The Experts, Pt. 2

I had intended to send my second thought bubble on experts floating out through the netsphere yesterday, but there were many interruptions. Of course, in the interest of honesty, I wasn't entirely sure what that second bubble was about. My overall point is fairly simple, so I'll try to state that here for clarity: expertise is very valuable, but it tends to stifle creative approaches without sufficient feedback from external sources, including novices. Well, that was easy. I would be surprised to find any substantial disagreement with that point of view.

I suspect what's behind the clash of thinking processes is often some basic difference between the value systems of the individuals involved. For a programmer developing a large application, the value system can become skewed in esoteric directions that have little to do with usability, while a user can quite intimidate a developer with his or her wide-ranging knowledge of that application, based on a value system of practical, and even creative, interaction with the software in daily life. Fortunately, the programmer is highly motivated to provide products with features that directly respond to the value systems of the users, and a collaborative effort is made to achieve that goal. This has worked out very well, for the most part, in the world of software.

Much of today's world might be viewed in terms of similar conflicting value systems, and much of what seems broken might be symbolized by the dysfunctional cooperation between those whose value systems do not coincide. This way of looking at the problem could be extended in so many different directions it's hard to know where to begin, but there are three I want to mention initially here, and return to from time to time in future posts. They are:

• American foreign policy and the average American's view of that policy
• Corporate policies and the average American's view of their policies
• Religious doctrine and, again, the average American's view of that doctrine

In each of the three areas above, there is a schism between the posture of a given entity, and the American people themselves. In each case, something of the collaborative process appears to be fundamentally ineffectual. Why should this be? What would short-circuit such a basic process that enjoys such success in environments like that between a software company and its users? With regard to software, a primary motivation for maintaining the balance is competition. If one company's developers don't listen to the users, another company's developers will. Some might refer to that as a "free market", but there can frequently be a dearth of real competition in a free market. In my personal experience, the best software has always been as a result of spirited competition for users between rival applications. Where there are problems related to the list above, it is often a lack of competition that contributes greatly to those problems.

I'm rummaging through all these concepts to try and build some framework for the perspectives I've gained by the reading and study I've been undertaking to try and understand what's behind the unholy mess everyone seems to be making of our lovely little earth. Even a moderately sane human being could only describe the major forces at work in the world today as perverse, or perhaps even the height of madness. I want to find some handy, accessible frames of reference because I've found there is method to be discovered beneath the chaos, and that's the most troubling aspect of all. It's one thing to feel that we're careening out of control. It's quite another to feel controlled. But there it is.

I have finished Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival, and am nearly halfway through Howard Zinn's A Power Governments Cannot Suppress. These are books which stand against some elements the authors see as highly intentional, not some muddied result of poor planning, but from the perspective of average folks like you and I, an opposing force. I can't compel you to read these books, but now that I have, I need to find ways to integrate the perspective I've gained into this blog in a meaningful way that relates to shared knowledge. I don't expect I'll be able to accomplish that overnight, but I believe such an effort can be useful.

A lot of it is about respect. I developed a deep respect for the experts at Microsoft, and an equal respect for the armies of users. I encountered an application, then known as Outlook Express, and now, Windows Mail, from the perspective of bits and bytes, and hundreds of thousands of lines of code that, after some natural recoil from what seemed an enormous task, taught me to respect the subtle, intricate structure of the creation as it existed before my intrusion into its arcane world. After much study, what had seemed like random flights of fancy revealed beauties of design all the more satisfying because those secrets were only revealed when I had applied myself with sufficient effort to make myself ready to receive them. At Microsoft, software can have mystical overtones!

I have learned a little about respect, and the rewards that can be gained when sufficient respect is paid to the object of interest. The Zen of everyday life might be described as learning to have genuine respect with regard to all we encounter. So I do feel motivated to treat these questions with sufficient respect. As an indication of that, I will respect what seems like a good place to stop for the moment. If I've given the reader anything to consider further here, I will be pleased; but this is also for my benefit. Some parts of them will continue to rattle around in my head for the next day or two, until I know it's time to let some more of them spill out on my keyboard.

The Experts, Pt. 1

In the beginner's mind, there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few.

-- Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind

I have used that quote before, only about a month ago, and I'm sure I will use it again. It's one of my favorites. We have a lot of experts around. I've known some of them. It's a major achievement when a person gains a reputation of genuine expertise in his or her chosen field.

When I reflect on my past, I can boast of having gained sufficient respect for my own expertise that I was allowed into the inner circles of development efforts that resulted in the latest edition of the operating system known as Windows Vista® (and Windows Live®, too, by the way). I have written many thousands of lines of code as my part of that effort, and if we discard false showings of either humility or pride, I can be considered an expert repository of knowledge that's of no small importance to our world.

I'm grateful for the opportunities I've had in the past, and perhaps will again in the future, to acquire and build on that reputation in the interest of stretching the boundaries of the digital aspects of our lives. The sales figures of Windows Vista® attest, hopefully, to real acceptance of our efforts, and the promise of Vista® for its advancements and support for new and exciting possibilities of working with information and communicating it to others. It all could have been done without me, of course, but it couldn't have happened without The Experts.

At Microsoft, there is a very healthy respect for expertise. The amazing people who can navigate comfortably through the labyrinthian core of Windows source code with deep understanding and respect for the intentions and far-reaching impact of seemingly obscure subroutines and branches have my deepest respect. They are the foundation, and theirs are the shoulders whereon we stand as we explore those possibilities they've helped to enable. And I've been often amused when the experts are pulled up short by a novice whose question the experts might choose to reject.

Innovation at Microsoft has always been a collaborative effort between the experts and the novices. It's an ideal laboratory for examining the compartmentalization of thinking, and the frequently encountered "inside-the-box" limitations of standardized thinking. Fortunately for Microsoft developers, we have frequently been forced to come to grips with those limitations, and to reach out in innovative directions that challenge our mental routines. That's an experience not to be minimized, and I bring that element of my background to this effort with unchecked enthusiasm.

This is part 1 of my rant on The Experts. I have much more on this topic bouncing around in my head, but it's almost time for the #1 Ohio State Buckeyes to play Penn State (can you tell I was born and raised in Ohio?), so I'll stop for now. I'll pick this up again within the next posting or two.

I want to leave a link to a short blog I posted today on my.barack.obama. I've already stated my support for his campaign, and that I maintain a small, more "politically-correct" blog there on his web site. The theme of that post is very relevant to this topic, so if you'd like to read that as well, here it is: When Will We Learn?

Instinct

One of the few things I've figured out is that this blog is about instinct. But that's a very tricky word to deal with. My handy Encarta Dictionary tells me that instinct has three primary definitions:

in·stinct [ín stìngkt]
noun (plural in·stincts)
1. strong natural impulse: a powerful impulse that feels natural rather than reasoned
followed his instincts and took to his heels

2. biological drive: an inborn pattern of behavior characteristic of a species and shaped by biological necessities such as survival and reproduction
the survival instinct

3. knack: a natural gift or skill
an instinct for putting people at ease

adjective
filled: completely filled or imbued with something (formal)
a look instinct with compassion

Microsoft® Encarta® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

In keeping with the Microsoft product placement ads, I bounced from the dictionary to Encarta itself, and found a decent little discussion about instinct. But I often reference Wikipedia in this blog, partly because Wikipedia is such a unique internet reference, it has a mind-boggling number of contributors, and a large percentage of them are highly responsible and take ownership to protect its integrity as much as possible. It's far from perfect, obviously, but it's pretty irresistible, in my opinion.

The second sentence of Wikipedia's definition highlights the problem with the direction I'm trying to go here. It says: "Instincts are unlearned, inherited fixed action patterns of responses or reactions to certain kinds of stimuli." Or at least it said that just now, assuming it hasn't been edited. The common dictionary associations are to aspects of us that are literally still animal, sometimes even reptilian. Instincts can be viewed sometimes as part of our common heritage of survival, and sometimes as the vestiges of ignorance. So where in all that would you expect to find characteristics like altruism, conscience, or moral disgust? Is there such a thing as an innate moral instinct?

I started to google around, but I stopped myself. I want to use my instinct.

I will point over to Huffington Post again, though. I guess I'm going over there too much, but of course there are always lots of lively discussions on a variety of topics, and I'm not visiting DailyKOS as much right now, because they appear to be just a little too attached to Chevron ad money, and I really have a problem with that. Not that Huffington Post is pure, or anything.

Anyway: Giuliani: I'm Not Sure Waterboarding Is Torture. Rudy's distinction can be readily dismissed. Waterboarding is torture.

I did google around after making that statement, but I stopped again.

Right now, at least, there's some pretty widespread obfuscation on the internet around this question. Just for fun, I went over to Wikipedia and looked up waterboarding. The definition in Wikipedia begins with this phrase: "Waterboarding is a form of torture ..."

All right, we know Wikipedia can't claim to be the authority. That six-word phrase is immediately followed by 9 footnotes, some of which I'm sure call the phrase into question; I didn't look at them all. But here's another sentence, which has no footnotes, and is not considered to be in dispute: "It elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe his or her death is imminent while not causing physical evidence of torture." If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, etc.

We've been seeing definitions of torture, and those definitions are themselves undergoing a form of torture. That's the problem with words. It's why I can't talk much about Zen, because Zen is beyond words. But is something that can't be expressed, tasted, touched or felt real?

What do you see when you turn out the lights?
I can't tell you, but I know it's mine.

-- With A Little Help From My Friends, The Beatles

I'm listening to Thom Hartmann right now, from the streaming archive area of the AirAmerica web site, since I didn't listen to his show live this morning. Thom's talking about Giuliani and waterboarding, too. Hey, I thought of it first! But this is a very popular topic.

Words and definitions can be turned against us, if you believe in something like what I'm talking about. Let's continue to be imprecise in our terminology, and go on calling it instinct. I instinctively feel that torture of any kind is morally wrong. I feel that it steals something, not just from the victim, but from the interrogator, and from us, too, if we allow it. I feel it robs us of our humanity.

These are vague terms. I have not made what you would call a logical argument. Actually, there is no shortage of superb logical arguments equating waterboarding with torture, and of the incompatibility of the practice of torture with the highest, and most successful, ideals of humanity. But let's say I haven't read those arguments. I would contend that I knew the answer beforehand, because I knew it instinctively.

This is impossible, really, what I'm trying to do here. I'm trying to use words to defend what can't be expressed by them. You try it. But we're getting down to the basics now. Say what you will, my position regarding torture is a core belief. In a traditional form of expression, it is a part of my religious belief, in a very real sense. There is something deep inside me that I feel I absolutely have to trust, not because of what anyone has said, or anything I read in the Bible. I don't wish to ever have to stand against someone, especially in a political sense, in a matter solely based on my private, personal belief, but I have no choice. If I allow this matter to fall under the purview of the legal system, my belief could be overruled, outflanked by some finely-tuned argument, and I could never accept that.

In a more honest atmosphere, someday the honest arguments may be sufficient, and given time, the weight of solid argument will settle this matter in more conventional terms. Until that time, I believe there are things I need to hold close to my heart, against all odds. I hold certain truths to be self-evident.

In these blogs recently where I have discussed Zen, I've reduced it to a simple practice of sitting with good posture and breathing deeply; nothing more. That's really all it is. American Zen needs a whole new language to describe it, because in the Japaneze Zen and Chinese Ch'an traditions, when they speak about their practice, they do it in terms of their own culture, and I think that's caused a lot of unnecessary confusion. I hope I can contribute a little to the language of American Zen by demystifying the practice. It's just healthy. Just do it and don't get all wrapped up in it, and don't get too excited about it. In one sense, it's just a form of calisthenics.

Of course, there are those things that can't be expressed. I'm not at all comfortable yet with discussing that part of Zen, partly because it's so hard. But I think I've touched on it a little bit here, in an oblique sort of way. I've personally had a difficult time meditating since my birthday, but I'm getting back into the groove again. When I take time on a regular basis to sit in zazen, I know that for a period of time the normal concerns and distractions no longer pull me back and forth, and I make a connection, difficult of course to describe, with that creature that is just me.

When I say I don't condone torture, it's just me.

State Of Fire

California As Seen From Space 10/22/07

About a million people have been evacuated, probably the largest mass movement of Americans since the Civil War. Thousands of homes destroyed, nearly half a million acres of forests are burning, and it's still going strong. A couple of weeks ago, I predicted we would soon find out what our boiling point really is. I'm not fond of being right just now. I'm actually becoming rather depressed about how right I've been. I'm not bragging, I'm pleading. I'm afraid I'm going to be right about my other warning -- you know, the nuclear one -- although it may not matter if we've already burned up.

Perspective is a funny thing. You, whoever you are, may be reading this, and you may be concerned about the California fires, but you may also be somewhat amused by my tone here, because you're pretty sure we're going to come through all this somehow. Well, my tone is what it is because I'm not sure. I pray California soon receives the weather breaks it needs, and it can begin to try and recover, this time. But virtually every scientist not in the employ of ExxonMobil is telling us that the effects of climate change are increasing exponentially, each condition becoming a contributing factor in the worsening of other conditions, and so on. On Venus they called it a runaway greenhouse effect.

I tried to watch some of CNN's "Planet In Peril" thing, but I couldn't. Nice hi-def shots, and all that, but, really, what was that? I agree it's scandalous, criminal and horribly damaging the way endangered species are captured and sold, but, but ... there's a larger message, and CNN is still behaving like the good corporatist tool.

And so it goes, as Vonnegut used to say. And so it goes.

If you dig around, you can find a few more direct stories from the MSM. Here's a study published on MSNBC: Study: Warming is stronger, happening sooner. It says, among other things, that carbon dioxide emissions in 2006 were 35% higher than they were in 1990. 35%. We appear to be our very own runaway greenhouse environmental catastrophe. Just wait until the ice caps melt.

We're still living in the Twilight Zone. Every aspect of our world and our society is telling us we have to change now, radically, dramatically, immediately. But soon we'll have the chill winter winds to drive us back indoors by the fireplace, and soon we'll drift back to sleep.

My own condition isn't that good, actually. I've been taking an awful lot of medication, and I haven't really improved. I'm not able to get around well, and I'm still thinking that I will improve, you know, for a while anyway, but my condition may have something to do with my own reluctance to drift off with the rest of you. Time is relative. It may well be that none of us have nearly enough of it.

Everything you fear about change may be nothing compared to my fear of the status quo, as it now exists. I feel very strongly that you should fear the status quo as much as I do. I have not been indulging in much speculation regarding radical societal change before now, because I, too, was thinking we had more time. It's time to go with my instincts. I want you to search inside yourselves. It's time to re-think. It's time to cut off our emissions.

One little fire, and here I start shrieking that the sky is falling.

The Twilight Zone

Change in public consciousness starts with low-level discontent, at first vague, with no connection being made between the discontent and the policies of the government. And then the dots begin to connect, indignation increases, and people begin to speak out, organize, and act.

-- Howard Zinn,
A Power Governments
Cannot Suppress

I've added the final book (for now) to my new collection, and you can see from the quote above which book that might be. A Power Governments Cannot Suppress is a new collection of essays by that silver-tongued American critic Howard Zinn. I had wanted to buy it on Sunday, but Border's was out of stock, so I grabbed it today from Barnes & Noble. Although it's just out, it's in paperback, and a terrific bargain at $16.95. This isn't a book for hard-cover first editions; it's a book for the Revolution.

I've only read the first essay so far, so I've hardly earned the right to get on the internet and blog about it. First instincts are often fairly accurate, however, and I think this book holds a place of honor on my now-lengthy current reading list. If you're planning on reading along, here it is:

• Failed States, by Noam Chomsky -- Completed, as I noted several days ago
  
• Hegemony or Survival, by Noam Chomsky -- I hope to complete this book tomorrow
  
• A Power Governments Cannot Suppress, by Howard Zinn
  
• The Conscience of a Liberal, by Paul Krugman
  
• Cracking The Code, by Thom Hartmann
  
• I Am America (And So Can You!), by Stephen Colbert
  
• The Chomsky Reader, by Noam Chomsky
  
• Collapse, by Jared Diamond -- I started reading this when I broke off to read Chomsky, and I want to go back and finish as soon as I can

I suppose I could have provided links to all those books, but you've got the list, now go to the bookstore. And since we're doing book lists, let's do one more short one, so I can note some of the more helpful books I've read earlier:

• A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn -- I've already woven the themes of this book into several blogs. Just as Chomsky's books are essential to understanding American foreign policy from a humanist and global perspective, this is the essential book for understanding the historical context of economic and class struggle in America.
• A New History of the United States, by William Miller -- Or any other fairly standard version of American history. It's useful to read conventional American history side-by-side with Howard Zinn's version.
• The Assault On Reason, by Al Gore -- This is a courageous book if you haven't read it, and addresses today's problems in many important ways. That it was written by Al Gore makes it required reading. Sorry, if you're lukewarm about Al, but he's literally that important, regardless of how you may feel about him personally.
• Armed Madhouse, by Greg Palast -- Other books and information sources had shaken some of my media-induced preconceptions, but nothing early last spring had quite the impact of this book. It's still more than relevant, and Mr. Palast is both a skilled investigative reporter and an excellent writer.
• The Trap, by Daniel Brook -- This short book describes the social and economic quandaries of today's educated middle class as well as anything I've ever read. It's an eye-opener!
• Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond -- This is a revolutionary study of human history, full of insight and careful study of the factors of climate, availability of resources, and microbial influence on the shape of civilization from its beginnings up to today.

There are many other books, and I'm constantly reading books on many other topics -- Zen, of course, literature, poetry, quantum physics, computer programming, and a lot more. Yes, I did identify with Burgess Meredith watching that Twilight Zone episode when I was perhaps eleven. Even then, with all the directions my life would take, and all the interactions I would have, deep down I was Burgess Meredith, and I just wanted to have All The Time In The World.

I want to get back to my books now. But there's also so much to discover here on the internet, and once I'm here, it's hard to resist finding my handy blog and sharing a few of my thoughts about it all before moving on. And the Twilight Zone reference seems fitting on multiple levels to me right now. I almost feel like I'm in one of those episodes; I mean, I know I'm a little more isolated than usual right now, but that's not it. Today's America has literally taken on a surreal quality, don't you think? It's inconceivable to me we should actually be struggling with the issues we're having now, when from the most basic and uncomplicated moral perspective, the direction is clear.

For no particular reason, of all the blog sites out there, I'm going to point again to Huffington Post, and another blog by Ariana Huffington, this one called Midnight in America: The Mainstreaming of the GOP's Lunatic Fringe. Actually, there's practically another disconnect even between Ms. Huffington's post and the many comments that follow, because Ms. Huffington does not yet appear to have quite the full sense yet of the absurdity that is politics in today's America. She's close, and her blog is excellent, but there is despair in these comments, and it's primal. I'm not sure how many Americans identify with the George Bush and Dick Cheney we see today, but most of us, I'm sure, identify with the students who met with Bush a few weeks ago and presented him with a plea to disavow torture. I think all but the most hardened Border Watch vigilante does not want to think of herself as part of a system that does the things we're doing to people here and abroad. Worse yet, for all our protests, no one seems actually to be listening. Doo-doo-doo-doo!

There'll be occasion in blogs over the next few days to shift from books to specific events as they seem to shed light on where things might be headed. For now, things seem a bit like one of those slow-motion scenes of carnage, where bodies fly in Iraq, Afghanistan and now, Pakistan, while the President and Vice-President turn with yearning eyes to Persia. Scattered about are various atrocities, like in Guernica, little atrocities like lies, smears, dirty tricks, hypocrisy, cronyism, corruption, racism, and greed. And, as Ms. Huffington notes, this is the Mainstream.

Guernica, by Pablo Picasso

It doesn't seem too mysterious to me why this has occurred. Or, it does, but at least I do have some sense of motive. At the risk of belaboring the point, it's clear that the wealthy and powerful have manipulated the still-formidable number of weak-minded, malleable citizens in our midst, and have manipulated less weak-minded, but still malleable public citizenry with smaller fortunes of their own. Now, those very accommodating servants are performing a ritual for their masters, spinning up fear and hatred until we generate more war and more hatred, turn ourselves into a full police state, and metamorphose. Unless some of us can find another way.

If we adhere to minimum scientific standards by requiring evidence, I can find little reason for hope from today's Congress, or the mainstream media (henceforth referenced as the MSM -- us folks at Microsoft love TLA's). Both appear to be largely under control of corporations, and act according to corporational morality, which is by definition inhuman -- hence the Twilight Zone.

It's going to require more of my energies than I would like to have to expend in order to do my part to turn us away from further wars, and home from our current wars. As long as people are dying when they don't have to, I feel guilty for the moments I steal only for myself. I do need to do this reading, however. I need to know better how to fight. (Remember, for me, the word "fight" may not mean what it does to you. I have also read Mahatma Ghandi, and Martin Luther King, and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.)

When I need to laugh, there's Colbert. When I need ammunition for economic disputes, there's Krugman. When I need to better understand our world, there's Chomsky and Diamond. When I need to know how to talk to these people, there's Hartmann. When I need to be inspired, there's Zinn.

I'll give you one more preview of Howard Zinn's first essay, then you can go buy the book yourself:

We live in a beautiful country. But people who have no respect for human life, freedom or justice have taken it over. It is now up to all of us to take it back.

-- Howard Zinn, A Power Governments Cannot Suppress