Tag Archives: vida

From Here to Eternity

The temporal aspect of punishment extends beyond the span between the crime and its punishment. The severity of the punishment is also measured in terms of its duration. And death puts a definitive end to all man-made durations. This interference of death in our temporal horizons messes up what we mean by proportional punishment, which is the reason behind the general lack of gratification on Madoff’s long sentence. If a heinous crime like a senseless murder brings about only a life-sentence, and if you know that “vida” means only a couple of months or so, then the punishment in and of itself is incapable of deterring the crime. And when the crime is not as senseless, but prompted by careful material considerations, it is a deliberate risk-reward analysis that determines its commission. A comprehensive risk-reward analysis would involve, I imagine, a consideration of the probability of detection, the intensity and duration of the potential punishment, and the time one has to enjoy the spoils and/or suffer the punishment. There may be other factors to consider, claro. I wouldn’t know because I haven’t actually done such analyses. Not yet.

The smallpox story I mentioned earlier brings these considerations to the foreground, along with how the relatively high probability of death from the disease affects them. Knowing that there isn’t much time to enjoy life (or face the music), two older gentlemen of the story decide to go and feast themselves on a local prostitute of the village whom they have been eying for a while. It is not that the consequences (spousal anger, bad diseases etc.) of their action have changed. Just that their potential duration has decreased drastically because of the outbreak of smallpox. Knowledge of our death has a dramatic effect on our moral inhibitions born out of risk-reward analyses.

It is in this light that we have to examine clichéd statements like, “Live in the present moment,” ou “Live everyday as though it is your last.What do these statements really mean? The second one is especially interesting because it makes a direct reference to death. Is it asking us to shed our inhibitions vis-à-vis all our actions? Se assim, it may not be such a positive invitation (que, claro, is a statement of value-judgment emanating form a sense of a morality of unknown origins). Or it could be a simple exhortation not to procrastinatea positive thing by the same uncertain morality.

Living in the presentis even more puzzling. I guess it comes from the Zen notion of “aqui” e “now.I can kind of understand the Zen notion in terms of cognitive neuroscience, although that is the sort of thing that Zen would ask us not to dounderstanding one thing in terms of something else. According to the Zen school, an experience has to be assimilated before the intellect has a chance to color it in terms of preconceived notions and filters. In the absolute stillness of a mind, presumably brought about by years of introspection and intense mediation, experiences take on perceptually accurate and intellectually uncolored forms, which they say is a good thing. If the statementLive in the present momentrefers to this mode of experiencing life, fine, I can go with that, even though I cannot fully understand it because I am not a Zen master. And if I was, I probably wouldn’t worry too much about logically understanding stuff. Understanding is merely a misguided intellectual exercise in futility.

As a moral statement, no entanto, this invitation to live in the present moment leaves much to be desired. Is it an invitation to ignore the consequences of your actions? You compartmentalize your timeline into a large past, a large future and tiny present. You ignore the past and the future, and live in the present. No regrets. No anxieties. What else could this sloganLive in the present moment” significa?

Por que eu deveria ser bom,,en,Daqui até a eternidade,,en,O mundo continua,,en,Apelando para a natureza melhor do tigre seria um pouco menos eficaz,,en,Uma mansidão similar é aparente,,en,Eu acho,,en,na nossa atitude de seguir a multidão em direção a muitas coisas na vida,,en,incluindo a nossa noção de moralidade,,en,felicidade etc,,en,Eu suspeito que essas noções são talvez tão complexas e difíceis de entender que deixamos nossa preguiça intelectual ultrapassar nosso desejo de saber,,en,Meu próprio pensamento parece levar a uma sombria sinfonia de falta de propósito e falta de valores éticos,,en,Eu estou desesperadamente tentando encontrar uma nota feliz para encerrar esta série com,,en,problema,,en,é que a maioria das pessoas é moral,,en,pessoas decentes éticas e versáteis,,en,apesar da existência da morte e seu conhecimento,,en,É tolice descartá-lo como humildade,,en,falta de esforço intelectual etc,,en?

Knowledge of death is a sad thing. Not as a general piece of information, but in as applied to a particular individual. I remember only too vividly my own sense of helplessness and sadness towards the end of my father’s life, when it became clear to me that he had only a few weeks left. Até lá, I could never really understand the grief associated with death of a loved one, given the absolute certainty and naturalness of death. De fato, I couldn’t understand my own grief and often wondered if I was romanticizing it, or feeling it because it was expected of me.

It is very difficult to know people, even ourselves. There are multiple obscuring levels of consciousness and existence in our inner selves. And we can penetrate only a limited number of them to see within ourselves. Therefore I find myself doubting my grief, despite its directly perceived realness and existence. Perhaps the grief arising from the loss of a loved one is so primal that we do not need to doubt it; but I cannot help doubting even the most obvious of feelings and sensations. Afinal, I am the dude who goes around insisting that reality is unreal!

O “lossof a hated one, by virtue of its mathematical symmetry, should generate something like the opposite of grief. The opposite of grief is perhaps glee, although one is too civilized to let oneself feel it. Mas, falando sério, I once heard a stress reduction expert mention it. Ele disse, “What if your boss stresses you out? Imagine, end of the day, he also will be dead!”

Sim, the fact that we will all die is a serious social and moral problem. How much of a problem it is is not fully appreciated due to the taboo nature of the subject. I once read a novel in Malayalam describing a village in the sixties ravaged by smallpox. Some parts of this novel illustrated the connection between death and morality. Entende, morality is such a holy cow that we cannot examine it, much less question it, without being called all sorts of bad names. Being “good” is considered a “good” thing, and is taken to be beyond rationalization. Quero dizer, we may ask questions like, “What is good?”, “What makes something good, something else bad?” etc. But we cannot realistically ask the question, “Why should I be good?” Being good is just good, and we are expected to ignore the circularity in this statement.

For a minute, let’s not assume that being good is good. I think the knowledge of imminent death would make us shed this assumption, but we will get to it later. Por enquanto, let’s think of morality as a logical risk-reward calculation, rather than a god-given axiom. If somebody proposes to you, “Why don’t you shoot to be a drug dealer? [Pun attempted] Good money there…,” your natural reaction would be, “Drugs kill people, killing people is bad, no way I am getting into it.” Agora, that is a moral stance. If you were amoral, you may think, “Drug dealing involves violence. There is a good chance that I will get shot or caught. Thirty to life in a federal penitentiary is no walk in the park. No way I am getting into it.This is a risk-reward analysis, but with the same end result.

I put it to you that the origin of most of our morality is this risk-reward analysis. If it wasn’t, why would we need the police and the criminal justice system? It is this risk-reward analysis that can get skewed because of an impending death, if we let ourselves notice it. Entende, the concept of crime and punishment (or action and consequence, to be value-neutral) is not so simple, like most things in real life. To be a deterrent, the severity of punishment has to be proportional, not only to the foulness of the crime, but also to the probability of its detection. Por exemplo, if you know that you will get caught every single time you speed, speeding tickets need not cost you thousands of dollarsa couple of dollars will do the trick of discouraging you from speeding. Such minuscule punishments do exist for littlecrimes.In public toilets, leaving the shower or sink faucet running would be a small crime because it wastes water, and the landlord’s funds. To fight this crime came spring-loaded faucets that shut themselves down after ten or 15 seconds. So you getcaughtevery time you try to leave the water running, but the “punishmentis merely that you have to push the release button again. Now we have faucets with electronic sensors with even shorter temporal horizons for crime and punishment.

The severity of a pain is not merely its intensity, but its duration as well. Given that death puts a definitive end to our worldly durations, how does it affect our notion of punishment commensurate with crime? My third post on the philosophy of death will examine that aspect.

O tema tabu

Death is a taboo subject. We are not supposed talk about it, or even think about it. It is almost like if we did, death might take notice of us, and we can do without that kind of attention. If we want to be inconspicuous anywhere at all, it is in front of Death.

I have been watching Six Feet Under recently, which is probably behind these musings on death. I am curious thoughwhy is the topic of death such a taboo, despite its natural inevitability? I don’t mean the superstitious kind of taboo (“Não, não, não, you are not going to die any time soon, touchwood!”), but the intellectual kind. The kind of chill that comes about if you try holding a conversation about it over a beer or at a dinner table. Why is death such a taboo?

To say that we are just scared of death is a bit of an oversimplification. Sure we fear death, but we fear public speaking more, but we can still talk about the latter. We have to find the reason for the special tabooness of death elsewhere.

One thing special about death is that it is a great equalizera fact almost too obvious to appreciate. Everybody diesregardless of whatever else they do in their lives. Perhaps this ultimate leveling of the field may be a bit distressing to the more competitive among us. However high we soar, or however low we sink, at the end of our days, the score is all reset and the slate is wiped clean.

This slate-wiping business also is troublesome for another reason. It is so damn permanent. Its permanence has an aspect never present in any other kind of pain and suffering we go through (including public speaking). One of my personal techniques to handle minor aches and pains (such as a root canal, or even deeper wounds like the loss of a loved one) is to make use of just this lack of permanence. I remind myself that it is going to pass, em vez. (For some strange reason, I do this in French, “Ça va pas tarder,” although, to be correct, I think I should be telling myself, “Ça va pas durer.”) I even shared this technique with my son when he broke his arm and was in excruciating pain. I told him that the agony would soon abate. Bem, I said it using different words, and I fancy the little fellow understood, although he kept screaming his head off.

We can handle any “normal” pain by just waiting it out, but not the pain of death, which lasts for ever. Ça va durer. Is this permanence behind our fear of it? Talvez. With absolute permanence comes absolute imperviousness, as any Spiderman fan would appreciate. What lies beyond death is unknown. And unknowable. Despite all the religions of the world telling us various mystical things about what lies beyond (você sabe, like heaven and hell, Karma and reincarnation etc.), nobody really believes it. Eu sei, Eu sei, some may honestly insist that they really really do, but when push comes to shove, at an instinctive, gut level, nobody does. Not even the ones who are certain that they will end up in heaven. Why else would holy men have security details? Em Of Human Bondage, Maugham caricatures this strange lack (or impossibility) of real faith vis-à-vis death in his portrayal of the last days of the Vicar of Blackstable.

To live with any sense of purpose, I think we have to ignore death. A finite span of existence is just absurd at multiple levels. It makes all our lofty goals and ideals absurd. It makes our sense of good and evil absurd. It makes whatever we think of as the purpose of life absurd. It even makes the modest purpose of life proposed in the DNA-based evolutionary explanation (that we just want to live a little longer) absurd, for any finite increment in our life span is essentially zero when compared to the infinity of time, as the nerdy ones among us would readily appreciate. Em resumo, there is only one real problem with life, which is death. Since we cannot avoid dying and paying taxes, may be we can avoid thinking and talking about ita plausible reason behind the taboo nature of the topic of death.

Como Ganhar Dinheiro

After my musings on God and atheism, which some may have found useless, let’s look at a supremely practical problem — how to make money. Cargas de que. Aparentemente, é uma das frases mais freqüentemente pesquisados ​​no Google, e os resultados geralmente tentam separá-lo de seu dinheiro, em vez de ajudá-lo a fazer mais do mesmo.

Para ser justo, this post won’t give you any get-rich-quick, esquemas ou uma estratégia infalível. O que ele vai dizer é por que e como algumas pessoas ganham dinheiro, e espero descobrir alguns novos insights. Você pode ser capaz de colocar algumas dessas idéias para o trabalho e tornar-se rico — se é isso que você acha que sua felicidade mentiras.

Até agora, é claro para a maioria das pessoas que não podem se tornar podre de rico trabalhando para outra pessoa. De fato, that statement is not quite true. CEOs e altos executivos todo o trabalho para os acionistas das empresas que os empregam, mas são podres de ricos. Finalmente, alguns deles são. Mas, em geral, é verdade que você não pode ganhar dinheiro sério que trabalha em uma empresa, estatisticamente falando.

Trabalhando para si mesmo — Se você tem muita sorte e extremamente talentoso — você pode fazer um pacote. Quando ouvimos a palavra “rico,” as pessoas que vêm à mente tendem a ser (uma) empresários / industriais / magnatas do software — como Bill Gates, Richard Branson, etc, (b) celebridades — atores, escritores etc, (c) profissionais de investimento — Warren Buffet, por exemplo, e (d) fraudadores da escola Madoff.

Há um fio condutor que atravessa todas estas categorias de pessoas ricas, e os esforços que eles fazem o seu dinheiro. É a noção de escalabilidade. Para compreendê-lo bem, vejamos por que há um limite para o quanto dinheiro você pode fazer como um profissional. Vamos dizer que você é um grande sucesso, altamente qualificado profissional — dizem que um cirurgião cerebral. Você cobra US $ 10 mil a uma cirurgia, and perform one a day. Então você faz sobre $2.5 milhões por ano. Dinheiro sério, sem dúvida. Como você aumentá-lo embora? Ao trabalhar o dobro do tempo e cobrando mais, pode ser que você pode fazer $5 milhões ou $10 milhão. Mas há um limite que você não será capaz de ir além.

O limite se dá porque a transação económica fundamental envolve a venda de seu tempo. Embora o seu tempo pode ser altamente qualificados e caro, você só tem 24 hours in a day to sell. Esse é o seu limite.

Agora pegue o exemplo de, dizer, John Grisham. Ele passa seu tempo pesquisando e escrevendo seu best-seller de livros. Nesse sentido, ele vende o seu tempo como bem. But the big difference is that he sells it to many pessoas.

Podemos ver um padrão semelhante em produtos de software como o Windows XP, performances de artistas, eventos esportivos, filmes e assim por diante. Um desempenho ou realização é vendido inúmeras vezes. Com um leve estiramento da imaginação, podemos dizer que os empresários também estão vendendo seu tempo (que eles passam a configurar seus negócios) vários tempos (para clientes, clientes, passageiros etc) Esta é a única maneira de resolver o problema de escalabilidade que acontece devido à escassez de tempo.

Profissionais de Investimento (banqueiros) fazê-lo também. Eles desenvolvem novos produtos e idéias que podem vender para as massas. Além, they make use of a different angle that we discussed in the Filosofia do Dinheiro. They focus on the investment value of money to make oodles of it. Não tanto que tomar o seu dinheiro em depósitos, emprestá-lo como empréstimos, e ganhar a propagação. Aqueles momentos simples se foram para sempre. Os bancos fazem uso do fato de que os investidores exigem o maior retorno possível para o menor risco possível. Qualquer oportunidade para empurrar este envelope de risco-recompensa é um potencial de lucro. Quando eles ganham dinheiro para você , eles exigem a sua compensação e você está feliz em pagá-lo.

Colocar dessa maneira, investimento soa como um conceito positivo, que é, em nosso atual modo de pensar. Podemos facilmente torná-lo uma coisa negativa, retratando a demanda para o valor do investimento de dinheiro como a ganância. Segue-se então que todos nós somos gananciosos, e que é a nossa ganância que alimenta os pacotes de remuneração insanas de executivos de alto nível. Greed também combustíveis fraude – esquemas de Ponzi e pirâmides.

There is a thin blurry line between the schemes that thrive on other people’s greed and confidence jobs. If you can come up with a scheme that makes money for others, and stay legal (if not moral), then you will make money. You can see that even education, traditionally considered a higher pursuit, is indeed an investment against future earnings. Viewed in that light, you will understand the correlation between the tuition fees at various schools and the salaries their graduates command.