Friday
01May2009

Pinker on Violence, then and now...

 

Violence 360x480.jpg

In lamentations over the dire state of the nation/world/universe, we often hear tell how violent modern (Western) society is. This alleged fact is often proclaimed, almost joyfully, by religious groups in order to prove that, yes, we are indeed evil and in dire need of a transcendent power to save us; but it is also simply a background belief of many who have never had reason to stop and think about it. Enter Steven Pinker.

Pinker argues (in The Blank Slate and elsewhere) that modern Western society is much less violent than in the past. I think this position is correct, though it may need refining with respect to exactly what we mean when we say that a culture is violent. In defense of Pinker, I quote from Foucault's Discipline & Punish in which he describes a punishment meted out to Robert Francoise Damien, who attempted to assassinate the French king, Louis XV. Foucault first recites the court's penalty, which commands Damien be taken to

the Place de Greve, where, on a scaffold that will be erected there, the flesh will be torn from his breasts, arms, thighs and calves with red-hot pincers, his right hand, holding the knife with which he committed the said parricide, burnt with sulphur, and, on those places where the flesh will be torn away, poured molten lead, boiling oil, burning resin, wax and sulphur melted together and then his body drawn and quartered by four horses and his limbs and body consumed by fire, reduced to ashes and his ashes thrown to the winds. (3)

He then proceeds to quote from newspapers and eye witness accounts:

[Bouton, an officer of the watch:] 'The sulphur was lit, but the flame was so poor that only the top skin of the hand was burnt, and that only slightly. Then the executioner, his sleeves rolled up, took the steel pincers, which had been especially made for the occasion, and which were about a foot and a half long, and pulled first at the calf of the right leg, then at the thigh, and from there at the two fleshy parts of the right arm; then at the breasts. Though a strong, sturdy fellow, this executioner found it so difficult to tear away the pieces of flesh that he set about the same spot two or three times, twisting the pincers as he did so, and what he took away formed at each part a wound about the size of a six-pound crown piece... After these tearings with the pincers... the same executioner dipped an iron spoon in the pot containing the boiling potion, which he poured liberally over each wound.''

[Gazette d'Amsterdam, 1 April, 1757:] 'Finally he was quartered. This last operation was very long, because the horses used were not accustomed to drawing; consequently, instead of four, six were needed; and when that did not suffice, they were forced, in order to cut off the wretch's thighs, to sever the sinews and hack at the joints...

'The spectators were all edified by the solicitude of the parish priest of St. Paul's who despite his great age did not spare himself in offering consolation to the patient.'

This was the last (officially sanctioned) use of the "draw and quarter" punishment that was de rigueur in the 17th century and before.

Examples like this successfully show the difference in the Western mindset between the 18th century and the 21st. Other arguments, though superficially compelling, are more problematic. For example, Pinker compares the kill ratios of ancient hunter-gather societies with those in modern society. Here is the gist of his argument: Hunter-gatherer societies engaged in warfare which killed up to 60% of their population. The seemingly violent 20th century didn’t come close to this percentage even including the two world wars, in which we managed to kill "only" 2-3% of our population. Therefore, modern Western society is much less violent than ancient hunter-gatherer societies.

I think the statistics in this argument may be hiding something. Consider the following two scenarios:

Scenario 1: Suppose HG clan A has a population of one hundred and commonly interacts with HG clan B of the same size. A disagreement occurs over wealth distribution and there is a battle in which twenty warriors from clan B are killed.

Scenario 2: Suppose HG clan A has a population of one thousand and commonly interacts with HG clan B of the same size. A disagreement occurs over wealth distribution and clan A mounts a surprise attack on the village of Clan B, slaughtering one hundred men women and children.

According to the statistics clan A is more violent in Scenario one (killing twenty in a pitched battle), for they have killed twenty percent of clan B, while in scenario two (killing one hundred indiscriminately) they have only killed ten percent of clan B. But this doesn’t seem right. The statistics here hide some very important details, which seems to indicate that violence cannot simply be measured by numbers killed. For instance, consider:

  1. Intent: The intent of the population is important when assigning "violence" as a characteristic. All other things being equal, if clans A and B kill the same number of people but clan A kills only in self-defense while clan B kills indiscriminately, clan B is more violent than clan A.
  2. Ability: Numbers alone are not important, though, for there may be intent without ability or ability without intent. For example, in 1945 Russia may have had the intent to annex all of conquered Germany, but lacked the ability; the U.S. may have had the ability (possessing the atomic bomb), but lacked the intent. These distinctions seem important in determining the violence of a culture.
  3. Delineations: There is an inherent problem of delineating a specific group with respect to both time and space when assigning the characteristic. Consider Germany. If we look at the first half of the 20th century we would probably conclude that the Germans were an extremely violent bunch, but if we look at only the second half of the 20th century we would have to say they were a peaceful people. What judgment do we make of Germans over the entire 20th century? or the millennium? The problem lies in assigning the label "violent" to a group of people at all. What does it mean to say that Germans are violent or Westerners or the Yanomamo?
  4. Instantiations: Can one violent person who controls a society determine the violence level of the society. A Hitler or a Stalin may not have had qualms over indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons to achieve their dreams of empire, but does it follow from this that the people they ruled were violent? Examples like the Christmas soccer games in Ypres between German and British soldiers during World War I seem to promote the idea that the true cause of violence is often the few rather than the many.

These points do not negate Pinker's conclusion. For example (from points 1 & 2), the fact that we have developed weapons of mass destruction and have, for the most part, refrained from using them, seems to confirm his point. In the past, technological innovations such as iron production, gun powder, and the stirrup, were used to the maximum of their potential in warfare. On the other hand (from points 3 & 4) we need more clarity with respect to what constitutes a violent society.

It's hard to deny that we Westerners have made moral progress over the years. The drawing and quartering of Damien in 1757 was followed shortly after by the "Terror" of the French Revolution, symbolized by the guillotine, and yet despite the excesses, the guillotine was introduced not only as an egalitarian method of execution, but as a more humane method as well. Despite our many past failings and current cruelties, we have managed, in the modern age, to prohibit slavery and many other barbaric acts, and the fact that we even debate the morality of capital punishment and torture is a step forward. The claim that we are more violent now than in the past can only be maintained by turning a blind eye to history.

 

Thursday
23Apr2009

ProAm Accounting

 


Finance.jpg

 

Beginning with Enron back in 2001 and culminating in the current financial crisis, we have seen the lack of credible information lead to disastrous consequences. How is it companies like AIG and Lehman Bros. can so surprise us with bad financial news? When companies like these fail they affect economies worldwide, which in turn can affect hundreds of millions of people. How can these organizations not be subject to public scrutiny? The market may eventually correct for this opacity, but not without tooth and claw redness we would prefer to avoid. But where would we ever find the resources to scrutinize not only mammoth multinationals, but also all the smaller corporations throughout the country that an investor might be interested in? Government is certainly not the answer. As Larry Doyle recently stated: "Our financial industry is intertwined with the regulatory and political oversight which is supposed to monitor it." There is no credible oversight. The information we need to protect ourselves and our investments is hidden from us. The result? We are surprised by corporate failure and falling stock prices, and are reduced to basing our investments on advice from "experts" who are no more reliable than a flip of the coin or a roll of the die.

ProAm accounting is a promising solution. More and more amateurs are working hand in hand with professionals to accomplish time consuming tasks; why not in finance? Chris Anderson, in his book The Long Tail, quotes from a report about how amateur astronomers help professionals:

Astronomy used to be done in 'big science' research institutes. Now it is also done in Pro-Am collaboratives. Many amateurs continued to work on their own and many professionals were still ensconced in their academic institutions. But global research networks sprang up, linking professionals and amateurs with shared interests... (60)

 Collaboratives like this are becoming common: from the sharing of knowledge via Wikipedia to the sharing of private computers for time consuming computational tasks. If we use astronomy as a model, the minimal requirements for developing a ProAm culture seem to be:

  1. objects in the sky that remain the same for all observers (available data),
  2. affordable technology allowing amateurs to see the data and to communicate with other astronomers about it, and
  3. a reference frame such as a catalog that is shared by all observers, allowing members a common language for analysis.

This "mutually available objective data" provides the opportunity for cooperation between professionals and amateurs.

For the purposes of a ProAm accounting system, only the second of these is in place; present computer hardware and software together with the internet meet this requirement. In a sense the "data" is out there, the actual financial contracts and transactions, balance sheets and P&Ls, but a) it is not always available, and b) when it is, it is not always trustworthy, for there is no mandatory shared reference frame which would allow us to ascertain whether we are in fact comparing apples to apples.

Both of these shortcoming need to be addressed. Companies in which investors have a stake, or the size of which dictates they have a substantial affect upon markets, should be required to provide mutually available objective data, that is, financial data formatted uniformly which can be understood by any sufficiently trained person, and posted where it is available for public analysis. A chemical company could not open a new plant in a community without conforming to the requisite preliminary and ongoing oversight regulations, so why should a large corporation? Both have the potential for destroying lives.

GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) is an existing solution to the problem of uniform data, which has recently been modified to improve simplicity and transparency (via FASB ASC), but is not universally mandatory. If all institutions were required to abide by these rules we would be a step closer to oversight, for the underlying philosophy behind GAAP is to make the accounting procedures of various businesses uniform, or in our language, "objective." I say "a step closer" because even with these principles securely in place there is room for interpretive manipulation--after all, the accounting firm Arthur Anderson was in charge of Enron audits!

I envision thousands of amateurs across the world, performing mundane analyses on all companies great and small, cross-talking with professionals, posting comments and questions in open discussions on companies, both public and private. Would these public forums be infallible? No, but they would be self-correcting, in a wiki-way. Even regulating editing permissions and tracking changes would not involve major bureaucratic entanglements. If nothing else these public discussions might raise questions with respect to accounting issues and cloaked data, which might further lead to audit requests and clarification memos.

Why would amateur financiers and investors bother to voluntarily crunch these numbers? The most obvious answer is that they are analyzing companies in which they want to invest, and thus are doing a safety and soundness analysis to protect their own investments. But this isn't the only reason or even the primary reason. The vision I foresee is of people performing these analyses free of charge simply because they are interested, like the amateur astronomers. We no longer have to ask why someone would spend the time to do such a thing, for the internet has shown there are hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world willing to expend great amounts of time and energy in order to share information with others, for whatever reason.

In short... we have found a solution and it is us.

Wednesday
15Apr2009

On Addiction...

coffeecloud.jpg

[picture by Lois Payne]

When my intake of the mellifluous juice of the coffee bean is insufficient and panic begins to push through the phlegmatic facade of my self control, I feel drawn toward the ubiquitous corner coffee den to relieve fantod formation and in general bask in the desperate needy glow of other like minded devotees, a pungent cozy shelter where visible objects are but pasteboard masks, where I can shoulder bump my daily dreg fellows, those world weary prisoners who, like me, care not for the clear eyed truth seekers, that fast moving five-dollar-a-cup crowd with their grande low fat double lattes, designer cappuccinos and aromatic espressos prepared fresh to jet propel them into a noumenal world that is theirs for the taking. I prefer to pour my own rather than suffer the hard pomp of multitudinous choices while waiting in line behind coffee snobs who don't know a true addiction from a taste test. Here I feel comfortably at home with the kaffe lethargic klatsch crowd, those who court the slow clock, unwilling to gently go quite yet to their quotidian grinds, coffeespooning their lives to another press gang’s drumbeat, who would rather find their voice in a dark alkaloid crystalline compound whose drain drip and seep stimulates the nervous system far more than the ghost holiness of a mythic social work ethic illusion, and so, in peignoir complacency, we practice the ancient mocha ritual amongst roast aroma congeries in place of the sacrificial holy hush before percolating outward toward our own personal white whale grail quests, and I, gently jostled while jealously guarding my place in line, hold tight my chalice while nervously confronting the chrome coffee altar of spiritual fulfillment, its garish frontispiece sporting a too healthy sex goddess with long legs and a short skirt, her manic white smilies untainted by tannic coffee corrosives, hinting openly at the sorts of illicit pleasures one might find within the carafe, a liquid smoldering mother earthly jungle patch stroking my hypothalamus, beckoning my polymorphous primevality, whispering like a witch doctor to my unconscious to disregard all the cerebral bullshit about blood pressure and migraines, homocysteine and cholesterol levels, heart palpitations, nervous jitters, strokes, rheumatoid arthritis, insomnia and anxiety, to go instead for the gustatorial idness of it all; and I look about self-consciously, embarrassed by the sheer nakedness of my desire and am consoled, seeing the same lustful insanity in the visage of other likeminded disciples last suppering here with joe Jesus, whose grail is brim full not with a grape vintage but rather with the caffeineated coffeebean wonder juice now drip percolating through the suspirating machine before me, and I have a fleeting thought that maybe a priest should be on call to give the crowd its first early mass morning draught, blessing the participants and transforming the liquid miraculously into Christblood and the requisite donut into his body, reminding us of our fragile humanity and how we are destined for death and unworthy all, but no priest comes forth and the only transubstantial residue within the store’s interstices are the used grounds filling a garbage pail behind the counter, wrapped sadly within their soft white linen filters like little aborted fetuses in a busy abortion clinic. I pour my own with a shrug, inhaling the sacred delphic mists, replace the pot on its tripod and move dazedly away, allowing other patient members of the crowd their own rightful access, while above, on the chrome contraption, yet another pot begins drizzle filling on cue, ready to take the place of the first when emptied, an eternally recurring cycle surely worthy of a sorcerer's attention, with a sound as comforting to an addict’s ear as a church bell to a bishop. I then belly up to the bespattered condiment counter like a street whore to a car window, swaddling my cup in cardboard before greeting the tired eyed counter clerk. I pay her my pittance for hard addiction, head nodding to other familiar caffeine cravers before wandering outward, breathing in the unclean outside air, that noxious lethal brew of petroleum byproducts, pausing momentarily to pay homage to the virginal first sip of my elixir, carefully holding the cup in a two handed embrace, feeling the warmth, taking in its pleasure slowly, letting it fill and expand within, exhaling with eye closing oh god! enjoyment as I savor the first mouthful before swallowing, feeling the heat's initial hard thrust drain gutward, outspreading its pleasure before licking the cup rim’s residue and ambling down the sidewalk. Occasionally I spot the seriously addicted shadow walkers flitting around the social outskirts with their telltale jar jittery bug eyes, meth mouths, face wrinkles looking like an acid etching in progress, wrangled hands with ragged bitten nails, having only that next fix in mind, their desire so large it consumes every life moment. They make me uncomfortable, for I’ve seen those same needful looks in bookstores and barrooms, fast food pavilions, porn palaces and tech stores, and yes, in the mirror. Everyone has their addiction; some are simply more socially acceptable than others. The starched shirt with the bounce step who can hardly wait to work, the sex conqueror don juaning his way betwixt an uncountable number of female legs, the card playing horse betting slot machiner, the chain smoker, the alcoholic, all their desires are instantiations of Desire itself, the goddess of obsessive compulsivity, the Tantalus torturer and patron saint of humanity, she who makes us feel alive, pushes us toward our goals, rewards us with feel-goods for our accomplishments and punishes us with the quakes, the creeps, the willies, the heebie jeebs and the screaming meemies, lest we forget that forsaking her would be madness...

Friday
10Apr2009

Constraints (part 1)

Scott Dadich, in a recent Wired article, talks about the benefits of limitations on the creative act: 

Mondrian helped usher in modernism by limiting himself to 90-degree angles and primary colors. Miles Davis conceived Kind of Blue without the use of a single chord. More recently, the very iPhone on which you listen to Davis’ landmark album is a one-buttoned example of restraint in pursuit of an ideal, while the sublimely simple Google homepage is forever limited to 28 words. (Wired, 17.03, page 93)

This reminded me of a book by Douglas Hofstadter, Le Ton Beau de Marot, that covers, in true Hofstadter style, a range of topics, but is based on a poem written by Clement Marot, a 16th century French poet, entitled Ma Mignonne. Hofstadter uses the poem as (among other things) an example of constraint. We’re used to this in poetry—anyone who has written a sonnett, a couplet, a verse in imabic pentameter, is familiar with constraints, but Marot’s constraints are a bit more, uh… constraining. Here is a list of the poetic requirements for this form:

1. The poem has 28 lines
2. There are 3 syllables per line
3. In each line, the stress falls on the final syllable
4. The poem is a string of rhyming couplets: AA, BB, CC,…
5. The opening line is repeated in the last line
6. The poet inserts his own name into the poem

There are a few other rules (e.g., Marot changes from formal (vous) to informal (tu) at the halfway point of the poem), but leaving our rules at six, here is one of Hofstadter’s renditions:

My sweet dear,
I send cheer—
all the best!
Your forced rest
is like jail.
So don’t ail
very long.
Just get strong—
go outside,
take a ride!
Do it quick,
stay not sick—
ban your ache,
for my sake!
Buttered bread
while in bed
makes a mess,
so unless
you would choose
that bad news,
I suggest
that you’d best
soon arise
so your eyes
will not glaze.
Douglas prays
health be near,
my sweet dear.

I don’t know about you, but as soon as I saw this list of rules I had to try it myself. Here is one of my attempts:

Jezebel
in my hell,
as you left
me bereft
of my rhyme,
after time
then did I
with a sigh
realize
in surprise
only you
(without clue)
have the pow’r
oe’r the flow’r
that is me
dgp,
just to close
like a rose
my poor soul,
black as coal.
And I must,
to be just,
say to you
that I do
not feel right
in this plight,
in the hell,
Jezebel.

Some have argued that lack of constraint is one of the reasons why we have so much bad writing in the world today, and when I peruse my emails, I have to agree. Proper grammar is, after all, constraining.

Constraint seems to be the very essence of poetry, which is an attempt to reduce profundity to a maximally beautiful minimalism. If you find you cannot do this, then write prose, which is really what much “free verse” amounts to,

poetry
in which the
single
most important decision
is when to hit
the return key
!

Giving yourself rules forces you to be more creative, and the more comfortable you get with the rules the more you are willing to experiment. Make up your own rules: for example, write a poem about something and make the shape of your poem mirror your subject, as in:

              a
           small
        three-sided
     rectilinear figure

Staying within the rules becomes a wonderful impetus to exploration, and, if Kant is correct when he claims freedom consists in obeying the rules you yourself create, then it is also an exercise in free will. Revel in it! I’d love to see some of your own attempts at Marot’s form or a favorite form of your own. Send me a grammatically correct email. Meanwhile, here’s one more of mine (written for my wife):

Poopsie dear,
it is clear
I am too
ridicu-
lous to say.
Hyphena-
tion aside,
I deride
ideali-
zation by
misanthrop-
ical top-
ical bores
who fight wars.
Cacopho-
nously so!
Ambigu-
ity’s you
and its me
yes, but e-
quivoca-
tion makes Da-
vid abhor-
ently bor-
ing. But you
sparkle through
in the clear
Poopsie dear.

Wednesday
08Apr2009

On Rationality...

The latest spewing on the notion of rationality comes from James Brooks in a New York Times op-ed entitled “The End of Philosophy,” a misbegotten piece that should have been relegated to the editor’s wastebasket. There have been many responses to this already (Wilkins, Myers, Leiter, Smith, Liberman and others) and I should probably let those suffice, but my amygdala won’t let me, so here’s my own brief and belated two cents on the matter—okay, three…

First. Most of what Brooks tells us is old news. The problem comes in the conclusions he draws from the information. He doesn’t grasp some of the basics of evolution theory, and so makes the classic mistake of confusing ultimate and proximate causes.

The evolutionary approach also leads many scientists to neglect the concept of individual responsibility and makes it hard for them to appreciate that most people struggle toward goodness, not as a means, but as an end in itself.

The proximate cause of most people’s struggle toward goodness may be goodness itself, but ultimately it is a means to an end. This is elementary. 

Second. What science has found, is not that humans are irrational, that we do not use reason, but rather that what we have always called “reason” is in fact inextricably intertwined with what we call “emotion.” Neuroscience doesn’t demand a behavior change, but rather a new terminology. When we talk about our emotions as our “gut feelings” we are not talking about our stomachs; we are talking about neurons firing, which is exactly what we are talking about when we talk about reasoning. The only difference between the two is where the neurons reside. Do you let your cortex do the talking or your amygdala? What has been found is that the two function together. A non-functioning emotional system can lead to either an inability to make decisions or to psychopathy. If we don’t feel a spark of pleasure or disgust at the thought of an option, we have nothing to sway us one way or the other, no matter how repugnant the choices. 

Third. Brooks’ hackneyed view of rational vs irrational is best exemplified by the old Star Trek characters Spock and McCoy. Mr. Spock was of a race, the Vulcans, who suppressed emotions in favor of reason, and is taken by many, to be a picture of rationality. McCoy, on the other hand, was an emotional geyser. Brooks sees both scientists and the “new atheists,” as Spocks, devoid of emotion. But this is a straw man, which is the very point that the information he gives us is designed to show. Brooks’ article is incoherent because he maintains this antiquated view even while espousing evidence that refutes it! 

Sunday
05Apr2009

Our beloved work ethic...

You wake up to birds singing or radio alarm clock buzzings, street level background backfires or loudmouth TV talk show hostings, and it’s morning or it’s noon or it’s nighttime somewhere and you cat stretch in your elastic pajama nakedness or maybe your slovenly randy wrinkledness and wonder groggily whether you can toe curl up for another snatch of dreamland, or you contemplate a drug induced nausea pounding sinus headache while pondering the nether world inner workings of the deep running pipedreams beneath the porcelain altar before you, or sit bed straight, wide awake, and mentally scan your salt mine workaday schedule before dressing and driving, or maybe do the Excedrin and Prosac pill pop, and then it’s showertime with ivory soap and herbal shampoo and tea and ginger body lotion, followed by a pampered pedicure or manicure or both at the boutique, or maybe you do the quick two step instead into day before dirty clothes which still smell strongly of yesterday’s sweatshop, and maybe you shave or maybe you don’t, quick quaffing a warm beer breakfast of champions or maybe oatmeal or McDonalds, and your car beckons, having long ago seduced you into debt slavery with its irresistible low mileage, zero APR, ironically promising freedom and power, which then transformed into bondage and weakness, for now you are its slave and it your master as you dutifully do its bidding and merge into traffic on autopilot, chauffeuring yourself towards your working serfdom, for “This is your life!” you think as you join the septic flow of other individual compartment transports capillary converging on city central, and hospitals, banks, convenient stores, and strip malls flash pass your car’s window of consciousness, and maybe you feel sorry for those less fortunate working stiffs you pass daily, you a white collar pencil pushing sales schmuck and they but sunburned hard hat construction road workers, street sweeping their way to dusty death, but they feel the same arrogance toward you, sneering as you pass like a car driving chain gangster, sluicing toward your white collared prison of glass and steel, and the road workers and garbage collectors hold it over the homeless and are in turn down frowned upon by the blue collar factory rats, store clerks and carpenters who are held in contempt by the salesmen, bank executives, and  office managers, who are themselves under the thumb of the money managers and CEO’s and trust fund power mongering ponzi schemers who feel themselves high atop the food chain on the big kahuna scale of self esteem, but in reality are more insecure than the lowest rung daseiners, for the more commodities they collect the more they will eventually lose, for all are hardwired and plugged into the buy and sell bump and grind whether it’s bandages or bonds, diet cokes or confections, books or bombs, donuts or hog futures, all jobs being fully staffed day in and day out with slowly evolving troglodytes whose intricate survival features have been strangely exapted to fancy they are free and so look forward only to the ball game tailgate party times or the beach cottage weekend or Berkshires vacation or Martha’s Vineyard getaway where they can do as they please for a few hours or a day or a week or a month before returning to the necessity of their moneymaking survival schemes, maybe drowning their sorrows in crowd pleasing pastimes like concerts or casinos, barhopping binge drinking, strip clubs, intimate dinner gatherings, opera or beach house ballyhoos, immersed in the bog of their illusory freedom, which is stymied only by those niggling thoughts of a work day on the morrow, looming darkly, casting shadows over their happiness, for weekend holiday vacations are lifetime snapshots, their end being death, which we know is inevitable, but which we mentally push outward and away as best as possible, but are never completely successful, for the closer we get to our working death deadline the more we think about it, and in trying to focus our attention on how much fun we’re having we become sad, and eventually we do the bullet bite down and go to work, and what is this humanoid work obsession anyway? is it our apple eating curse which makes us do the brow sweating soil toil, nosing the grindstone, or is work a study in character construction, sorting the lazy from the elect? where prosperity indicates god’s blessings, and the poor and slowly starving panhandler sets a prime callous Malthusian example of what happens when god turns his back on you, so work work work to prove you’re his best boy, his favorite daughter or son, his darling, or his invisible hand might sucker punch you into a tumbledown or bitch slap you where the slum shines, or is work simply the will of god and our duty as god shaped human instruments, part of a catholic or protestant ethic formed around a deferral of our wet salvation dreams? for isn’t a day at work instead of a day at play a gratification put off, like spending our lives on this troubled vale instead of frolicking in the clouds with haloes and heavenly splendor? an ethic emphasizing diligent punctuality and box lifting, bale toting obedience to the boss god, and did this new work instinct develop from a change in the  economic structure of society resulting in a subsequent behavior revaluation or was it outsourced by the protestant reformation’s theological belief shifts? for feudalism’s plunge meant more work extracted from the human animal, more mind numbing slave labor, and how nice religion was there to preach and persuade the working masses that their plight was uncomfortable yet necessary for their salvation, to inject us with the death virus and disease and then dangle the cure like a carrot, forbidding suicide shortcut to bliss except for jihad joes, for life on earth is not meant to be easy and the reward awaits us in the wings, after death’s curtain call, and the rich capitalist’s profits are but gifts from god showing his approval for good stewardship, for he gifts those who please him and punishes those who don’t, and such a system is bound to succeed, since the workers will be like fanatic crusaders, compliant and without complaint for a gate pass into god’s kingdom, and even now, when a person’s god ordained calling is replaced by one’s public usefulness, social hierarchies are ideologically justified by correlating slothful idleness with poverty and social decay, but when the industrial revolution darkened the sky with factory soot, the mass produced usurped the merely homemade, skillful craftsmanship replaced by anonymous discipline as long lines of craftsmen forsook their bankrupt ancestral professions and moved to the city to slave before manmade iron mawed monsters, selling their souls to the company store and working their offspring in order to survive, and the psychological reward for delayed gratification disappeared as a justification for the labor armies, for factories give rise to over production which destroys the assurance of prosperity so essential for the contented worker, for over production leads to market gluts which leads to sales declines which lead to less profit which leads to lowered production which leads to layoffs which leads to suffering, and woe be to those who would gather together after work and talk in hostile tones of labor unions or luddite led machine breaking forays, for the government always sides with the wealthy, punishing those who would dare delay the creation of commodities or limit the S&P or dam the rapidly flowing profit streams of the financially and politically powerful, and here in the information age little has changed despite the worker empower and enrichment movement which is a simplistic see-through sham designed to finagle more productivity from the average working stiff, and it matters not whether your management style is authoritarian or participatory, pay scales alone are no longer sufficient for the contented worker bee, but business doesn’t care about the personal happiness of its minions, only productivity matters and if you have to burn them out in a year or two and replace them, who cares, for it’s the law of Spencerian evolution, and so you arrive at work and maybe punch the time clock and take your regular place in the line assembling cars or boats or toasters or bicycles or houses or twinkies, or selling insurance or burgers or bonds, and it’s all piece work, for you never sit down to custom make a boat from scratch or a dress or an airplane, instead making only the pieces, parts and parcels, and so you spend your working day putting heat elements into waffle irons or underwriting a loan for a person you’ll never see or know, or bolting seats in an airplane you’ll never sit in, or cream filling a donut you’ll never eat, or drywalling a home shell you’ll never live in, or selling stocks you could never afford to buy, or perfectly placing erasers within pencils or pounding out pins, or selling dresses, or pumping port-o-potties, and the sheer redundancy is enough to freeze your brain, following all the rules with big brother watching while you stock the grocery store and dry good shelves precisely according to company protocol policies, trying not to be caught stealing time from the corporation with unauthorized conversational fraternization with fellow employees, and being overly polite to asses who are angry with everyone who does not give them the service they do not deserve, and maybe for paying two cents more than the store down the street for their maxipads or their asparagus soup, and having the nerve to think maybe you give a good goddamn about their personal petty foibles, and so you politely thank them for their business with cheerful façade and a fake smile while underbreath cursing them or calling them a fat-necked cow behind their backs, and then shout, “Next!” and start again, and you have to think sometimes the employment pay scales are out of kilter, kaput and cattywampus, for shouldn’t the ditch digging grunt shoveling back breaking clods over the shoulder all day in any weather get paid more than the movie store rental clerk who stool sits behind the counter and pushes buttons in air conditioned central heated comfort? and surely more than the college professor who teaches in prestigious surroundings with summers off and sabbaticals to boot, or what about that working girl at the road construction site, the one with the hand held stop and go street sign who stands all day, wet or dry, hot or cold, listening on the radio for her far distant, unseen sign holding fellow to give her the static crackling high sign so she can twist her wrist just so and turn her octagonal form from the stop side to the slow, thus allowing the auto peristalsis to proceed, and stop and proceed and stop, hour after hour, day after day, and small wonder she wants to go home and relax in her recliner with Bud in hand and watch TV and be entertained in the coziness of her trailer home, perching her sweaty feet on the butt burned coffee table and dozing until dinner thaws and the bed beckons, and in a perfect world her minimum wage would be maximized over and above that of the cold calling market caller, who sits all day in a comfy office chair while interrupting her likes during a hard earned microwaved dinner hour couch potato feast, earning bonus points for convincing her or you or me we need spleen insurance or cheap viagra prescriptions or a new telephone service or buffalo steak or ostrich eggs or hair inserts, but the Market takes all this into account, adding imperfection and scarcity to the mix, putting precise valuations upon labor, and so we strive to better ourselves by making more money though we constantly hear that it won’t bring happiness, which no one really believes until they get gobs of it and go off and buy lots of Stuff, which means they then have that much more to be unhappy about and they turn greedy and mean and smallminded because they think the have nots want what they have, and they themselves always want more and when is enough enough? how many stock options constitute nirvana? how many billions bring you to heaven’s door? how large a trust fund to paradise? and who is happier? the beer guzzling red flanneled wool capped weekend warring deer hunter who sits in his blind in the early morning misty crispness on over hunted public land amongst rusted cans and pampers while cradling his Remington pump with something akin to love, hoping only to hear the crackling sound of a six point buck down below so he can do the deer camp bag and brag while clinking bottles with best friends he would die for? or the suave sophisticate top rung businessman, nattily dressed in the finest sport tweeds money can buy, who jets to his one thousand acre Wyoming spread for a rustic luxurious weekend bird or elk hunt, gathering with a dozen or more backstabbing business associates, hoping to both impress and intimidate and maybe close a business deal or merger while finding birds or beasts to kill with the help of professional guides and bwana bush beaters, sighting down a hand engraved gold inlaid Parker Invincible double barrel twelve gauge, drawing a bead on his hapless prey? and when do you realize that the hierarchy is an illusion, that the masters eventually become slaves to their slaves and the slaves masters of their masters? that there is a life and death struggle going on here, a dialectical death match, in which there are no winners or losers, for the one needs the other as much as the other needs the one? each defines itself in terms of the other, a mediation of mutual interdependence, like being and nothingness, and when this mediation breaks down, who do you think will prevail?