Frames

We live in a framework of assumptions, prejudices and preconceived notions valid or not. I think that this will more often than not always exist. The world is framed by our ideas and the experiences we have in it. They are sometimes incorrect but mostly they just are.

What is important is to understand what they are and how it affects us and why we think them. And not allow the frame to limit the ideas and actions which can happen. And sometimes it is valuable to think a certain way because many others don't and can't. To often these frameworks limit solution and hinder gains but without these frameworks we can have no common understand of each other. When we play a game of rock paper scissors, we set the frame to agree to a bid by the rules and play fair. This is good. But we need to be careful when the goal and the rules of the game change.

Emotions

Emotions are a tricky thing. Most days we do fine by our emotions they're a good gut check. But then there are the days that you don't want to feel the sorrow and fear. It's too much. Some people believe our feeling and emotions, these things we don't control nor should we, is what really makes us human. Compassion, regret, no other animal can feel these things. But I find it incredibly bizarre that the very things we have no control over are what makes us who we are.

Humans are able putting order and control into the world. No stone is left unturned and no mystery left to ponder. I wonder if it the rationality we put into something so instinctual is really what makes us human. You see, love, fear, courage and a myriad of other feelings don't have any reason behind them. Just some chemicals doing some work in the old brain. But sometimes I feel like we forget it was never about the things we couldn't change, it's about the ones we can.

Connections

It seems me that people are often happiest not when they have a large amount of money or wildly successful or have accomplished their dreams but when we are able to share our lives with people.

People who we care about and care about us. Someone to share your joys and fears with and perhaps beyond that your life with. I think that is where happiness is found. Maybe it's because of an instinctual social gene or some product there of but I can't think of anything greater than the time spent with friends and family. Even if it it doing nothing.

Faith

During my age of teenage rebellion, my mother said very few words which deterred me in my quest to deify her except for one piece of advice. My mother was controlling and wanted all aspects of my life to live up to her expectations. She had an opinion on everything I did. But when I decided to stop going to Church, she only mentioned this to me and said nothing else on the topic: "It is important to believe in something, even if it is not this."

I was shocked that she had not told me to head straight back into the pew but it also resounded with me. This was more than my mother wanting me to live a better life. This was something she believed with her very soul. And as such, it has lead me on this path, a philosophy major with no semblance of moral code other than the golden rule because in my stumble to discover what I believed in I didn't want to hurt anyone else.

There's something so fundamental about this idea. It's nearly mind boggling yet why should you believe? Because you can't survive otherwise? Because hardship and suffering require belief? If not in a higher being, but even yourself or the kindness of men? Can you simply not believe?

Changing the World

Margaret Mead is often quoted saying, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." This quotation both inspires me and frightens me.

It gives limitless faith that the world can be changed and indeed has been changed by a few individuals. But it seems to always be the question of changed in what way? Whether for good or ill, the answer will be changed to be how I see fit. This means an array of different things. But, more problematic is that this quotation isn't true. It misleads readers into believing a small group of determined people can "change the world" without consent from anyone else.

Yes, a small group can 'start' to change the world but will never to be ultimately finish. Stakeholders, investors, believers, and messengers will always be necessary. It is a question of scale and to change the world you will not, cannot do it with a small group.

More potent to me is this tale. “When I was a young man, I wanted to change the world. I found it was difficult to change the world, so I tried to change my nation. When I found I couldn’t change the nation, I began to focus on my town. I couldn’t change the town and as an older man, I tried to change my family. Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family. My family and I could have made an impact on our town. Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world.” This tale is not inspiring. It expounds hard work and time. But I believe this is where the truth lies.

Yes, a small group of devoted people can begin to change the world but only because they changed themselves and affected those around them. Your life needs to be led differently because changing the world starts with a way of life and a dream. After that you just need to tell people.

The Hard Choice

Malcolm Gladwell in "What the Dog Saw" describes the problem and possible solution of homelessness. Homelessness sits on a power-law curve that is a few individuals cause the majority of the problem and cost associated with homelessness. Most are without a home for a very short amount of time. It is the chronic few who have their tens of thousands of dollars of medical bills being paid for by the government. The solution is to ensure these few individuals not be homeless and are taken care of.

But this very solution of focusing on a few is aptly described by Gladwell as unsettling. Gladwell explains we are giving special treatment to those individuals who don't deserve it. At the same time, we solved the problem by only examining the economical cost on society. Some of the chronic homeless will not be
able to appreciate being given an apartment and the taxpayer will always be paying their bill. But it is a bill which is significantly less than before. This solution will not solve their inability to be productive members of society.

The dilemma lies in following our principles or solving the problem. The answer seems to be simple. We need to solve the problem. Yet what is the purpose of principles if there is no one to live by them. But then of course the exact opposite is a strong argument as well. If we are not to follow our principles then what is the purpose of living?

Is there a price to following our principles? A price at which we can be paid. Is this something we would want? At what price would we want to pay for our values and beliefs? One life, multiple lives, a problem which we thought could never be solved. Even more difficult than answering those questions would be enacting the policy. As Gladwell reminds us it will not be popular with either the left or the right.

A strong consideration seems to be that principles are those who have the time and wealth to afford them to understand them. When you sit hungry, tired, and alone there are much more important needs. However, we do reward those who are able to "rise" about basic needs to a higher requirement. Yet, what good can you do if don't live another day?

I think that is the most difficult choice of a purposeful martyr. Will the good of your death be greater than the life you could have lived? The need to survive and live is our strongest most basic need. And of course, you can never know the answer. Perhaps, in this line thought could answer the question to the price of our values.

But we still haven't answer if we should put a price on it.