Models for Keeping Purpose with Intellectual Openness

Now that the Christmas season is over, I can write again, since I haven't written anything since around Thanksgiving. Amidst all of that unordered time that makes it exceptionally challenging to maintain consistency in, and perhaps before then, I have been thinking about how one maintains one's bearings; how one remembers the purposes they are striving towards. These purposes for me are usually encapsulated in a concept or idea that is multilayered and complicated. Since purposes are held within these, how does go about remembering all that is held within? And so, a debate I often come to, and have come to considerably more because of the holiday season, is how to keep aware of these; how not to lose oneself in all the other concepts and ideas floating around that can also be made part of the purposes one is pursuing.

The problem one is avoiding by keeping aware, I feel, for idea-minded people, can be one of the most difficult problems to avoid. Many cases have been voiced of people, who when exposed to too many ideas and too much information, turn to apathy due to an inability to keep track of everything that has been thrust at them. The apathy in turn causes them to determine life as more meaningless than they thought (a form of intellectual nihilism) and this then breeds improper acceptance of all ideas and all emotions.

In my time of considering how to manage this; how to keep one's mind on the purposes one has while being intellectually open, a few models have presented themselves. These can be called in short the following: the Symbolic Encapsulation, a method involving periodic revisit of each purpose's details in the full, a method involving people who remind, interactively, of these purposes, and a careful use of over-information techniques to make thoughts bend toward each purpose without necessarily conscious awareness.

Symbolic Encapsulation, as it is written, is a way to present information such that it references to greater things and thus, upon remembering or seeing the symbol, one remembers the reference to such greater things. Personally, I have not investigated this method much, so I will not comment on how it might be used here. My reasons for avoiding it are likely because there are sufficient examples of people who lose themselves in symbols rather than what the symbol was made to accomplish; a reference to the greater thing, and so in such a state, they derive more greater things from the symbol than the symbol was made to hold. Symbolic stories or symbolic objects are by definition limited conveyors of information; they exist only as referential devices that help objectify in a limited manner, the whole. Another reason for avoiding Symbolic Encapsulation is that it tends to make one more materially dependent, which may just be by bias, I admit. This method, again, I have not pursued due to its potential problems, but it may prove to be a good way of remaining in one's purposes while keeping intellectual openness.

Periodically revisiting the details and layers of one's purposes is a method that I have given some time to. But before delving into my experience and thoughts, one should understand in more detail what this method is. Essentially, one periodically goes back to remembering and thoroughly considering all of the facets that make up the concept. I have tended to do this by revisiting over time large sets of writings which make up the concept's details. In the process of this, one compares one's current life with the purposes outlined in the concepts. It is easy after that point, then to map out one's progress, make potential changes to re-align to the purpose, or to even change the purpose some amount to accommodate new factors (though this is different than really what we're talking about; retention of ideas). From my experience with this method, it has proved to be more time consuming than the Symbolic Encapsulation method, but better as a way to remain free of those symbolic entanglements noted. Another disadvantage aside from requiring more time, is that this method can constrict one to thinking too fixedly through the number of details presented. The Symbolic Encapsulation method does seem more freeing, but only because of potential ambiguity in remembering the correct details that the symbol is referring to. Another potential disadvantage is that this method can make one unable to plan well or utilize memory well; they find themselves getting off course / forgetting so often that they spend far too much time referring back to the details to re-adjust / re-fresh.

Interactively reminding oneself through human relationships is another model that is used, typically by more social intellectuals, it seems. A few periods in my past, experimenting has been done with this, and they seemed largely effectively, but perhaps only due to my personal attachments to anything socially stimulating. Any conservative intellectual will note that this method is dangerous for two reasons that seem apparent to me: dependency on humans that may not hold integrity to the concepts one is relying upon them to remind them of, and that one can too harshly limit the intellectual sharing these people can do outside of the bounds one has set up in order to foster being reminded of one's purposes interactively. Another potential disadvantage is that the humans used to remind oneself of these concepts may become in themselves symbols of the concepts, relating this potential effect to what can occur when using Symbolic Encapsulation.

Over-information was referred to as a catalyst to Nihilism. This is true for many, but not necessarily related by cause. A few times, I have tried to use this model, but have found some difficulty, and so my understanding of it is limited. The way this is typically done, is that exposure to detailed information is highly controlled but used in abundance. The hope in this methodology is to keep one on track in purposes and capable of modification by what seems to be nearly embedding the details into the subconscious; creating a sort of memory that exists out of emotional-pattern retrieval. I realize that my description is quite ambiguous, but I have little understanding of why the model is utilized, though it is apparent that people are using it. Examples, if not aware, seem to exist in what can be seen among college students; the children of the Information Age who seem to be constantly wired to their Internet and music feeds.

In considering what I have personally used in the past, the following list shows what I have used most to what I have used least:
1. Periodic detail revisit
2. Interactive reminding through human relationships
3. Over-information carefully controlled
4. Symbolic Encapsulation

In considering what I have used recently, the following list shows what I have used most recently to what I have used least recently:
1. Periodic detail revisit
2. Over-information carefully controlled
3. Symbolic Encapsulation
4. Interactive reminding through human relationships

A Culture of Essentials

Considering our place in history the other day, I came to realize further that today's current generation (and by that, I mean the generation that is around adulthood: 20 - 30), and possibly upcoming generations, sees what is important in life out a perspective I'd like to call, essentialism. I believe essentialism has its root in what can be labeled since the early 20th century and now, as a crisis of culture of sorts. This "crisis of culture" can be seen as the wearing down of cultural-historic norms to put in its place ahistorical norms. An expression of this could be seen in how value has been lessened towards relationships of one's heritage while value has been increased towards the concept of money. Money in comparison, is very fluid, temporal in nature, and not stable. A better comparison could be between money and wealth, where wealth clearly has enduring qualities to its worth.

Now, some argue that one can stave off this cultural erosion, by putting considerable bulwarks in one's home that stand in contrast to these norms. This indeed, may be possible. However, the children will likely reveal the true effectiveness of this effort. I argue that because the majority of children, even children coming from these types of homes, have adopted essentialism, that these efforts are not as effective as the parents think. Further, the parents themselves involved in these efforts likely don't even believe strongly what they're making efforts to stand for.

The way that essentialism reveals how ill these efforts are, and how parents may not be properly handling their stances, is due to how the children view these factors growing up. If children saw that these norms to fight off the "crisis of culture" were good, then they would follow them themselves. However, essentialism doesn't contain much of the norms held by these stances, but more of the norms that make up the "crisis of culture." Essentialism is defined to be a way of seeing reality such that only essentials are valued. What then are these essentials? Based on my observations, I've been able to pin down at least the following:

Tenants of Essentialism

• Community
  
• Identity in Oneself
  
• Survival of Oneself
  
• Material Practicality above Immaterial Idea-ism
  
• Emotions above Reason

Another good way to phrase Essentialism is by calling it "Survivalism," valuing only what it takes to survive, which the above list describes. The truth is, most of the expressions of these values listed above I have seen, have been less in the area of durable actions, but temporal, ahistoric nature. Sure, community could be something that builds up culture, but the way the value is expressed is typically in how a group of people can cohesively, in the moment, have times of gratifying emotion. Typically this involves discussion that builds towards how absurd life is, rather than building towards an enduring purpose. This then causes community to be used in a way that is not cultural-historic, but ahistorical and acultural.

Now, the way I see that people have adopted this essentialism mentality, is because in their childhood homes that have stood against the "crisis of culture," the parents didn't hold strong enough value in their stances. The result is not that the children intellectualized about whether their parents really believed in what they said, but that they simply saw that the people weren't following much of anything (remember, degradation of values is part of the crisis), and so gravitated towards whatever was consistent and gravitated away from what was spoken of, but not practiced, thereby forming the values of essentialism. The problem with this, is that by the process of forming these values, the children had to adopt acultural and ahistorical views, which are exactly what the parents were striving to fight against; the values found in the "crisis of culture." This cycle is very ironic.

If the current generation is to truly stand against the crisis, it must stand against its current expressions of values, values which only in appearances resemble something better, and must take up cultural-historical views towards the values it professes, so as to express them in ways beneficial to the purpose.

Characteristics, Limitations, and Heritage in the Political Leader

I've been thinking some about how might a person become a political leader. This has been on my mind due in large part to trying to further understand my tendency towards holding a dynamic that balances strong leadership and strong deep relationships. These two, in my mind, tend to be at odds with one another. If one is to be a political leader, it seems by necessity that their relationships must be less deep than that of a person who desires not political leadership. This is justified by the fact that a leader really must understand the people they are leading. If the person is leading millions, such as with a senator or president, then they need to know what the people are thinking. This task is impossible without using representatives that give the leader insight into what the people think.

Now, one could say that deep relationships could then exist with the representatives, but that seems unlikely if the representatives main role is to relay accurate information. Sure, this could be done in a manner respective to one's humanity in that it would be more than simply information relay, but the relationship between the leader and the representative would not be of the form of what could be between a non-leader citizen and his fellow non-leader citizen friends, where the relationship would be defined by sharing what is more individually-personal with one another. The representative and the leader would have a relationship based on talking about and understanding the populace they are representing; individually-personal information would be rarely spoken of.

And so, I seem to define "deep relationships" as being those in which two people share their individually-personal thoughts with one another; thoughts that do not hinge on others, but entirely on themselves.

Many balk towards leading politically if it necessitates an absence of such "deep relationships," but that topic, which involves the origins of emotions, is for another time.

Now that a basic understanding of the relational dynamics of political leaders has been set in place, I will go back to the original question: how might a person become a political leader? Well, in my thoughts, I believe that it takes at least a couple of things. The first, is one's mindset. Leaders tend to have mindsets in the following ways: strong awareness towards systems, unemotional (in the pop-culture sense of the word), analytical leanings toward broadly-arching patterns. The second seems to be from one's heritage. It is very difficult for one to differ from the way one was brought up. Children tend to reflect their parents, and so if they are of political leaders, then they are prone to have qualities that predispose them also towards political leadership in the future.

I've thought a lot about mindsets in the past, so it is little news to me about what my mindsets are. Considering heritage, I decided to come back to what could be seen as strengths for future pursuits.

Ancestral Traits / Dynamics:

• Dynamic: Reason and Emotion
  
  • Strong in depth of reason
  • Weak in depth of emotion
• Strong System Awareness
  
  • Strong general understanding of groups of at least ~100 people\
  • Strong analytical ability of organizational matters / issues
• Political Intelligence
  
  • Ability to represent groups of at least ~100 people
  • Ability to track political dynamics of small groups
• Dynamic: Above the People (impersonal) and With the People (personal)
  
  • Strong in being above the people
  • Moderate in being with the people
    
    

After considering these, I came to realize that what inhibits me from being able to lead greater numbers of people, is likely the desire to maintain the dynamic of being above the people I am leading, while with them at the same time. Human brain capacity can only hold so much. Time is also not eternal. Increasing the number of people one is personal with will only lead to noticing generalities, and time will limit the number of people one can get to know on a personal level. This will all be very important in understanding potentials for future pursuits.

Difficulties in Objectivity

So, the other night, I had a hankering for looking further into a series of related topics that I tend to find interesting: globalization, and whether the United States' use of labor from other countries could be modern-day slavery (globalization of labor). This topic seems of paramount importance, simply because the majority of items that the majority of the citizens from the U.S. buy, are from other countries. The scale on which this is done today is likely greater than in any other time in history due to the United States having cheap enough technology and oil to ship imports at low cost. This novelty in history is important, for it bodes the potential to reshape the paradigm of international economics as the United States moves from being an industrial nation, to one that relies on other nations to provide services (a service-based economy). This does not mean that what is occurring is bad, but as in all things novel, care should be taken to watch out for misuse, and potential problems.

However good my intentions were, they did not prevail in bringing a comfortable new level of understanding to the topics. This inability to produce a new level of understanding is very important; for I came to realize two things. The first is of the need at times, to re-adjust one's source of authority; one's source of discernment about the happenings in the world. The second is of modernistic alienation.

When researching online, I generally am able to make new ground in topics because I believe I know how to discern good material from bad material (that which has a good foundation in the pursuit of objectivity; a method I attempt to employ often). This method of research often involves taking what someone is arguing, and to detach the person from the argument they are making, which then results in having an idea that can be taken and applied to more situations other than that which it was originally presented in; the person's original statements of argument. If someone has not presented their material in a objective, academic style, then I am not likely to even consider their idea.

That's enough of my method of research. What I learned from my experience in looking into globalization, is that I lacked greater understanding of globalization to such a degree that I couldn't read through content online and find myself able to understand the depths of what the people were saying. Based on my experience, it takes a very long time to develop an understanding if a layman attempts to read high-level material. One can realize this in practice: take a topic one is not an expert in, say politics. Even in reading a common newspaper article, if one does not have a decent basis of understanding, one will not be able to conclude the importance of why something is written. For example, if I don't understand the history of two countries, then news of them beginning a new trade agreement will not seem important to me because I lack the knowledge to know why it is important. These deeper threads can only be discerned the more one is aware of a topic.

And so, my traditional pursuit of facts can not proceed; I can't thresh out what I want because I don't have a basis to work from to gain the facts that I want. Perhaps that seems impatient, and perhaps it is, but what this has caused, is to realize that in order to, by my practical measures, to come to knowledge, I must change my source authority in my research. I can't seek to go through further mountains of information; it is arguably much more worth it to find a faster way. The change in authority that I found myself moving towards, was that of an existing expert that was willing to provide ample information so that a layman can come to understand the topic well.

Of course, any objective-style-loving person will observe that such a turn to another source of authority allows one to be impregnated with volatile opinion. This is true in many ways; one cannot easily separate the wheat from the weeds until one can see the weeds for what they are. However, such is the necessity of human life. What one can do is two things: observe how much the author submits to writing in an objective style, and then through that assume that what minor opinion exists, will not become too great a future inhibition to seeing the truth behind the opinion. Second, trust standards of authority; there really is no choice here if knowledge is to be gained in a timely manner. I have found myself leaning towards finding an author of a detailed, simplistic, and likely somewhat opinionated work. Essentially, this means a necessity in the greater trust of fellow humans; not something easy for an objectivist pursuit. Yet, I find myself turning this way more and more often. Whether this is is for good, or due to the winds of the culture, it is hard to say.

The second realization that I came to in attempting to research about globalization and labor, was the inherent feeling of an unnaturally high obstacle in trying to understand the nature of the problem. This feeling can be attributed to the concept of modernistic alienation, and it applies here well. The nature of an outsourcing market as the U.S. is having, produces alienation because more and more, the items being constructed are more and more often not coming from local sources, but far away countries. Understanding the validity of this economic system is far more hairy than talking directly to the salesman. One has no easy way to speak to someone who has complete understanding of that which was involved in the trade that resulted in bringing something as simple as a plastic doll over from China. The number of hands involved in its construction and the number of business agreements made to bring such a simple item across the sea is enumerable in appearance, nearly mind-boggling. And so, completely understanding the topic is woefully impossible in today's age of the U.S. being a consumer of global sources.

This causes great inhibition to even beginning to look into the topic; no doubt it stops dead multitudes more simply by its appearance. This causes me to bring to question a few ways to resolve this issue of alienation: begin relying upon something one hasn't before (assume something / rely upon something new as a truth) so that understanding can be grasped, spend much greater time learning the intricacies of the process so that complete understanding might be gained, conclude that the system is bad by its very nature. These three responses likely don't encompass everything, but they seem the most realistic to me.

Interestingly, but perhaps as a side-note for future topics, is that in college, many people seemed to claim apathy towards politics for how woefully complex and alienating the system was. Whether this really means that the system is too complex or that these were immature responses to problems that require time and discipline to solve, is another topic, but important to relate, for its relevancy.

Anyways, the complexities of pursuing a topic that is new as well as massively imposing by the nature of its function, is intriguing to me, and provides important insight into the nature of understanding things of novelty and complex nature.