En français? English? Qui sait? Not me.

Je sens que vivre dans le moment devient plus difficile au fur et à mesure que je sens que mes cours exigent quelque chose de moi, soit des devoirs, soit des connaissances que ne n’ai pas encore. Pendant les cours que j’ai aimé les mieux, j’ai fait des devoirs pour apprendre, pas pour obtenir une bonne note. Je m’inspire avec le désir de m’améliorer, je choisis comment je vis ma vie, et avec ces obligations vivre consciemment devient plus difficile. Quoi faire? Réinterpréter. Je choisis. Si je ne voulais pas être ici, je pourrais quitter l’endroit tout de suite. Mais en général je préfère cette vie, ces exigeances, et donc je fais ma paix avec eux.

Is everything we do in our self-interest?

My friend Pat Kallal posed this question to me recently, as we traversed the pristinely white Mississippi River, crunching our way through the snow to his apartment. He explained with an example. “I have this jacket, Jacob, that I bought, because it keeps me warm, but also because it makes me look good,” he said, “which is subconsciously important in order to promote myself as a potential partner for women.” Is everything, he wonders, related to reproducing?

It’s easy to answer that not everything is related to reproducing - consider Zen Buddhist monks that take lifelong vows of celibacy. But could this be related to self-interest? The Zen Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh, who runs the center Plum Village in France, seems to have built a community full of people who admire and revere his personal discipline, maybe because he’s kept his promise to himself not to have sex.

When I hear this question, I think first about ethics, the question of what we should do. But Pat, here, is really asking about what we really do, the lowest common denominator of human action. It’s what all marketers search for - why do people really act the way they do?

The ancient Greeks, especially Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, took it for granted that everyone would pursue Eudaimonia. From their observations, everyone acted toward this one goal. Eudaimonia can be roughly translated as happiness, but we can interpret it as self-interest. Pursuing my personal happiness, in the largest, most fulfilling sense of the word, is basically pursuing the best life I can have, the most self-interested actions I can take. The goal for Plato, in his work The Republic, is to say, “Great. We all are working toward self-interest. But I want to prove to you that the best way to achieve self-interest, Eudaimonia, is through virtue and noble actions.” He spends the rest of the book comparing human souls to cities, in the goal of proving that self-interest really means virtue.

That’s not always evident. Plenty of people in American society do everything they can to make money, sacrificing sleep, health, their friends, and their principles. Why? Because they think that money leads to Eudaimonia. I think Pat’s right, but I’d go even further. People don’t do what’s best for them, they do what they think is best for them. Or sometimes, what they feel is best for them. If I want to lose weight because I think it will be good for me, but I see a delicious piece of cake, sometimes I eat it. Why? Because my feelings say, “mmm, delicious, good for you,” whereas only my educated, rational brain can help explain why it’s not.

A marketer doesn’t decide what people want. Because heaven knows it’s difficult to change what people think is good for them. There are plenty of well-meaning religious advocates, self-help gurus, and philosophers who have great ideas about what is important, but they invariably fail to impose these ideas on others. Thich Nhat Hanh has perhaps a better idea, that the best way to change others is by changing ourselves, rather than trying to force others to see a truth.

If a marketer doesn’t choose what people desire, she capitalizes upon it. This is why marketing is a cultural art. Different cultures want different things, deep down, and so the same product may need to fill different niches in different cultures. How do phone scammers have such enormous success with older, single women? They capitalize upon the frequent loneliness, the need for company. But those same phone scammers use different tactics with middle-aged fathers; they may capitalize upon fear, the fear of a computer virus, by sending out a fake fix that will actually hurt the computer. And phone scammers are, in general, excellent marketers.

But please be wary, and don’t become a phone scammer; taking advantage of others in that way is not, in the long-run, in your self-interest.

Qu’est-ce que les États-Unis ? Que veut dire les États-Unis à moi ? À cette veille des élections américaines, je veux prendre un moment pour considérer mon pays natal, ce que je pense.

Quelles sont les qualités les plus importantes que je trouve dans mon pays natal ? Ce ne sont pas les couleurs sur notre drapeau. Ce ne sont pas les noms des états, ce ne sont pas les jours fériés, et, enfin, ce ne sont pas la plupart des choses qu’on identifie comme américaines. qu’est-ce qui donc est important pour moi ?

Ce sont les idées. Ce sont les valeurs. Les principes sur lesquels on établit un état. il n’est dit nul part que les étapes du monde qui réussissent doivent avoir des noms spécifiques. en revanche, un État sans le concept de liberté est une attaque qui a raté sa première fonction.

Il est intéressant d’étudier les façons de penser des pères et mères qui ont établi notre pays. Ils étaient courantes dans les façons de penser des Européens à la même époque. C’était l’air de révolution, l’air de penser librement, un changement dans les sociétés du monde. Ses pairs éphémères ont établi les droits fondamentales qui sont contenues dans le concept de notre pays, et qui doivent être inclus dans chaque pays du monde qui prétend être un pays de valeur qui desservit une place dans la communauté internationale. Et il faut les nommer. Voilà ce que je trouve comme concepts essentiels de notre pays :

1. La liberté, c’est-à-dire le droit de chacun de vivre sa propre vie comme il veut, au moins que cela empêche d’autres gens à vivre comme ils veulent. La liberté entière, c’est-à-dire l’anarchie, n’a jamais eu une place dans la philosophie de gouvernement, mais en revanche, l’idée de liberté à tous est essentielle.

2. L’égalité de l’opportunité pour chacun. Je trouve ça vraiment différent des systèmes de monarchie et de communisme, les deux systèmes les plus importants des dernières siècles. cela indique aussi que l’État doit donner, pas nécessairement de l’argent, mais quelque chose à chacun de ses citoyens qui en ont besoin : soit la nourriture pour vivre, soit un bâtiment pour dormir si on n’en a pas.

3. L’idée de la représentation dans le gouvernement. Cela n’est pas une démocratie absolue, car les démocraties absolues n’incluent pas l’idée de protéger les minorités. Mais l’idée que nous nous gouvernent, et que chaque personne à l’opportunité de devenir homme ou femme d’État, m’inspire.

On pourrait écrire un livre, au moins, sur chacun de ces pensées et de ces droits. Tout ce que je voulais faire ici est de faire penser le lecteur. Qu’est-ce qui est vraiment important ? On va découvrir, demain.

This blog post responds to some ideas raised by New York Times op-ed columnist David Brooks, in his article published on the 27th of October, 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/opinion/28brooks.html). Brooks begins his article by outlining what cognitive scientists agree are four crucial steps to any decision-making process: first, perceive the situation. Then, think of all possible courses of action. Third, choose a course of action. Fourth, carry out the course of action. In Brooks’s opinion, humanity has shifted away from an emphasis on the third step, choice, and right now, the most important step in our decision-making processes is perception.
After having a hand injury for two years, I have recently turned to the Alexander technique to help explain the why I acquired this injury and what I could do to cure it. I’m an enthusiast of this technique, and also an aficionado of Alexander’s philosophy: I just finished reading “Use of the Self,” in French, one of Alexander’s four fundamental books. Here’s what he has to say about the issue: with the advancement of civilization, our habits have gone farther and farther away from what can be considered “natural” for the human being. For example, in the 1800s, to be bent over a spinning wheel for eight hours a day was not uncommon. This constant repetition of actions that we consider “normal,” but certainly aren’t “natural,” has a devastating effect on our habits. In our example, bending over a spinning wheel for eight hours a day strengthens our habit of doing so to the point that we stop choosing our actions, letting our habits guide us instead. Voila: we have already lost our emphasis on the crucial third step of Brooks’s process, the action of making decisions of what is rationally in our best interest.
At the same time, our perception shifts. Since we are bent over for eight hours a day, we start perceiving this as normal, and even when we walk away from the spinning when we may do so with a bent back. Moreover, suppose we realize that the spinning well has had some sort of devastating effect on how we use the parts of our body. How can we fix this? We would need to perceive these devastating effects, and then work to correct them, according to Brooks’s process. But here’s the rub: our perception has shifted. We no longer perceive standing up straight as normal, but bending over. Therefore, any attempt to return ourselves to a “normal” way of walking or sitting is inevitably influenced by our hours and hours of conditioning, and every attempt to sit up straight only digs us deeper into the hole. Imagine: in attempting to sit up straight, we are so used to putting the weight on the wrong part of our back muscles that we continue to do so, and so even though we are “sitting up straight,” we are using our back muscles poorly and find no way out of the cycle. We may be straight, but this certainly won’t relieve any pain we feel. In fact, the pain made it worse, now that we have unduly stressed other parts of the body in order to hold ourselves in a rigid position.
Alexander’s solution: what he calls inhibition. This is not the negative psychological phenomenon associated with Freud, but a positive, powerful concept used for creating any new habit. Which suggests is this: before taking an action, make it a habit to stop. Pause. In this way, we have an opportunity to actually consider what choice we want to make, bringing our focus back to the third step of Brooks’s process.
And above all, work to find ways to broaden our perception. Alexander used mirrors observing his body, and realized that what he sensed was different from what he saw. In the daily workforce, tools for broadening perception are all around us: other people, other spaces, visiting nature, traveling, and many other possibilities. In this way, we put the process back in its proper order for successful decision and a successful life.

I enter into the room. I drop my backpack on the floor, pull off my jacket, and hang it on a hook. I sit down in my chair. I pause. I take a moment - I decide how I want to act, what I want to accomplish in pulling out a textbook or powering up my computer, anything that happens on the desk in front of me.

in the matter what sphere of life, to respect the sanctity of the workspace. The word sanctity, in this context, is not necessarily religious: it speaks more about spirituality, and above all about intention. We each use our workspaces for hours every day, whether our desks with our computers, for adults in an office, or desk with a laptop and a textbook, for my fellow students. We may work outside, or we may work in a store with a cash register. In every case, we spend large amounts of time in nearly stationary positions and small areas. It becomes vital, in this case, to remain conscient of how we move, or don’t move, or stand, or sit, in our workspaces, or we risk injury, repetitive stress, and other physical malaise.

More than merely physical, our respect for our workspaces must be mental and spiritual as well. What could this mean? In other words, every time I sit down in front of my computer, before powering it up, or before touching a single key, I pause and ask myself, “What do I want to accomplish? And more importantly, how do I want to accomplish it?” In our stationary workspaces, we risk finding ourselves in stationary frames of mind, with boredom, depression, or frustration often resulting. Instead, the idea would be for us to retain our creativity, positive energy, and love for whatever it is we happen to be doing at a desk or in front of a register. The question is often not what we do, but how we do it. In other words, if I respect the sanctity of my workspace, and if I come in every day with the decision to make the day a positive impact on humanity, I could be doing the same work as somebody else and feel 10 times better about it.

This is not inborn. This is not genetic. This is not a vestige of childhood abuse. This is a choice. Each of us has the choice, every single day, to respect what we do and to respect ourselves in doing so. And even among individuals, this may vary; on some days I may forget, or be distracted by something important that happened in my life, or have a larger than normal problem to face during the workday. This doesn’t make the issue less of a choice.

Thank you for taking the time to read: I hope that in doing so, you have respected yourself, and thus improved the world.

Je comprends bien que cette phrase peut sembler provocatrice. Et donner de l’argent aux pauvres n’est pas parmi les problèmes souvent cités de notre société. Ou bien si?

Considérons le cas d’un malade. Il est au lit avec des jambes cassées. Il est bon et gentil de lui apporter de la nourriture pour qu’il puisse manger, et de lui donner tout ce dont il a besoin. Mais après que ses jambes commencent à guérir, il lui faut marcher un peu pour regagner la puissance dans les muscles. Et s’il ne sait pas cela, et si moi, le médecin, continue de lui apporter tout ce dont il a besoin, ses jambes deviendront inutiles et atrophies.

Je ne veux pas dire qu’on ne doit pas aider quelqu’un qui est malade. Évidemment, dans ce cas, c’est bien d’aider le pauvre malade. Mais la façon de l’aider est importante. On le guide vers le chemin d’amélioration de soi, lui-même.

Avec un chômeur qui demande de l’argent, qu’est-ce qu’on doit faire? Je donne trois points pour suggérer qu’on ne doit pas donner d’argent, nécessairement, mais qu’en revanche, il y a d’autres moyens d’aider. C’est à cause de la discussion plus haut, et aussi la Règle d’Or, et aussi des exemples dans la littérature des mœurs, qui nous suggèrent ça

Considérons le cas célèbre de Jean Valjean,des Misérables de Victor Hugo. Même quand Hugo décrit Valjean comme un homme qui sort de sa maison les poches remplies et rentre les poches vides, on voit que la chose, la charité, qui a vraiment aidé Valjean lui-même n’était pas l’argent, mais la nourriture et un lit. Avec son penchant pour le travail, et sa puissance, il a trouvé ses moyens lui-même sans l’aide des choses qu’il a volées au prêtre dans la première partie du livre.

Le regle d’Or: si j’étais pauvre, je voudrais qu’on me donne un emploi, pas de l’argent. C’est humiliant d’avoir besoin de demander de l’argent, et je voudrais sortir de ce cercle aussitôt que possible.

Enfin, cela dit qu’il est essentiel que nous aidions les pauvres dans le monde, mais qu’il est aussi essentiel que nous le fassions d’une manière considérée et prudente. C’est ce que je vous demande si jamais je me trouve sans domicile fixe.

Merci à Lubo d’avoir corrigé des erreurs d’orthographie dans ce texte.

In the year 1900, the mathematician Hilbert proposed a list of the most important mathematical questions for the coming century. This list, while not necessarily influential for Hilbert’s contemporaries, effectively epitomized the status of mathematics at the time. About 7 of the problems were solved by 2000, at which point Hilbert had died and another mathematician proposed a list of the most important questions for the 21st century. In that spirit, I’d like to propose the 10 most important problems in the world today. If you agree, or disagree, with these, I’d love to hear your lists as well. I am sure of one thing: if we can solve even five, even three, even one of these problems in the next century, the world will be a better place.

The Top Ten:

1. War

2. Hunger

3. Discrimination, ethnocentrism, prejudice, hate

4. Energy (global warming, nuclear waste…)

5. Pollution (overconsumption, mounds of trash)

6. Free education

7. Restriction of liberty

8. Lack of opportunities for the poor; the difference between economic classes

9. Houses and beds, a place to live for all

10. Interdependence in a global world