Sunday, December 16, 2007

Is Freedom of Speech even Debatable

Why is it that we are so adept at proclaiming freedom-of-speech while, back at the ranch, running it down when that freedom asserts an ideal opposed to our own way of thinking? If reason be what makes us human, why the inconsistency? And maybe the fault is mine for “How ridiculous and what a stranger he is who is surprised at anything which happens in life.” – Marcus Aurelius

Democracy is about freedom of choice, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of actions; of course all tempered by liberal doses of moderation i.e. consideration for the wellbeing of others, consideration for the beliefs of others, consideration for the lives of others. As a matter of fact, consideration and moderation, besides the aforementioned freedoms, are the prime words by which democracy was devised (reminds me of the age old inconsistency: Look but don’t touch, Touch but don’t bite, Bite but don’t swallow…)

To the lob-sided equation, human-rights (human rights refers to the concept of human beings as having universal rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction, and likewise other localizing
factors, such as ethnicity and nationality,) was added as a condiment. These rights and freedoms likewise include the rights to due process, private ownership of property, privacy, and equality before the law, and freedoms of speech, assembly and religion. (In liberal democracies, such as that found in South Africa, these rights are generally constitutionally guaranteed.)

In contrast, Conflict, by characterization, refers to any quarrel between persons, regions, national districts or world powers. Conflict further refers to mental-states of unreasonableness, of stroppiness and of perverseness: arrogance, avarice, despotism, bigotry, absolutism. Qualities that not only subverts the human spirit but also relegates it to the annals of depravity - Ayn Rand in her gothic work entitled ‘Anthem’ expounded on what a world ruled by oppressive ideologies would be like: in one instance, she elucidates the arrogance of the ruling elite when it discards electricity in favour of candles for the concept was not developed by the masses for the good of the masses.

When Emmanuel Kant was asked to characterize Enlightenment (defined as the insistence on intellectual autonomy, a rejection of tradition and authority as the infallible sources of truth, a loathing for bigotry and persecution, a commitment to free inquiry, a belief that knowledge is indeed power,) his vigour and clarity rose to the occasion: “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity.” Unlike his other long-winded works of philosophy, this was direct, to the point and sacrosanct.

In simple words, it is decisive forbearance towards all things that challenge and seemingly subvert ideals long held as truths, that determines enlightenment. Not an impossibility or a stretch of the imagination but a tortuous request nonetheless, for the general human propensity towards self-emulation will, if not checked, rise to the top: usually under the guises of nationalism, patriotism and eloquently-worded self-centred crowd-pleasing despotic monologues.

Therefore, as with enlightenment, freedom-of-speech, being a sub-set of enlightenment, must be conceived as an attitude in which the critique of what we are, be accepted as an historical analysis of the limits that are imposed on us, and a testing with the prospect of going beyond them.





To all intents and purposes, there should be no debate pertaining to whether or not freedom-of-speech should ever be sacrificed, irrespective of circumstances i.e. noble intentions - history is full of noble intentions that did nothing but to propagate the will of those who proclaimed those very intentions.

Its for the above reasons that freedom-of-speech should be encouraged and cultivated at all levels of human interactions. It should never be allowed to wane or to be repressed irrespective of how much it condemns or criticises. It must be allowed to assert conjectures, contentions and what-ifs. It must be given free reign, for only then can life evolve beyond its self imposed immaturity - the world used to be considered flat. It was only by the covert persistence (an unfortunate system-induced malaise of the time) of a few heretics that the truth was eventually revealed.

Dare to speak. Dare to know!

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Expedition Facebook

Over the past while, my exploratory excursions have taken me into a world known as Facebook. A virtual meeting place of friends, acquaintances and of like-minded hopefuls. A world where banalities and make-believe are tendered as gospel, where friends rediscover each other; and where discussion threads are viewed as the alma mater of free speech.

Must admit that my travels through Facebook have been interesting and stimulating. Yet, it remains a cold and impersonal medium. One that panders friendship but delivers pretence, abject derision and emptiness.

When travelling amongst the numerous ‘discussion threads,’ one will run across racism, sex, presidential candidates, sex, conspiracies, sex, philosophies and more sex. Some threads carry emotional baggage from lonely hearts who want solace and possibly a shoulder to cry on. Other threads are filled with good intentions, but are continuously jacked (a Facebook term for hijacking/taking over) by users who see the whole issue as irrelevant, thus an object of ridicule.

Amongst some of the trivialities of Facebook is the ability to create an awesome individualist profile that can be linked to all friends and individuals. This profile can include items such as rate-me, how-sexy-am-I, how-alike-are-we and plagiarised famous quotes.

There is also one section that allows users to describe themselves. At face value, there is nothing wrong in the idea, but it’s the varied but similar descriptions that are interesting. The majority of users claim description like what-you-see-is-what-you-get, an-individual-that-loves-life, the real-cerebral-icon and say-it-like-it-is person.

Interestingly, in amongst the maelstrom of likeness and characters, some have taken to imitating others in the hope of creating consternation and so called fun e.g. South African Minister of Health.

The above notwithstanding, I find Facebook an enthralling study into the human psyche. In my wanderings through Facebook space, I have read how the Facebook population feels about the death-sentence, abortions, religion and the next presidential candidate. To my dismay, I have also learnt that size-does-matter, that one’s abilities on the dance floor relates to how one performs in bed and that any thread is open to being jacked, taken ‘off’ course and insulted.

The South African Network statistics page presents some facts that left me wondering as to the honesty of all who partake of Facebook: Firstly, most users class themselves as non-religious. This surprised me the most considering the discussions being tendered on subjects of abortion, love, sex before marriage and the death penalty. Secondly, most users rate themselves as not having a political identity or even affiliation, yet, once again, the verbiage being openly sprouted contradicts that statistic. Thirdly, being single is proffered as the title most go by – only six percent are married.

The other attention-grabbing statistic relates to the gender usage: 45% male and 40% female.

To my mind, what makes Facebook so derisive remains seated in the fact that there is no accountability or responsibility for actions or insurgent contradictions to social harmony. It is as if hiding behind one’s avatar (a graphic representation of one’s likeness) renders one omnipotent and immortal. Similarly for those who hide behind public personages: it’s as if they know that verification is difficult and downright improbable.

Myself I have found Facebook a good diversion for those periods in time when running-away seems most attractive and when there is nothing else on TV. I have also found it a valuable pool of information where it pertains to the gathering of human thoughts, human actions and human tendencies.

At the end of my explorations, I believe that I will continue to use the medium on offer. As long as I apply thoughtful restrictive measures, it is a fine medium. But like all things human; it is what it is.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Armageddon, Apocalypse or an Incontinent Truth?

Are we facing a melt-down of gigantic proportions? And I’m not talking about the usual gumph of global-warming, save-the-planet and other woe-paranoia (all the usual suspects that tend to occupy much time in media spewings and other human interactions.) What is at hand will have a greater impact on the everyday decisions of your average jack-and-jill, for it impacts on the corporeal.

A report by Ruthie Ackerman of the Sentinel Management Group states that “When money market funds, which are typically thought of as ‘safe,’ show strain, investors worry that the credit problems have begun to spread to the broader market.” Ruthie further attests: “As the Federal Reserve and foreign central banks funnel money into their respective markets to squelch liquidity issues, problems such as Sentinel’s continue to arise, unnerving investors who are left to wonder how deep the tentacles of the subprime fallout reach.”

It must be noted that the above report followed on the heels of the $64 billion bailout of the U.S stock market by the Federal Reserve.

Further to the above, Peter Dunay of Leeb Capital Management, goes on to say “As the European Central bank and other financial banks continue to add additional funds investors get concerned that they’ll have to do more and that the problem is bigger than currently though.”

Sarel Oberholster of CCPT, in his e-newsletter asserts: “I have warned over the weekend that economic conditions have become perilous. I have described the economic problems in “The Strategist” but in short, interest rates dropped too much and people borrowed too much easy money all over the world. The debts are now falling apart as people are unable to pay on a large scale. It is causing a sort of “run on the banks” similar to that which happened before the crash of 1929. In our modern world the “run” is on investment funds and hedge funds.”

Now if the above does not put the fear of god into one’s financial perspective, then nothing barring a ground zero nuclear explosion will.

It is understood that the powers that be cannot afford to have the masses running around in a state of panic, withdrawing vast amounts of hard currency, causing greater pandemonium and consternation. That is why huge amounts of money are spent by the powers that be on ‘happy’ propaganda which is designed to keep the populous happy, content and under control; all under the paternalist rite of ‘for your own good.’

Having said that, it is by no means asserted that keeping a positive outlook is bad. Life in all its guises needs to be lived, and lived it shall be. But a little wariness will go a long way to fortifying one’s resolve when the financial walls do come tumbling down.

What is worrying about the stated economic situation is that it affects the tangible, unlike the emotional inconvenient truths that might affect the globe in years to come. Going hungry and or loosing a home and or a mode of transport and and, is not only detrimental to one’s mental health, but also very debilitating i.e. loss of self-esteem and self-worth.

I know that for years, the financial markets have suffered major upheavals and many disconcerting storms, which have all been circumvented by nifty footwork on the part of the banks, governments and other financial institutions. The quandary being that mostly the problems have been overcome by throwing money at it. Now reason dictates that sooner or later the seemingly endless pot of money will run dry for there are only so many resources available on the globe. What then?

The situation is dire but, for the moment, manageable; hopefully.

In view of the above, the desire for ‘wanton’ buying, should be more circumspect, more penny wise, more prudent. Getting rid of debt (more like minimising it if one is up to ones eyebrows in debt) should take top priority when considering future financial options. Not that any of the aforementioned will help if the bottom falls out of the market.

Then again, living off the bank’s money might just be the way to go!?

Friday, August 3, 2007

Blogging. Freedom of Expression or Just another Fashion Statement?

In between Women’s Rights, Bra Straps, How to tell that a Lady has feelings for you, to Wear or not to Wear Pants, Zimbabwe and other angst ridden articles occupying much space on the internet, there is very little of value for one to sink one’s teeth into. I understand that blogging and or Citizen Reporting is all about giving voice to the masses, making them feel involved, wanted and empowered.

There is an advert on the goggle box that advertises an easy-too-use goo, that supposedly simplifies one’s cooking, while the well-coiffured housewife prattles on how blogging has brought meaning to her veiled-downtrodden life.

The subject of blogging was thrown into disarray a while back by a certain article written by a well known media personality, which led to many how-dare-you blogs and the birth of a Blog site in reverence to said well known Media personality.

Many a sci-fi writer has elucidated the future as a place filled with most citizens running around trying to film or record life-as-it-happens, all putting their slant on happening, in the hope that the media moguls will buy the information from them.

What is worrying about this behaviourship is the tendency by the majority to judge life through the pretext of civilisation; a concept that was only introduced by a French philosopher during the 18th century. This pretext uses the assumption that having the capabilities of reason, animalistic instincts should be trashed for the sake of presupposed higher ethics and morals. The Human Rights Charter is predominantly based on the philosophy of civilised living.

Now while civilised living might be a praiseworthy aspiration (a derivative of having an emotional brain,) it is in no way a true representation of what human beings are all about. Self interest is the way of human and as such, having the freedom to express at will, other forms of wanton and self-aggrandizement will rise to the top.

“Its as if the human animal does not know what to do with it’s perception of freedom that it relegates itself to commonplace arguments for the sake of affirmation, reason and entitlements.” – Bite Size Expressions

Which brings me back to blogging. A veritable art form that uses the human capacity for self-interest to propagate itself. For now, it seems to be working, yet, I cannot but wonder if its not all a case of … the more things change, the more they stay the same!?

Ends

Friday, January 5, 2007

Impeach Bush, Why?

Much under the treatise of fate or predestination or omnipotence relies on the fact that life has been preordained and will happen accordingly.

But there is more, for a belief in fate or omnipotence also predisposes as belief in an after-life. An occurrence that underscores the esoteric ability to take a peek into what the future holds. A proclivity that even most non-believers will relish when the opportunity lends itself. And the results from such séances/readings/treatments are mostly similar: They all allay the human fear of the unknown by supposedly shedding light on the dark recesses of the future.

Fortunately, there are inconsistencies that highlights the fact that all is not so. In Astrology the words ‘the stars impel, they don’t compel’ are used interchangeably. In secular religion, Allah knows all, except when God does not then ‘he/she/it moves in mysterious ways.’ In mysticism, all predictions/readings are only recommendations and their outcomes dependent on how strong the protagonist believes in their truthiness.

The issue with human actions being preordained lies in the question of culpability and responsibility. If life if predestined, then nothing humans do is by natural intent. Even suicide would have been written as an event to take place at its allotted time. And in predestination there are no grey areas; it is or it is not. I mean, who would have replaced Judas Iscariot if he decided against betraying Jesus?

True freedom-of-choice implies the ability to use gathered knowledge, tested experiences and over-time moulded wisdom in deciding what course of action to take in a given situation. But having the ability to ask for numinous advice in making decisions predisposes a prescribed future and thus not freedom-of-choice. Therefore predestination cannot coexist with free-will for both conditions oppose each other in the possible strongest terms – If George W bush's life is preordained, then he cannot be judged for he is only acting out his destiny.

Secularly speaking, I find it rather unsettling that one’s life is regulated by unseen forces that manifest themselves in a number of differing energies or belief systems. I find solace in the fact that true free-will allows me the pleasure to be in control of my life and liable for my own actions; or inactions. I need to know that justice will be meted out, that others too, are responsible for their actions and that Governments will sooner or later have to give an account-of-their-actions to the people that elected them.

If predestination is allowed into the equation, the above scenario fuzzes into a logical nightmare.

In the end, the whole predestination problem revolves around the human propensity for not wanting to believe or accept that one is alone in the vast universe. Its as if our elevated thought processes, when confronted with many of life’s unexplainables, will comfortingly rationalise well constructed answers that give meaning and purpose to existence. And, of course, having the soothing thought that there is more to life after death adds much to settling the feelings of anxiety – As Nietzche so aptly put it: “In the consciousness of the truth he has perceived, man now sees everywhere only the awfulness or the absurdity of existence and loathing seizes him.”

I for one will to continue to exercise free-will without he intervention of predestination or fate. But if it is proved not to be so, I will rest easy knowing that I was only acting as per my preordained destiny; thus absolved from all culpability.