: I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore. This is a spectacular piece of footage that illustrates so well the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. No matter which conventional party we vote for, it will be just another election of insanity. Instead vote for a Milei or a Ruddick. Something different – and no doubt better –will happen.

Something good is afoot no matter what triggers it, love for liberty or hatred for being screwed over. Something is afoot folks. It’s too big to nail down in one short blog post but stay tuned and become a part of it.

You – the Thinker

~ Rick Bolstler ~ Leave a comment

I don’t think it’s too radical an idea to offer that our first experience of thinking began when each of us taught ourselves to talk. Each of us figured out that something important was going on when that big warm being kept making the same noise over and over. In our wordless mind we deduced correctly that we were to mimic the sound and somehow echo it back to the big being. All of this was done with wordless thinking. Yet each of us echoed back something like “Mama” to that big warm food source. We got off to such a good start!

Where things went wrong came about with what wasn’t done next. The grownup, like Mum, who heard the first word being spoken didn’t respond with something like, “Aha! Little Rickie just spoke his first word. Time to begin his formal thinking lessons!” My conclusion would be that nothing like that was ever said to Little Rickie from his first word until he went off to public school where any hope of learning some formal ideas about thinking were never on the curriculum. No grownup, no teacher ever said, “Time for the formal thinking lessons to begin.”

Over the centuries many wise souls came up with many such ideas about thinking. Too often, as in the case of Socrates, the wise soul was executed. The existing lord and master was good enough at thinking to know that nothing was going to be worse for him than to have a realm of subjects that could think. And I submit therein lies the problem. Thinking is okay if the thinking never leads to questioning authority. I don’t want to get into the re-telling of the evils of being governed but rather about how come we aren’t guided to thinking.

In an earlier post, Shining My Light, I talked about my tendency as a little boy to always be asking questions. I was curious about everything. I didn’t have the depth of knowledge to know that I was questioning “the truth”, the words of authority, and by lucky circumstances didn’t get smacked down. Yet that’s what we typically do to our children when they ask too many questions. We begin replying negatively, starting with something as simple as “Why do you keep asking why? Do it because I say so!” My experience with asking questions in Sunday school and similar situations with my mother were never put to me as something bad, something not to do, and I learned that questioning was ok.  Was I some sort of special person, someone who questions? I don’t think so. I think that questioning is natural, doesn’t need to be taught so much as encouraged when it presences itself.I learned that asking questions, questioning authority was good. Fortunately in my formative years before I was six, or seven or eight I never came up against an authority that smacked me down. I never learned that it could be dangerous to search for the truth and that we humans must search for the truth.

That’s what the purpose of thinking is. We think to get to what’s true, what’s real, what’s going on in our world. We began this with learning to speak, learning the correct words for things and actions. As we master language, we’re taught how to act, how to understand what’s okay to do and what’s wrong to do. We’re introduced to morality, to ethics. It’s wrong to hit my sister. It’s good to put away my toys after playing with them. It’s good to eat my spinach. It’s bad to play with matches. As we grew the lessons got more complex, more conceptual. I went to Sunday school and learned that Noah built an ark and put pairs of every animal on Earth on it because a flood was coming. Beep beep beep! Alarm bells went off in my little head and I asked questions. I didn’t know any better. I didn’t know that there were special truths, religion, politics and sex to name the big three and that one never, ever questions them. Later, when I discovered that certain questions carry a danger with them, it was too late. And I did often get in trouble with my questioning but never fatally the way that Socrates did.

None of us like having our “authority” questioned. We all want things done our way and get cranky if we don’t get what we want. Yet somehow we humans must get to the point where having our truths questioned is not only ok but important. Why?

Because each of us was bestowed with the miraculous gift of our life. It’s our challenge to use that gift to its fullest. To discover how to do that will take the best thinking that we’re capable of and having our thoughts be free to take us on that journey. We must always get to the truth about what’s best for us. It’s never too late to take this on, to start over and become something different.

It’s going to take everything that’s in you to make big changes to your life, to do your best. Only you can figure out what that looks like. You will face obstacles and will often be smacked down by others, by family and friends.  For me working to build A World of Honour became my mission. I can think of no better way to spend my time than working on making a difference in the world and doing that by passing on whatever wisdom I’ve accumulated to the world. It’s how I’ve chosen to express the thinker that is me in the best way possible. I invite you to look at your life, examine the thinker that is you, and see if you are doing the best that you can be doing. Then go and do your best.

You – the Entrepreneur

~ Rick Bolstler ~ Leave a comment

My intention in this post is to bring attention to what I’m planning in this series of posts. I’m shooting for an attitudinal shift for each of us, a shift from being somehow subservient to being on the top of the heap. My last post, You – the New Monarch, called on us to shift our view of government. This post is calling for a shift in our view of business and making money.

If your upbringing was anything like mine, you were expected to go through school including university and then go and get a good job. My memories of Grade 12 and career-counselling backed that view. At no point did my counsellor bring up as a topic something along the lines of, “Well Rick, how about going into business for yourself. What kind of enterprise might you like to start?” I was advised to get a university degree first, which is what I did, and then look for a job, but look for a job was the beginning and end of where my future was.

This approach was in lockstep with our political paradigm, which had someone at the top of the heap and you and I way down underneath. My parents were in sync as was pretty much everyone with that way of thinking. When it came to the idea of running your own business, working for yourself they were against it. Mum’s father had done something along the lines of starting his own business, never did hear the full story, and my dad and his brother ran their own carpentry business until my uncle did a few suspicious things and the whole enterprise collapsed. No, the secret to a successful life was to find a good job.

Mum in particular was so happy when she found out that I was going to work for IBM. When I later quit IBM and went into business for myself, she was heartbroken and fearful for my future. And while I’m speaking of IBM, I can see how so many of my attitudes about starting my own business began with IBM’s business practices.

I’ve lost track of IBM since they left and don’t know if they kept up with their policies but back in the 60’s and 70’s when I was working for them, their #1 principle was Respect for the individual. All of us were made aware of this policy during our initial training. At the time I was too young and naïve to think much of it but as the years went by I saw it put into practice over and over. IBM had what they called an open-door policy. That meant that if any employee had a gripe with how things were going they could complain to their manager about it and it would be addressed. Not only that, if the employee thought that the complaint wasn’t handled well, it could be taken to the next level up, and over and over all the way to the top. I remember an incident in Ottawa after our department  was moved to a new building. We had an extreme shortage of telephone extensions that went on and on for weeks. Finally after much complaining one of us, I forget who, complained directly to head office. Within a day or two someone came down from Toronto and within a week we all had an extension phone.

Another example that was unusual was that all of us were treated differently regarding salary and positions. Managers were required to regularly meet with their people and do salary and performance reviews. Some of us with basically the same job could be paid differently depending on how these meetings turned out. Although these meetings were always done in strict confidence, we would often swap data after a few beer after work. And sometimes we were disturbed if Joe got more money than the rest of us for doing the same job and in our opinion, not as well. We learned to live with those facts and no one made a big deal of it.

I became aware during my early days at IBM of a way that a business could be run, with everyone having different jobs and pay scales and yet treated equally. I had no idea back then that this way of being in business would dovetail so nicely into this idea of mine.

In this new paradigm, everyone starts equally the owner of their own business, themselves. After that it’s all agreement. I might take a traditional job with someone for the training and experience, looking like me working for IBM. Or I might not. It’s all opportunity and judgment. What’s best for me at this time in my life.

It’s this powerful attitudinal shift that’s part of a new education, in which we’re taught to think of ourselves differently, as a self-driven economic machine, looking at what we would like to be and do in life as a grownup. Even going and working for someone is taken on differently, more as a contractor doing something specific for someone for a specific and agreed upon rate. Getting a job working for someone else is a practical way of learning skills, at least at first. It’s part of the attitude shift. Part of the education includes thinking about adjusting to failed intentions, not viewing them as failure that means something about us, but just something we tried that didn’t turn out the way we wanted. Back up and try again or try something else. Again, all part of our education. It’s not about winning, it’s about going for it.

It’s that attitude shift again. From earliest childhood we’ll be taught that there is no one in society above us, nor below us. We’re all equal in responsibility for our lives, self-governance, the importance of our lives. Sure, none of us will be equal in much else, but we’ll also learn that nothing else matters. Everything is by agreement, even including referees in our agreements for times when we have disputes. There is no one coming to tell us what to do, nor coming to bail us out when we make mistakes. That attitude shift will come about after a few generations of each and every child taught that he/she is an end to her/his self. Perhaps then each of us will know and understand that famous quote of Helen Keller’s, “Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.”

You – the New Monarch

~ Rick Bolstler ~ 1 Comment

In previous posts, I’ve explored the topic of politics, the governing of a society. Politics is one of the major branches of philosophy, one in which few of us are properly educated. Looking at politics and government as its basic purpose, it’s all about deciding the rules by which our society is governed and who enforces the rules. In one of my earliest posts,  A Code of Obedience I put forward the idea of ending the bullying derived from following such a code. Before I get in to elaborating on that, let’s review our current system of governing as seen through the metaphor of The Game of Thrones, the one depicted in the TV series of that title. Early in the series, there’s a scene in which two of the rulers, Cersei Lannister and Eddard Stark, are engaging in a conversation about their world. “When you play the game of thrones you win or you die. There is no middle ground.”

For the rulers, it’s win or lose, but for the rest of us, it’s lose or lose. Meekly obey or die. As we live our lives, we seldom see this side of our society. More accurately, we seldom look at what’s going on. We engage in the day-to-day activities that make up our lives; we get up each morning, make breakfast, go to work, talk with our workmates, have lunch, come home, eat dinner, watch some tv. Where’s the obedience in all that? We’re doing what we want – right?

But what if we look at what we do and don’t do through the rules imposed upon us by our rulers? Suddenly we find a collection of mind-boggling arbitrary set of things we’re permitted to do and things we are not, and the possible consequences of defying that. Let’s look at one story, that of Eric Garner, approached by New York policemen for selling single cigarettes. Eric didn’t meekly obey. You can take in the details of his story with this link from the Sydney Morning Herald or this link to the video of the gang of cops beating up on him. Why was he confronted in the first place? Possibly selling cigarettes illegally.

Or this one of Walter Scott being shot in the back as he runs away. His crime was driving with a defective brake light. Here is wiki on the incident.

Or one closer to home, this Melbourne story of police shooting at a curfew breacher. This scofflaw was lucky and lived to break another law another day.

Selling single cigarettes, driving with a defective brake light, disobeying curfew. The list of silly and arbitrary laws is endless. What we don’t stop to consider is that each one comes with a possible death penalty for disobedience. From this point of view, who would want to play the game of life in a society such as that? Not I.

Now let’s imagine the game of life played in A World of Honour – A Game of Honour. A Game of Honour is represented best as a playing field, like that of a soccer, baseball or cricket field. It’s level and equal for all players. It’s got one rule – do no harm, and every player in the game has agreed to it. I don’t think that most of us think of life as a game. A game is for fun. Most games we play we try to win, but most of us don’t take losing too seriously. Does it take much to look at life as a game, playing to win but not taking losing too serious? Isn’t most of each day spent in just such a game? Don’t we go through each day as a player making up the target we’re striving for on our own, without a policeman looking over our shoulder each moment? Perhaps we’re already playing A Game of Honour but not aware of it?

Think for a minute. Some of the common games that all of us play in life could be simply career, friends, hobbies, home, special someone, family and so on. Don’t each of us play these games now calling the shots, already being the monarch of those calls, not looking over our shoulder for some bossy meddler telling us how to live?

If I look back over my life I can see that I’ve chosen my major decisions without the need to submit a form to some overseer for approval. When I was 21 I chose to work for IBM and agreed to move to Ottawa where the job was. Later I moved to Toronto, then quit my job with IBM and moved to Vancouver, met and married Heather, had two children, left Canada and moved to Australia. Except for the move to Australia, all the decisions were made with only the approval and consent of those involved in the decisions. I didn’t go to Mum or Dad to ask permission to work for IBM. That was a decision for only IBM and me to make. Isn’t that how you play your life, how most people everywhere, even those living under a harsh dictator, live their lives?

Yes there were moments when one of the rulers of my country interfered with my choices. Each of my paycheques had a withholding tax included, money taken from me without my consent. I’m forbidden from having a glass of wine or bottle of beer while on a picnic in a public park, and sometimes it’s ok, but it’s never up to me. When I go back and forth between Canada and Australia, I can’t freely take numerous products without declaring them to some official. I’ve had numerous moments similar to that of Walter Scott mentioned before, but wisely chose to go along with the demands of the officer rather than go to war. It wasn’t until 1971 in Toronto when conversations with fellow IBMer, Reg Jacklin, lead me to begin questioning the necessity to have a ruler. I had never thought of the prime minister of Canada as being my ruler. After all, we lived in a democracy and we are all equal. Sure we are. But as I discovered over the years since, we are not. Those in positions of power have different rules as to how they are to be treated. See this for what’s going on in the U.S. re the president being immune from civil liabilities.

For me it begs the question, who would ever play a game in which some of the players had an advantage, not because of being better at the game, but because the rules dictated it? Yet that’s what we have with every and any system of government ever. And think about it, why would you or anyone want a monarch? A king? A czar? A president? A master?

For over 50 years I have lived knowing that I am my own ruler, that I call the shots in my life. I’m aware that I live in a society in which governments think that governing means telling me what to do with my life and should I attempt to contradict their rulings, they will use whatever force is necessary to demand my compliance. I choose to avoid dealing with such people as much as I can.

If you haven’t already done so, I invite you to take on the position of monarch in your life. Live your life as King Charles of England does today, without a ruler. Dare I say it, as an anarchist, someone without a ruler. It’s your life, isn’t it?

Just Three Things

~ Rick Bolstler ~ Leave a comment

I may have opened up a can of worms in an earlier post, Artificial Intelligence. I linked adulthood with mastery of the fundamentals of philosophy. I doubt that many of us could even give a reasonable definition of metaphysics or epistemology, let alone elaborate on their personal practices in those disciplines. Something I adopted a long time ago to address being able to manage complex subjects was reducing the topic to three things, what I call a triad. Maybe I was inspired to take this approach from childhood when seeing the warning sign on 76th avenue at the railroad tracks: Stop  Look Listen.

That one’s pretty close to the one I grew up with..

When coming up with A World of Honour, I could see a need for using such an approach to a complicated topic. I put forth A Code of Honour: do no harm, everything by agreement, and be your word as something simple and easy to understand. Now I can see another simple triad to allow access to a deep study of the branches of philosophy that I mentioned. Try this on:

  1. Be self-governing – Politics
  2. Be your own boss – Economics
  3. Be knowledgeable – Epistemology

But before continuing with this theme, I want to refresh our memories as to the why behind all this. I’m proposing this new triad to combat a problem we face, a problem that I previously called The Biggest Problem Facing Mankind: the biggest problem facing mankind is resolving conflicts between one’s feelings and one’s thinking.

I submit that this biggest problem exists for each of us. I’ve been facing this biggest problem since I wrote that post over a year ago. And still I struggle. As I’m writing these words, 2023 is coming to an end. Looking back on this year, I notice that I wrote six posts, one every two months. I could put forth a few scathing adjectives about my progress, but I’ll use a simple one: inadequate. In 2024 I intend to do better. I’ll begin by committing to two posts per month, one by the 15th and one by the end of the month.

So back to this post. Philosophy and the three branches of it that I’m addressing are not part of any rite of passage that I went through. While I think that I have a reasonable grasp of those branches, the grasp lives for me as a abstraction, impractical for me in day-to-day living. I created this new triad to assist me in being my word, in walking my talk. I’ll be using my life and my challenges to demonstrate how I’ll intend to use this triad to resolve the conflict between my feelings and my thinking.

Be self-governing – Politics

This is the domain in which my feelings seem to rule my thinking. Like writing my blog posts. You would think this should be easy. I mean all there is to do is to sit at a computer or a pad of paper and write. Anyone can do it. What’s the problem? Well for me the problem is this little niggle in the background, leaving me with a feeling if put into words that might be, “I’m not up to this! It’s too hard. I can’t do it”, and then I’d go and play a game of Sudoku. Feelings 1 – thinking 0. Wherever in my life I have something to do that I said I should do but I’m not doing it, I can always find a feeling that gets in my way. I keep forgetting that I’m the Pope and that I govern my life.

Be your own boss – Economics

This is similar to Who’s the Pope but I’ll keep this domain to earning money. I always thought that being my own boss meant going into business for myself, but what if it’s more than that? What if it’s more of an attitude you take into going out into the world, something like how do I earn my way in the world? Be your own boss would then include any method you take on to pay your way in the world. It would certainly include working for someone and being an employee. You and your employer set up an agreement. You work together. You do something to fulfill your agreement. Your employer pays you to fulfill on the other side of the agreement. Both sides simply keep their word. Do we ever think of it that way? I never did until thinking of this post. I always saw this as an either/or situation. I either work for myself or I work for someone else. I doubt if that thinking was unique to me.

Be knowledgeable – Epistemology

I deliberately left this topic for last. I think it’s the most important subject for a human being to master, that this topic, whether we call it epistemology, knowledge or anything else, is what defines us. We are what we know. And it’s much more than just what we know. It includes how we gathered together our knowledge. It includes how we connect our logic to what we know, how we think about what we think. It includes much more than I can ever put into one thousand posts let alone one short paragraph. I know for example that you, dear reader, have adequate knowledge to understand everything that I’ve said. I know that you might agree with me, might disagree with me or might be uncertain about whether you agree or not. I also know that those three options cover all three options not only for this topic but also for any topic that we choose to address. Agreeing with you or not is not really the point. When I think something, I can check: how do I know that? Can I prove that? Am I sure of that? Again, way too much for this short paragraph. Knowledge is critical. We live or die by that.

Which leads me into connecting those grandiose assertions to my earlier triad: do no harm, everything by agreement, and be your word. What do we do when we disagree on something? There’s a spectrum of actions that we can undertake when disagreeing, with go to war on one end and peacefully agree to disagree on the other. What will keep us peacefully agreeing to disagree is taking on do no harm. No matter what the topic [issue], we do our best to do no harm to self or others. Then be our word about that. It’s the glue that holds everything together.

So simple to say, yet so hard to achieve.

Chatting with ChatGPT

~ Rick Bolstler ~ Leave a comment

In my last post, Artificial Intelligence, I began by listing 15 points that were made about the dangers of AI for the world. I’ve been using ChatGPT as I mentioned and have yet to encounter any of those dangers. Instead I’ve found my little AI buddy to be helpful every time I ask a question, like asking for a recipe for guacamole. (Try it for yourself. Turned out to be an excellent recipe although there’s no guarantee you would get the same one that I got). In doing some research for my next post, I asked ChatGPT a question on critical thinking and have included the entire interaction below:

Me:  Can you propose three steps to becoming better at critical thinking?

ChatGPT: Certainly! Developing critical thinking skills is a valuable endeavor that can enhance your decision-making and problem-solving abilities. Here are three steps to help you become better at critical thinking:

  1. Ask Questions and Seek Understanding:
    • Curiosity: Cultivate a curious mindset by asking questions about the information you encounter. Question assumptions, implications, and the reliability of sources. This helps you gain a deeper understanding of the subject matter.
    • Clarification: Clarify ambiguous statements or concepts. When faced with complex information, break it down into smaller, more manageable parts. Ensure you have a clear understanding of the key components before forming conclusions.
    • Evaluate Evidence: Assess the evidence supporting a claim or argument. Consider the quality, relevance, and reliability of the information. Be open to exploring different perspectives and resist forming judgments without sufficient evidence.
  2. Practice Active Listening and Effective Communication:
    • Active Listening: When engaging in discussions or consuming information, practice active listening. Pay attention to details, ask follow-up questions, and seek to understand the underlying messages. This helps you gather more information and develop a well-rounded perspective.
    • Effective Communication: Work on expressing your thoughts clearly and concisely. When presenting your ideas, provide supporting evidence and consider alternative viewpoints. Being able to communicate your thoughts effectively is crucial for engaging in meaningful discussions and refining your own understanding.
  3. Develop Problem-Solving Skills:
    • Identify the Problem: Clearly define the problem or issue at hand. Break it down into its components to better understand its nature and scope.
    • Generate Alternatives: Explore multiple perspectives and potential solutions. Encourage creativity in generating alternative ideas. Avoid settling for the first solution that comes to mind; instead, consider different approaches.
    • Evaluate and Decide: Assess the strengths and weaknesses of each potential solution. Consider the implications and potential outcomes. Make informed decisions based on a balanced analysis of the available information.

Remember that critical thinking is a skill that develops over time through continuous practice and reflection. Challenge yourself to apply these steps in various aspects of your life, whether it’s in academic, professional, or personal contexts. Embrace opportunities for learning and be open to adjusting your thinking based on new information and insights.

End of interaction.

I couldn’t find flaws with any of the response. I’ll leave it to an expert to come up with a better response or to correct any errors made. But with my existing knowledge of thinking and reason, I would judge the response to be of value to anyone to study and become skilful at thinking better.

A bit of advice for using any AI app. Before I made up the guacamole to serve at my party, I did try some first. It was delicious. Use ChatGPT and other AI apps with full awareness of what you’re getting.

I guarantee you that taking on critical thinking is going to take a lot more work than making an avocado dip. The responsibility is yours, not AI’s. Caveat emptor! More to come.

Artificial Intelligence

~ Rick Bolstler ~ 1 Comment

With AI, Artificial Intelligence, getting so much publicity, I thought I should have a look at what’s being said about it. I found an interesting article in Forbes about what the author thought were the greatest risks regarding its use.  Here are the fifteen points that the author was making. (You can jump over to the Forbes article to read the full text for each point):

1. Lack of Transparency

2. Bias and Discrimination

3. Privacy Concerns

4. Ethical Dilemmas

5. Security Risks

6. Concentration of Power

7. Dependence on AI

8. Job Displacement

9. Economic Inequality

10. Legal and Regulatory Challenges

11. AI Arms Race

12. Loss of Human Connection

13. Misinformation and Manipulation

14. Unintended Consequences

15. Existential Risks

Good grief! With all that potential for disaster, why would we go near AI? Yet as I thought about those dangers, I realized that those risks would only be there if we were dealing with intelligence, artificial or real. What popped up for me as a huge missing were definitions, definitions of intelligence and artificial for starters. What also popped up for me was the assumption that you and I both know what these words mean and we are in agreement with that. As with most assumptions, we should proceed with extreme caution. So with that in mind, I’ll start back at the beginning, with two definitions.

I found that this was not an easy task. In searching Google for intelligence, I quickly found too many offerings. I had to make a choice and decided on:

The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

That definition is simple and easy to work with.

Googling artificial was more straightforward. The differences between definitions were slight and all lead to the following:

Made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural.

Using the above definition of intelligence, I think we would agree that each of us is born with that ability. We proved it early in our life by learning to speak. We acquired knowledge, words, and spoke them, demonstrating skill.

Using the definition of artificial, I must conclude that there is no such thing as “artificial intelligence”. I want to offer that what the author says, what most everyone is saying about AI, is wrong. AI isn’t intelligent at all, neither real nor artificial. AI as we are using the term is nothing more than a label for a type of computer app. An example of such an app is ChatGPT mentioned in a previous blog post. The creativity and intelligence that has gone into the design and programming of ChatGPT boggles my mind. However, I jumped over to ChatGPT and typed in, “ChatGPT are you intelligent?” to which I got the following reply:

I don’t possess intelligence in the way humans do. … I do not have consciousness, self-awareness, or true understanding.

Straight from the horse’s mouth. From this premise, that applications such as ChatGPT do not have intelligence, I would conclude that the entire Forbes article is without merit. I think the points the author lists are valid concerns for us all, but none of them are concerns that are threats from some computer program. They are valid concerns because they reveal a horrid short-coming prevalent in all of us.

This short-coming is what I consider is at the heart of what ails human society. We are a species that has received little or no formal education in critical thinking, in learning tools of thought. We’re dependent upon the ChatGPT’s to tell us what’s true rather than our intelligence.

Computer apps whether they are ChatGPT or Dungeons and Dragons types, are inherently risk free. Is that statement true or false? Only human intelligence can give an answer that has any meaning. Only a well-honed skill in critical thinking can have us develop those answers with a certainty that we are correct.

Our biggest risk is and always will be pursuing our choices in life and not fully thinking them through. Worse, passing the buck for this to someone else, and worst, having this choice taken away from us by someone else and we don’t have the real intelligence to know it even happened!

Life is risky. Let’s concede the point and get on with living life fully. To do that we need real intelligence. We need it to find a purpose in life that calls to our innate intelligence, one that demands of us that we expand our powers to think critically and creatively and carve ourselves a life of satisfying brilliance. We are here on Earth to fulfill on the miracle that was our birth, not to cower in the shadows of those who did, frightened of all those scary risks out there.

Want to take on an assignment? Click on the Forbes link above and take on demolishing each of the fifteen points. Test your powers of critical thinking.

You and I have little or no experience in living life from a position of real intelligence. We have no training in it, no formal education. Our human nature, that of a thinking being, leads us to conclude that each of us must first become a philosopher, a master of thought, before we take on the challenge of creating a purpose for our life.

The purposes are all but infinite, but to be experiencing life to the max will take real intelligence, moment by moment, pursuing the next moment of our miraculous lives. The actual purpose doesn’t matter. As risk takers, we may discover that we chose the wrong purpose, that something else is more important. Not a problem. Complete on the old purpose and begin the next. The purpose is dead, long live the purpose.

As I began to explore in my previous post, perhaps the moment of adulthood begins with one mastering the fundamental categories of philosophy. Are you able to name those categories and identify what your sense of life is in each of these categories? What is your metaphysics, your epistemology, your ethics, your aesthetics? How practiced are your powers of reasoning? How grounded are you in reality, in the facts of the universe? Can you answer these questions with a high degree of certainty? Consider the possibility that a rite of passage from childhood to adult would be one in which the new adult demonstrates expertise and confidence in these ideas of thought.

I’m still thinking about what the structure of this rite of passage might look like. I do know that it must be an expression of celebration, of joy, of fun, of significance, of certainty and of a sense of transformation. Then imagine eight billion such adults creating the next technologies, the next symphonies, the next cures. Now that is a world worth building!

And what of my little buddy, ChatGPT? They’ll (see, I got my pronouns woked!) be giving me excellent answers to complex questions that I have, without doing tedious searches through reams of articles and Wikipedia entries. A wonderful app for those of us with real intelligence and time that’s precious.

Human Nature

~ Rick Bolstler ~ Leave a comment

Recently I was reading yet another opinion piece on the war in Ukraine. The phrase, “that’s just human nature” was offered as a quick answer to the why of the war. It smacked of, “Well what can you expect from a species cursed with Original Sin, a nature of inherent evil?” I felt that “human nature” wasn’t accurate and Googled “human nature” to see what others had to say on the topic. One of the hits on the first page was sourced by Scientific American. “Aha,” I said to myself. “Let’s see what science has to say on the subject”.

I was quickly disappointed by the title of the article: “Scientists Probe Human Nature–and Discover We Are Good, After All”. This wasn’t science at all, but merely the flip side of the Original Sin take, implied by the “After All” qualification to “We are Good”. On reading the article, I had my disappointment fulfilled. The scientific studies consisted of seven experiments to determine whether or not we are “intuitively selfish creatures”. Science must always have as its aim to get to the fundamental distinction of the subject being explored, be it the structure of an atom or the nature of man. However we define good or evil, it’s not a fundamental distinction of human being. Those are derivative definitions from the philosophical branch of ethics. I assert that humans are neither good nor bad “by nature”. Either way of being is a choice, not something inherent in our makeup.

Human nature is what distinguishes us from the other natures – the lion nature, the clam nature, the gorilla nature, the potato nature, whatever. Our human nature is what defines us, the distinction that has us be different than all other entities.

Our human nature is what is revealed as we delve into the question, “what is human nature?”. To do that we are already, perhaps obliviously, engaging with our nature. We’re engaged in the act of rationally using our minds to solve a problem. That’s where human nature begins. To define human nature is to use human nature. It’s circular, it’s self-defining. Even to deny the “truth” of this definition requires using the faculty of reason to dispute that we are not beings of reason but rather beings of … ???

Beings of what? Try dealing with that question without pondering, thinking, reflecting, or in any other way using your mind.

As human beings, we strive to think as rationally as possible. This is a learned skill, something that our nature allows us to do but won’t do for us. All circular again. Once we discovered that we were beings that thought, some of us, our philosophers, began reasoning about thinking and before they became philosophers, they had to invent philosophy. Chicken and egg kind of thinking/reasoning, which came first, philosopher or philosophy?

Now it could be me that’s confused here, misunderstanding what it is to be rational, to be a scientist, but if I am wrong, how would I be convinced except by being shown the errors of my logic? Assuming I am as I claim to be, a rational animal by nature, I would then admit my errors and be thankful for it. Of course in today’s culture of woke, I more likely wouldn’t be shown or questioned about my errors but instead would be cancelled as a spreader of misinformation. Not much room for Socratic discourse these days.

And I think I’m correct on what it is to be rational. I’m disturbed a bit by the Scientific American article though. The thinking in the article about human nature can be seen as sloppy, simplistic at best. But more seriously, I see it coming from human ignorance. At a societal level, we are engaging with each other in woeful ignorance about ourselves. We are ignorant about our ignorance making it impossible to detect. The fundamental purpose of thinking rationally, i.e. reasoning, is to allow us to choose our life’s actions rationally. Reasoning is always a means to an end and if that reasoning is unknowingly filled with errors, we are going to be frustrated over and over as we take on life’s challenges.

All choice comes from the quality of our reasoning. Good and evil are choices. What is good, what is evil are products of thought. Everything is a product of our thought. That is our human nature, reasoning. Everything else derives from that. It’s reasonable then to do the best we can to become philosophers, to become masters at reasoning. That would be honouring our nature.

And that’s also the pathway to being civilized with each other and living in harmony. Curb our bloodlust. Time is not on our side on this. The current warfare in Ukraine is a product of incorrect thinking and threatens to annihilate us all.

This is why I have do no harm as the first item in my goal to bring about A World of Honour. It buys us time. Everything by agreement and be your word complete the triad in the code. Three simple rules to take on that could have us living in peace with each other.

I could easily prove to anyone that these three rules are rational and fitting to a species that has reasoning as its nature. Anyone can take these rules on and then, if they choose to, expand their thinking skills as desired. Ultimately, I think we should all become philosophers, perhaps even have it become a rite of passage taking us from childhood to becoming an adult. It could replace getting your driver’s license or eligibility to vote. Wouldn’t that be something!

What could that philosophical rite of passage possibly be? To be continued, as I apply my reason to this conundrum.