Pragmatism

Pragmatic is defined as practical; Testing the validity of all concepts by their practical results. At least, this is how one of Webster's dictionaries defines it. It doesn't really do the word justice. Most people - at least those who `know' what the word means - believe that pragmatism is the philosophy that claims that the end justifies the means. Most people (dontcha' just love those nonspecific generalizations?) also claim that the end never justifies the means. To a pragmatist, both of these philosophies are equally wrong: the pragmatist believes that the end can justify the means.

Strategically speaking, having the maximum number of options available maximizes your chances of accomplishing your goals. If it is necessary to use undesirable means to accomplish a desirable end, and the gains to be had by accomplishing this end exceed the losses represented by the means, then the pragmatist would not hesitate. The person who claims that the end never justifies the means would never use such means, and so would not have achieved his goals, and if those goals are philanthropic, than people would have suffered, relatively, for nothing.

The pragmatist is also a realist, by definition. If he is not, than he could not truly be a pragmatist, even if he thinks he is, because he would not really be optimizing his chances; and a pragmatist would always optimize his chances. For this same reason, a pragmatist would not accept anything on faith, or without examination and definite verification, except as a possible working theory. For this reason, he has no use for the morals that have been handed down from on high, though the reaction that he might engender from others if he is believed to be, or not to be following them would, of course be considered. He would have no use for any unreasoning belief, save where the impression that his beliefs make upon others might affect his goals.

Strategy is the tool of the pragmatist: optimizing his chances for success when working at cross purposes with others requires it. A pragmatist should study strategy in all it's applications, as it will surely be required eventually, and it will always increase his chances, if even just because he has no way of saying for certain that at some point in the pursuit of his goals, he might not find himself in a position where it could help. In many ways, strategy is pragmatism.

Knowledge is the tool of the pragmatist: without it, he cannot accurately determine where his best chances of success lie. A pragmatist should always seek such knowledge as he can, giving preference to that knowledge which seems most likely to aid him, but certainly not limited to that. Similarly, knowledge should generally be denied to ones potential adversaries, and provided to ones potential allies. Pragmatism is impossible without knowledge.

A pragmatist must decide what his goals are, and rate the desirability of each. He cannot devote too much thought to this, as everything else depends on it. Similarly, he must decide what limits he will place upon his actions, and how important each one is. A pragmatist can rationally derive a code of morals: in fact, if he gives it enough thought he is almost certain to do so.

A pragmatist, as stated earlier, should always seek to maximize his chances: that is what pragmatism IS. He should consider every factor that he can, and base his decisions on every fact and possibility that he could derive. He should realize that common sense does not have a terribly good level of accuracy: so he should seek to make all of his decisions logically, even mathematically, where possible.

Above all, a pragmatist should use every possible advantage at all times. He can never be certain that just one insignificant seeming thing, or perhaps an accumulation of them, might be the difference between success and failure. Even the tiniest of gains now will be magnified down the line. Consider: if I were in a position of power, I would seek to make sure that all those who might one day challenge me lacked the wherewithal to do so. For this reason I would, if I could, see to it that people in general did not understand how I achieved my position. I would try to make sure that the philosophy of pragmatism was not generally understood, or was generally frowned upon. Perhaps this is why pragmatism is so misunderstood: the people in power are pragmatists.

It is easier to control people who do not consider things realistically and logically, and who do not question what you say and do, or who let themselves be led by you because of their blind faith. Perhaps this is why unreasoning patriotism is so encouraged, and why so many religions place so much emphasis on having faith in them.

This author could certainly benefit if others learned of pragmatism, as he would have allies, whether they knew it or not, but only if he is not now in a position of power. Other pragmatists, even if, or perhaps especially if, they are just normal, `little' people, without great personal resources, would all help to nibble away at the power bases of the people currently in power. If everyone knew about pragmatism, and practiced it, eventually, a mutually beneficial state would almost certainly come about. In this authors case at least, it would be acceptable to see such a state come into being, rather than to achieve great personal power over others. It's simply a practical compromise.

Why Azraelle?

Azrael, or Azriel, the name in Semmite languages (Arabic, Hebrew) for Angel of Death, commonly known in Western circles as the Grim Reaper, or The Banshee. At the time that my wife informed me, less than 5 minutes after arriving home from ~40 days on the road as a trucking apprentice that "I'm divorcing you, AJ", and then having been removed from my house by the local sheriff's deputy about 1 minute later, my wife having gotten a restraining order drawn up, along with the divorce papers, to be in force until the divorce went through, alleging possible "mental abuse" from me, I felt very much like "King Midas In Reverse", to quote a song title from the Hollies. Everything I had touched recently had turned to shit. I had just lost my trucking job--she didn't even know this as yet--because they accused me of having epilepsy due to my comments after my parked truck was rammed in the trucking company parking lot by a trainee driving his trainer's truck without permission (I having been sleeping inside of said parked truck at the time it was rammed). (I had to get a CAT scan, ultimately costing me $3500, just to prove CR England, my employer at the time, to be full of it, and to get hired again--learning once again quite painfully that the myth of being "innocent until proven guilty" in this country is just that--a MYTH!) I knew of the definition of the word Azrael from a Sci-Fi novel I had read while in the Army called The Azriel Uprising, and I thought it would make an appropriate "handle" for my Earthlink account ("King Midas In Reverse" being a bit long!). Except that "Azrael" was already taken, as was "Azraell" (I had forgotten about the alternative spelling at the time). So I tried "Azraelle". I have always preferred feminine spellings anyway, and at the time, oddly enough, I felt more kinship with women than with men, because of my "right-brain" tendencies, and my "metrosexual" sense of fashion (see below), although it was, at least in part, responsible for the enmity my wife now felt for me. Therefore, it just seemed that the feminine spelling "fit" me best at the time. So there you have it!!

TO: MICHAEL GURIAN FROM: ("Me")

Author: "The Wonder of Boys" Nov 03, 1998

PO BOX 8714 PO BOX 822

SPOKANE, WA 99203 WASHINGTON, UT

84780

SIR:

I am in the process of reading "The Wonder of Boys" for some insight into why I, at age 46, feel so uncomfortable as a man, why I bristle at the mention of the words "manly" and "masculine", to see what my parents may have done "wrong", and perhaps so I can attempt to change it in myself, and in my boys--whom I don't see too often, especially in the last 6 months due to a new job of truck driving, and my wife filing for divorce a month ago.

The reason I am writing to you is to offer you an alternative perspective to "biological homosexuality". One of the main reasons my wife wants a divorce is because of my fetishistic sexual addiction to things feminine, particularly the wearing of women's clothes (except dresses, for some reason). I don't see myself as a "true" transvestite because every Male TV I have ever read about (or the very few I've met) all have the fantasy or dream of dressing up to impersonate a woman, usually in public. This includes both Gay and Straight Tvs. I, on the other hand, wish only to appear as a man in women's clothing, as an adjunct to my masochistic fantasies of humiliation and punishment.

I relate this to you not for a desire for therapy (although I freely admit the need, and will actively seek same, when I have been working at my new job long enough to qualify for health insurance to pay for it--I have been unemployed for the better part of 2 years, now, after a mass layoff at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site), but to give you my "Bona Fides" or "Credentials" of life experiences to qualify me.

My LDS (Mormon) religious background inhibits me from admitting that a Just God would create a biological or genetic predisposition toward a type of behavior that He then openly condemns as so sinful as to warrant the death penalty, at least in the Old Testament.

Our Society has saddled itself with a not-necessarily natural need to "pigeonhole" everything and everyone, especially in a medical way. I am perfectly willing to accept the idea of genetic predisposition as a way for the Lord to "Give men weaknesses [so that by overcoming them] they may become strengths" [See Hebrews 11:34; and LDS Book of Mormon, Ether 12:27 & 37].

My college training in agriculture and Bacteriology (B.S., 1981, U.of Idaho) included genetics, and I have followed the discoveries in the field since then with some relish, particularly with respect to the Human Genome Project. But I don't believe that there is a genetic predisposition to becoming a homosexual. Rather, I DO believe in a genetic predisposition to thought patterns and ways of doing things, so-called "non-masculine" types of behavior that, in a very real sense have been earmarked by our culture, particularly in the last 20 years, as indicative that a person is, or will become, a homosexual, IN THE ABSENSE OF OTHER PEER-PRESSURED ALTERNATIVES.

Consider, if you will, the possibility of an alternative truth:

In a less gendered society (e.g. you can be ONLY one thing or the other), where men are NOT guided, pushed, forced, categorized, pigeonholed, etc., into homosexuality as the ONLY means whereby their particular personalities, tendencies, ways of tackling problems, likes, dislikes, etc., can be more or less freely expressed without major peer and societal condemnation. The genetic predisposition might, instead, be classified as that of a poet, male "ballerina", florist, fashion designer or consultant, "Mozart", interior decorator, male seamstress (as opposed to tailor), or even clotheshorse or dandy (as in Dorian Gray). All of these "pigeonholes" have sissified connotations in large portions of American Society which, over the last 20-30 years, have been more or less lumped together into the supercategory of "homosexual". It ain't necessarily so!!!

I have most of the aformentioned tendencies, and have met several other LDS men (and at least one "Christian" non-LDS man) with similar likes and dislikes (but, they are by no means common). I was privileged to grow up in the LDS microculture, which by itself, is no more accepting of "differences" than is the rest of western civilization. But I learned that homosexuality was "wrong", and, although considered a bit wierd, I was tolerated by my peers. I wasn't automatically forced to gravitate to a Gay Community in order to receive Peer Validation and Acceptance. Had I grown up "out in the world", I would probably think of myself as "Gay" simply because there would have been no other way to be accepted by "peers". And THAT is the crux of my argument. Boys (or girls, for that matter) with a certain SET of desires, proclivities, or aspirations are simply NOT PERMITTED to become something other than a homosexual in our society today, at least not outside a few, mostly religious, microcultures. And that is wrong, WRONG, WRONG!!!

One further observation. I, and my entire family have been diagnosed with ADD/OCD. It goes back at least to my, and my wife's grandparents. Obviously it is genetic. On page 18 of your book, bottom paragraph, you state "It is no wonder, then, that the female brain should be better at sensory data. It needed to hear, smell, touch, taste, and see more minutely and effectively than the male..."

Referring to a book I am concurrently reading that you may not be familiar with, "Attention Deficit Disorder: A Different Perception" by Thom Hartman: In his introduction and first several chapters he presents a convincing argument that ADD people are the genetic remnants of the hunter-gatherer societies that were largely exterminated (and/or assimilated) by the agriculture-based civilizations circa 8000 BC. His descriptions of the problem-solving characteristics of ADDers, and their unique strengths, are remarkably similar to your descriptions of the characteristics of the (normal) Female Brain.

Could it be that, rather than some boys developing "female brains", they may have some (or all) of the genetic material in their chromosomes of the Hunter-Gatherer peoples? Would it lead to a better understanding of how to raise an ADD boy? Could it be possible that many of the genetic predispositions of so-called "homosexuality" are in actuality ADD- (or Hunter-Gatherer-) related, and have nothing at all to do with sexual orientation (other than how our present-day society artificially categorizes the outward manifestations of those characteristics)?

Thanks for hearing my "soapbox"

And a recent contribution from AnitaC (a 55 year old female attorney) at the hhplace.org forum comes this interesting bit of recent medical knowledge:

According to studies done by Jung, Masters & Johnson and Daugherty, it is conservatively estimated that 5% of the male population crossdresses. In the US alone that is 5,000,000 people. Long thought of as a Psychological phenomonon, recent studies in Belgium, Holland, Germany, Denmark and France on the brains of deceased CDs reveals that the hypothalamus in the brain is larger making this BIOLOGICAL. This develops during the 2nd-3rd month of gestation. It is a biological/psychological button waiting to be pressed. Denial can lead to depression, anxiety and even suicide. The sooner the CD learns to accept and understand this part of themselves the better off they will be. Most CD's do not want a sex change. They are normal hetrosexuals in all other aspects.

The Surprising Truth About Addiction

By Stanton Peele, Ph.D.
Special for eDiets
May 25, 2004

A number of recent findings about alcoholism square with what we know about change in other areas of life: people change when they want it badly enough and when they feel strong enough to face the challenge, not when they’re humiliated or coerced. An approach that empowers and offers positive reinforcement is preferable to one that strips the Individual of agency.

Here are six principles of change:

• The belief that you can change is the key to change. This is not the powerlessness message of the 12 steps. Addictions are really no different from other behaviors -- believing you can change encourages commitment to the process and enhance likelihood of success.
• The type of treatment is less critical than your commitment to change. You can select how you want to pursue change in line with your own values and preferences. You don’t need to be told how to change.
• Brief treatments can change longstanding habits. It’s not the duration of treatment that allows you to change, but rather its ability to inspire continued efforts in that direction.
• Life skills can be the key to kicking addiction. All addictions may not be equal. Approaches that emphasize life skills might be needed for those more severely debilitated by drugs and alcohol.
• Repeated efforts are critical to changing. People do not often get better instantly -- it usually takes multiple efforts. Follow-up care allows people to maintain focus on their change goals. Eventually they stand a good chance of achieving them.
• Improvement without abstinence counts. People do not usually succeed all at once. But they can show significant improvement, and all improvement should be accepted and rewarded.

Stanton Peele is a noted psychologist who wrote the classic book, Love and Addiction. His latest book, 7 Tools to Beat Addiction, will be published in July.