American Hate: What Happened?

I started a fictional blog project called American Hate a couple of months ago and quickly ground to a halt. A few people have asked me what happened.

What happened is that I got sidetracked by work, Christmas a heavy bout of depression just after New Year that put it and a lot of other projects on hold. While avoiding making too many plans at the moment (as things are still pretty chaotic and I'm still pretty down much of the time, though improving), my general direction is to get it re-started in the spring.

AH is a rather exciting project when it gets right down to it, and I can't shake the feeling that the internet has more to offer as a text medium beyond a source of magazine-style articles and news. I've thought so since way way back in my fantasy fiction writing days on Usenet, and I still think so today.

So never fear, it shall return.

Web 2.0 and Lemmings

There's more usage of web 2.0 technologies than ever in mainstream media, is today's message. All sorts of sites are using RSS this, Digg that, del.icio.us the other, Reddit the rest and a mass proliferation of buttons and links to popularising articles wherever they can. (You'll notice I adopted a catch-all approach with AddThis).

Of course it isn't going to last, right. We all know this. Right?
Well maybe not. New frontier exuberance regularly torpedoes common sense.

What usually happens, and is likely to happen again, is that a critical mass brought on by a lack of return on investments turns a sweet deal into a sudden stop, and very quickly the market leader survives and everyone else is made dead. That's what basically happened in the dotcom boom, and it's what will happen again.

The simple reason is this: lots of widget button to choose from creates visual clutter. Clutter creates confusion. Consumers don't really enjoy being confused so they gravitate toward the most-publicised choice. Since all the web 2.0 sites use advertising (or something similar to support them) this means the most-publicised gets the lion's share of the ad money and everybody mid-sized goes broke. Wall Street gets scared all over again and the round is called.

Currently many sites seem to be supporting multiple syndication services, but this is really just an expression of a waiting game. They don't know which service is going to win the game yet, so they're hedging their bets. A bit more time and the sheer proliferation of widgets will start disappearing all over again. That's just the way it goes.

For my money, I think that the next wave of web utilities is to get back to the Long Tail again. Rather than jousting tourneys for best service and biggest community, focussed service and best-served community is where the real action is at. If that service is good enough and focussed enough it can generate income of its own, which is where the stability lies. Do I have any ideas for such services? Maybe I do Chief. Maybe I do.

Axioms

The conflict between atheism and religion is disturbing. In particular, the use of the words "rational" to describe atheism and "irrational" to describe the religion troubles me on two levels:

One, it's basically a dig at the other side by painting them as madmen.
Two, it misrepresents "reason"

The summarised version is essentially this: Empirical atheism is based on examining available evidence and drawing a probability-based conclusion that a lack of definitive evidence constitutes the existence of divinities unlikely. Thus, more or less, the rational mind concludes that it is not so.

Therefore all faiths are starting from an irrational point of view, invoking the idea of outside forces, entities or spirits that have no basis in reality. This, it is argued, is irrational and therefore all religion is as irrational as a fairy story.

Going one step further into memes, the characterisation becomes that if religion is irrational, ideas spread like viruses, and most of the world therefore believes in religion, then most of the world must also be irrational. In this, the more hard-line atheists come to view themselves as rescuers of mankind from a terrible untruth, and toward the real reality of things. Just like any other missionaries.

Well, I don't buy it, because all philosophical systems, secular or otherwise, use reason. What the pro-atheist camp (especially of the Dawkins clan) ignores are the twin disciplines of interpretation and theology. A considerable amount of thought has gone into the interpretation and meanings of religion, both modern and pre-modern. Religions change in response to new insight, new interpretations, even whole new holy books. This is a reasoning-based activity.

This often leads to conflicted views and opinions. The fact that most religions split into many sects and interpretations shows the high portion of reason at work within each faith, whereas the irrational dogmatic meme theory rules out this possibility. Religion is actually highly rational. The real argument here is not therefore the capacity for reason, it is the axioms that underpin each set of reasoning.

An axiom is essentially a foundation stone from which reason begins. For example, Christianity begins with the axiom that there is only one God and Jesus Christ is his son and the saviour of mankind. Buddhism has the axiom that the only certainty in life is death. Empiricist atheism is founded on an axiom that only independently verifiable evidence is true evidence.

Arguments that attack axioms are usually difficult and bitter because axioms are held to be self-evident truths by those that believe them. Two Christians can debate their interpretation of a Gospel, but a Christian and a Gnostic are at odds over what constitutes a Gospel at all, and the reasons given on both sides boil down to statements of belief and circular logic.

Axiomatic debate results in twisted interpretations and irrational justifications no matter which side you're on. A Christian fundamentalist finds it easier to label atheists as those in league with the Devil than to admit that they have a serious argument, and a hard-line atheist finds it easier to view 95% of the world's population as being under the sway of some ideological memes which evolve (just as in biology) than to accept that their faith in double-blind proof may be insufficient in those areas of life where experience is all that matters.

The bottom line is this: If axioms are self-evident, it therefore follows that they are fundamentally irrational. They are all, ultimately, items of faith.

Christian theology is reason based on a belief in God, and the memetic evolution theory is based on a belief in objective evidence. Both are incomplete viewpoints, with Christians really at a loss in the face of science in many respects (evolution, creation of the universe, contraception), while atheism offers not much in the way of an enlightened view of humankind, the experience of the individual and other areas. Secular societies seem to be a breeding ground for depression and loss, while religious societies breed reactionary conservatism in various flavours.

Perhaps a way to resolve the ideological debate between the two camps is some new axioms rather than the same old ones. Christian axioms are really old, and empirical atheism is really rooted in axioms that developed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries brought into the modern world. Time for something new.

Let me tell you about some of my axioms:

1. The visible universe is entirely ruled by the laws of physics
2. Those laws have led to evolution
3. There is an invisible agency in universe, whose existence is entirely experiential
4. This agency speaks to us on a level that our rational minds will never comprehend, but through our dreams, our art, our feelings, our silence and our rituals
5. This agency is creative, aligning, and within us
6. Our consciousness represents points of awareness in the universe, and whether they are truly mortal or truly immortal is immaterial
7. There is more to us than mind and body, that our soul is contained within a point of awareness, and is mostly sleeping
8. We are aligned when we are doing what we should be doing, and when we are not aligned we are depressed, angry, afraid and addicted
9. Time does not exist, only the memory of time and the anticipation of further time
10. The universe is neither fully objective nor fully subjective. Someone I once knew once said that he believed that all things in the universe could be expressed as a value between zero and one, but in this he forgot transcendental numbers, which can only ever be approximate. We live in the approximate.

Many of these ideas have sources that are well documented. If anything, my axioms are a combination of the basic ideas of Buddhism, Taoism and a healthy dose of science. I guess I'd call them Waoism (a made-up name). Whatever their source, the fact is that I hold to them. They are wholly irrational, in that I offer no proof, nor the pretence of proof. They simply feel real.

test

test