The Inherent Bias in Language

Language is an interesting thing. Although there is an argument that language is inherent e.g. the need to communicate is something which every species requires, the form that the language takes is far more subjective than an inherent objectivity. It is said that ‘numbers do not lie’, to which the answer is, of course they don’t as they are devoid of inherent meaning but once meaning is given to the numbers then they can lie very easily. Why? Because the users are humans and humans inherently are self-serving and lie. Subsequently numbers are forced unwillingly to lie as they lack the consciousness to repel the violation of them. Yes, one can argue that there is an objectivity in numbers, if you get five apples then you have more than one with four apples, but the meaning is still subjective. For example, if one were to say four golden apples have more value than five normal apples then in this context four would be more than five. If we were to change the context and see apples as a source of food for a hungry person in a jungle, then the economic value of the golden apples would be non-existent and the five apples would have far more value.

As with most tools, the value of the tools depends upon the usage. Over the past few months we have engaged in an analysis of society using a microcosm to show trends in Western society, trends seemingly inherent beyond Western culture as they deal with human nature.  We have seen that many of the cultures have ‘bad’ behaviours which become hegemonized due to those creating the culture being people filled with weakness, for example; status anxiety, fear of openness, fear of difference etc. but what we haven’t looked at yet is how the bad behaviours of the rulers and the society are continued on an unconscious level. One of these levels is language.

Whether we are conscious of it or not the syntax of language can create biases. For example, if we see the headline:

Woman Raped

then the thought patterns are: why was she raped? (leading to hypothesis) was she drunk? Was she wearing a short skirt? (leading to judgements) well, she should know better than to walk through town, alone, at night, what did she expect to happen?

Do you notice how just from seeing the headline ‘Woman Raped’ we instantly form uninformed judgements and assume that they are right. Why is this? well, I cannot say for sure but let’s try an experiment.  If one sees the headline:

Man Rapes Woman

then our thought patterns become: Why did he rape her? Was it something from his childhood? Is it part of our society? If so, is it part of our culture? Wait, if it is part of our culture and I am part of this culture then…am I to blame for it happening? What actions will be taken? Will there be justice? The justice system is bad for rape victims so…why is that? What if he gets off? What if he rapes again? Are we all in danger now? How can we stop this? etc.  We can see from this that by just changing the syntax the reaction from the public is very different. One of them allows us to sit back and victim blame from our ivory towers, handing down judgements as God on Mount Sinai but the other removes the stigma given to the victim and makes us see that we are complicit in the rape through our inaction and ignorance.

In this one small example we have seen how the syntax of the language that we use carries an inherent bias. This bias is prevalent in many walks of life. A child is bullied and commits suicide: why did he commit suicide? is asked instead of why was he driven to it? Why did no one protect him? Someone becomes an extremist: why is he an extremist? is asked instead of what is it in our hegemony that made him feel that he had to act in such a way, that he had no other way to be free from his bad emotions- loneliness, fear etc., things we all feel yet deny in our herds. And so on and so forth. Our language is built to serve one purpose, to protect us from reality. After all, it is easier to say that bad things happen to bad people rather than those who are like us, whom we claim to be good, are actually bad people post hoc ergo propter hoc we are also bad people too.

Possibly the most insidious aspect of this is how people are willingly or unconsciously happy to sing from their chains. We often hear, for example, black people in high official positions on TV and the radio speaking about ‘people of colour’. What does this phrase, ‘people of colour’, actually mean? Well, quite simply, non-whites. This shows that society happily breaks itself down into subsets. You have ‘whites’ as the guiding norm, and then other races and skin colours are the ‘others’, the ‘people of colour’. One reason, I would argue, why this happens is that there is an inherent belief that the ‘other’ also has a hierarchal structure. The phrase ‘people of colour’, is often used by whites and blacks to refer to blacks only. Movements, as I have spoken of before, such as Black Lives Matter show the bias as the lives of blacks are considered more important than the lives of other ‘non-whites’. As I mentioned before, during the Black Lives Matter protests a Native American had his face turned into a Picasso painting yet there was no outcry from those who were, allegedly, calling for human rights for all. Maybe other Native Americans spoke up, maybe brown skinned people spoke up, yet, as the media refuse to cover them, we can never know. From this example we can see that human rights fights are often to gain something personally, as you’ll note Martin Luther King stated that whites were spiritually inferior to blacks (see his book Why We Can’t Wait) and all will join together in the words of the old ‘Negro spiritual’, no mention of other creeds. Indeed, slavery is called ‘America’s first sin’, conveniently ignoring the genocide that America is built on.       

Language cannot lie in itself, nor can it contain biases, however, we, as weak, scared creatures infect language with our weaknesses and thusly what language says is not the truth, rather it is a lie which comforts us for as the French philosopher Albert Camus said, ‘people hasten to judge so as not to be judged themselves’.

‘till next time 

Tragedy Is Not Enough: How the World Will Change

‘Murder most foul, as in the best it is. But this most foul, strange and unnatural.’

― William Shakespeare, Hamlet

We, in the West, think that we are living through unprecedented times. Watching the (now former) American President incite his followers to storm the Capital Building, the first time a domestic group has breached the Capital, looking for lawmakers to abduct (whether or not he incited them deliberately can be argued, the fact is that the footage made during the insurrection the mob can be heard saying that ‘Trump sent us here’, and how other Republican lawmakers would be proud of them), whilst Republicans, often the same who refuse to accept they lost an election two months prior, say that we should just forget they may have been killed during the attempted bloody coup,  all to the backdrop of a global pandemic which is destroying the lives of millions (note: since the second lockdown in Japan, suicide rates have increased 19%, mostly with women and children. Think on that for a moment).  Whilst we are being told that changes are  being made and that the ‘new normal’ (I’m wating for the post-new normal, seriously, who names these things?) will herald in a new Golden Age, the actions being taken during leads one to think that this is, well, absurd.

The big football teams in England, (the so-called ‘Big 6’ aka the richest clubs) during the pandemic, constructed a proposal to give them more control over the leagues, saying that all of their benefits were just unfortunate biproducts of them saving football, whilst proposing a new European super league which, without fear of relegation, will make football an even more closed shop, earning the ‘saviours’ billions upon billions, to allude to the Cosmologist, Carl Sagan.

It might seem unfair for me to single out football, as we can see, prices in supermarkets are increasing as unemployment spikes, politicians flaunt their own policies and encourage police crackdowns on those who, other than them, break the law. Schools are closed with three hours notice putting childcare etc. people in very difficult positions, desperately scrambling to fix the problems created by the government whilst the governments of the world place self-interest before the wellbeing of their people (note: the spikes in infections and deaths after all of the lockdown rules were thrown out for Christmas, Thanksgiving etc.).

There are those who say, well, the markets are more important. We should all be willing to die for the good of our countries, people who will not be at the slightest risk for those who are deemed most at risk are the, condescendingly called, ‘essential workers’, who for minimum wages put their lives on the line so that the ‘marketeers’ (ugh, what a vile word) can collect their profits, quite literally blood money.

Yet, we cannot be too quick to condemn for as we have said in these pages before, our knowledge and understanding comes from the ability to conceptualise and if you have never experienced the soul destroying fear of unemployment when there are few, if any, jobs around, then how can you understand that, as vulgar as it may be, in our societies money= life in the literal sense.

We have looked at example which are happening to us in the West, these unprecedented terrible times, however, they are not. For example, there are parts of the world where fear of deadly infections, unclean water, hopelessness etc. are what happen on a daily basis. These so-called ‘essential worker’ countries which prop up our economies with essential products such as oil and, quite frankly, bizarre things such as well-arranged carbon atoms (jewels).   One might argue that this pandemic can teach us the value of human lives, not just in our overly luxurious Western lives but also in the ‘essential worker’ countries where the last year for us has been their lives for hundreds of years, the same countries which estimates say will not be vaccinated from Covid-19 for 5-10 years due to costing and logistics, but, as history has shown, after wars and plagues the lives of those in these countries stay the same or get worse. Why? Because we just don’t care, and I don’t mean, not care enough, I mean don’t care at all!     

Ah, but now you may quote Zhuangzi and say that:

“‘A frog in a well cannot discuss the ocean, because he is limited by the size of his well. A summer insect cannot discuss ice, because it knows only its own season. A narrow-minded scholar cannot discuss the Tao, because he is constrained by his teachings.’

and if, as you have argued, we cannot understand tragedy unless it happens to us (if, indeed, we can understand it even then), then how can you state that the problems of the world come from selfishness and greed, ignorance and fear, if people cannot know the suffering and life experiences of others?”

To which I, wilting under the brilliance of your force, will stutter, sure, we cannot know that which we cannot know and few have the intellectual and emotional intelligence to be empathetic, but surely, on a fundamental level we are all human and thusly we know that to live is to suffer and thusly we can understand the concept of suffering for we are all human. And with this I can continue your quote, where you selectively left off, and utter,

‘Now you have come out of your banks and seen the Great Ocean. You now know your own  inferiority (or in this instance, humanity), so it is now possible to discuss great principles with you’

and then we can call it what it is, what all unnecessary suffering is, murder most foul, and maybe changes can begin.

‘till next time

Absolutes

‘ANAKIN: If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy.

OBI-WAN: Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.’

(George Lucas)

Regular readers may have noted how dismissive I am of the notion of absolutes (except for absolute zero, which is just cool), however, smarter people than me may have realised that I do, indeed, speak of one absolute. Indeed, the one absolute that I believe exists is one of ethical and moral implications, and that is, do no unnecessary harm. Originally, I was thinking that it would be, do no harm, but, at times, harm is necessary (broken hearts etc.) as they enable us to grow past what we are and start to become what we might be, a full realisation of self.  Indeed, one might find support for such a position from the teachings of the buddha who said that before one speaks, what one says must pass through three gateways; is what one is to say: true; necessary and kind. If the answer to any of these is no, then one should refrain from speech.

It is interesting to note that the Buddha states that what one speaks must not only be necessary but also kind. Here, one might argue, the Buddha comes into conflict with the German writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe who writes in Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship,

‘If you treat an individual as he is, he will remain how he is. But if you treat him as if he were what he ought to be and could be, he will become what he ought to be and could be’

This, we find, as with most things, comes down to definition. After all, as our entire lives are subjective, our thinking cannot be objective and when it comes to a vague word such as ‘necessary’ then there are many possible interpretations. To remove one from the subjectivity one must try to think of an objective ‘truth’, devoid of culture and societal norms (note: we have oft noted that society is created by sick people and therefore is sick. Case in point is that mean theory would dictate that gossip is an essential cog in the forming of a society. Yet, as we spoke of recently, gossip is mean and cruel so how can a society built upon the foundation that is, in my words, ‘mean’ and ‘cruel’, be healthy? The answer is; it cannot, however if one is to look at mean theory as a core, devoid of subjectivity then one might interpret it as meaning that communication is the key to a healthy society and a society, built on healthy foundations which do no ‘unnecessary harm’, would be very healthy, for example, instead of gossiping about other people which creates an atmosphere of mistrust, fear, anxiety etc. if one discourses on nature or shopping or TV etc. then the society will be healthier.). Once we have denoted a higher ‘truth’ then one can start to consider the notion of ‘necessary’.

Let’s take a silly example which has just, like so many moths, flittered into my head. A person breaks their arm. The arm is healed but is set wrong and cannot be used properly. A surgeon then has a choice- rebrake the arm to set it correctly or leave it as it is. To rebreak the arm would cause pain and suffering but will, in the long run, yield better fruits. To leave it as it is would cause no short term pain but would hinder the person, yielding a less bountiful crop. From this we can see, objectively, that to cause the harm is the best thing to do in the long run as short-term pain yields greater long-term gains. Yet few things are as clear cut as thins, especially when dealing with complex individuals, however, some things can be objective once we analyse our own perspectives on them. People I have encountered previously have acted in a contradictory manner. For example, a person may tell another that ‘no one likes them’, but, in the same breath, complain that the same was once said to them. Others would disclose confidential information under then assumption that it is ‘necessary’ but when the same happens to them, would see it as a violation of their being and their rights. Looking at these two examples we can see that neither of the two behaviours listed fall under the notion of ‘necessary’ in relation to a higher good, an absolute moral and ethic. Rather they should be seen for what they are, cruel and stemming from the weakness and insecurity of those participating in such acts. The argument would come to emotions for one might see carrying out an act one way but the emotional response of it happening to them would be the opposite and thusly, surely, we can deduce that this truth of necessity in these examples is a lie, a lie that the one carrying out the act would acknowledge if one was to ‘think’ and ‘feel’ for a moment (sympathy not empathy).

Although we can get bogged down in definitions and subjectivity, I think we can state that the one absolute is that one should not do unnecessary harm. Yet, this one absolute is indeed two absolutes for if one was to say that, necessary harm is objectively good, then the anthesis of this must also be true, namely, if necessary harm is objectively good then unnecessary harm is objectively bad.

I still think absolute zero is cooler.

‘till next time

Karma and the Human Mind

The human mind has amazing capabilities. One of these capabilities is the ability to find order in, well, almost anything. One such example is the advent of time. First, existence was broken down into to distinctive moments, those of ‘day’ and ‘night’, day being when the sun was shining and night when the moon was in its place, even though it be hidden at times, or to make it less poetic and simplify it, ‘day’ was when the sun was in the sky and ‘night’ when the sun was not in the sky. These two distinct moments were then broken down into smaller subsections, hours, minutes, seconds, all functioning in an arbitrary model. These were then cumulated to form days, and then weeks and then months, resulting in years, based, not on such arbitrary notions as the creation of ‘hours’ but, rather, on the ‘time’ it takes for the earth to orbit the sun, or the sun to orbit the earth, depending upon which scientific facts you believe in (note: days/weeks/years likely came before the advent of hours but for the purposes of this, strict following of history is not necessary; also note: in cultures such as Ancient Egypt other natural phenomena such as the flooding of the Nile helped to create the local calendar).

Whilst one might argue that the advent of time, along with other human inventions such as language (including mathematics), shows a reasoned and logical mind, the same mind can also create patterns where patterns may not be. Whilst the advent of time followed an arbitrary yet logical pattern which is universal other notions do not do so, indeed may fall down without their concept.

The notion of Karma, deriving from the Sanskrit word Karmen (act), originally had no ethical implications and in this piece, I will first look at the structure of Karma and then the wider ethical implications. Karma follows a pattern similar to Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion in supposing a cosmic balance (note: Newton’s third law cannot be universal, case-in-point, the amount of energy expelled by a black hole is negligible to the amount of energy which it consumes) in that every action has an opposite and equal reaction (creating a causality). In the original context of Karma, it was thought that sacrificing to gods would reap a reward something which, as we can suppose, was not forthcoming as we know the universe to be largely indifferent to our plight. The later ethical notions of Karma would dictate that if something bad was done to you, something good would happen to you, and vice versa, likewise, if you sinned then you would be punished. I use the word ‘sin’ advisedly for, although Karma is seen as an Eastern philosophy, Judeo-Christianity follows the same notion- if you are good you will get to heaven and those who are the meek and the downtrodden, those who are last, will be elevated and become first. Similar to the notion in Ancient Egypt that a good life (a heart that weighed less than a feather) had more value than all of the kings and their gold (note: it didn’t stop great wealth being amassed by kings, slavery etc. suggesting that a lot of the concern of the afterlife was superficial based on aesthetics).

In certain contexts we may say that Karma exists, as with the likes of astrology, by examining it either in hindsight (this happened for this reason) or on a predictive future (ah, if I do this then it will happen due to Uranus being Saturn by Jupiter) but once we remove it from the confines of our carefully ordered, privileged, lives we see a very different picture. The former England footballer and manager, Glen Hoddle stated, in accordance with his Christian faith, that disabled people suffered as they had sinned in a previous life and this is exactly that attitude that is used to think about those born without our good fortune. If suffering is repaid with glory, then what shape and/or form will this glory take? If a mother in some country which we cannot pick out on a map is carrying a child who had died due to want of clean water and yet cannot put the child down as they simply do not know how to, then what glory shall come upon the child and mother? Are they being punished for crimes in a previous life? Is the genetic lottery of their birth their fault? Are we born into the countries that we deserve? The answer to all of these is, simply, no. If we look at this  more closely then we can say, there is more than enough in the world for all, so if people are forced to suffer unnecessarily then this can only be down to one reason- the acts of humans.

To look to the stars and ancient philosophies to find reason and justification are all well and good, but in reality, what they are is turning one’s head away from the truth and seeking answers which remove any personal responsibility we may have. Karma is a very beautiful concept on the surface, but with most judgements made based on aesthetics, the surface is a lie and the truth within is much uglier than the surface and the truth of Karma is this: we, as humans, have failed in our humanity.    

‘till next time