A Brief Technical Introduction to Astrology

Each person is uniquely represented by his or her natal chart; no two are the same. Even identical twins who are born within a few minutes of each other may have different ascendant (or “rising”) signs, which changes the orientation of the chart by a few degrees, just enough to give each placement (a planet-sign combination) an entirely different context for expression (the houses). This can cause profound differences in behavior and life paths even though the identical twins will have all of the same placements. Even if they do have the same ascendant, the few minutes that separate them will turn the natal chart ever so slightly, causing the “aspects” to have slightly different “orb values”, which will cause a difference in the strength of each trait that those aspects represent. As I am sure you are already lost by these terms, this brings me to the first set of technical things that I have learned about astrology.

First, you are more than your “sun” sign, which is typically the only sign that people are aware of. It is also referred to as the “star sign” or “zodiac sign”, but these are newbie terms. The sun is one of many planets in the birth chart, and it is associated with only one part of a person’s personality, albeit an important one: the ego – the default personality mode in which one operates around people with whom he or she is fairly well acquainted. It is usually the style of personality by which you want to be seen. Your sun is released and shows up with someone once you’ve “broken the ice” with them. Most people who know a little bit about astrology are still only aware of their “big three” signs which includes the sun as well as the moon which is the emotional, internal center and that part of one that one likely identifies with when one is alone, and the ascendant (or “rising” as it is more commonly referred to) which is the unconscious mode in which one operates in new and unfamiliar situations.

To get a bit more technical, there are three parts to astrology that are vital for understanding anything in greater depth: signs, planets, and houses. Signs are constellations such as Aries or Libra, and they represent styles of expression. Aries is an aggressive and impulsive, yet socially-attractive style, while Libra is a style concerned with balance and fairness, also typically attractive to others in a slightly softer and more charming way than Aries. A planet, the sun and the moon included, is the particular part of your personality. When a constellation is inline with a planet, a particular expression style is being applied to the part of your personality represented by that planet. The houses are the pizza slices of a chart; they are the contexts of life in which those personality styles occur.

To tie all of this together in an example, Venus, which is the feminine, sensual, social, and romantic side of someone, can be in Gemini, which would value intellect, variety, and fun in romantic relationships. Let’s say that placement were in the 2nd house in the birth chart, which is the context of money and material possessions. When Venus in Gemini is expressed in the 2nd house, that could, depending on what else is going on in the birth chart, be an indication that one would have a tendency to be a sex worker (and really enjoy it). My Venus is in Gemini, but it is in the 5th house which is the context of creative self-expression, entertainment, and romance, so although this placement makes me a bit of a hoe, it works quite well here as my sexual and romantic relations are reserved for creative and recreational fun and — when paired with masculine Mars in Aries in the second house (the context of communication) — writing erotic poetry. An empty house indicates a lack of value placed on the context that house represents. For example, my 2nd house has no planets in it, so I don’t care much about money or material possessions. This is why I am not a sex worker. See? Shit’s complex.

The specificity of a part of a chart often indicates its complexity and importance. The sun sign isn’t very specific. It is sort of a general box, a “type” as in MBTI, that you’re shoved into when one isn’t aware of the other parts of a chart. One might say to another “We’re both Cancers, so we’re totally like the same person omg.” Their egos may be similar, but there are plenty more layers to the personality, such as the other placements and the house in which the sun is situated, that will add virtually infinite complexity to the role that the person’s ego plays in their life and therefore to the degree of differences between Cancer sun people. The sun sign changes about every thirty days. Is everyone who was born from late June to late July, with their sun in Cancer, the same? Of course not. In my research so far, and in simply introspecting on the fact that my sun, for example, is in cancer yet my personality doesn’t seem to identify with that style, I think that the degree to which your sun sign matters is roughly equal to the degree to which one has awareness and control over his or her own ego. Fire suns (Aries, Leo, Sagittarius), for example, are hard to control. They tend to be quite self-centered and easier to spot. Fire reacts when you pour gas onto it, after all.

Sun sign discrepancy could also be due to the degree to which the ego is suppressed by a more dominant force ruling the birth chart on the whole. Look at the birth chart on the whole. Is there a sign that dominates your chart that is not the sun sign? If so, especially if that sign has key placements in the moon or ascendant, this might be the reason that you don’t identify with your sun sign. For example, my Cancer sun is squashed by my stronger and more abundant Capricorn planets, so I come off more as a Capricorn than a Cancer. Even professional astrologers I have met were shocked to find that I was a Cancer sun person.

There is also a way to calculate why you may not identify with your sun sign. This takes us into a secondary set of terms needed to understand astrology in a technical way. Each sign has a unique “element” and “modality” combination. Elements (fire, earth, air, water) are attitudes that signs have, whereas modalities (cardinal, fixed, mutable) are roles that the signs play. Your dominant sign may not be a sign that shows up in any placements in your chart at all, but it may be the dominant element/modality combination of the chart on the whole. For example, Taurus may not show up in your chart, but because your chart is comprised of more earth and fixed signs than anything else, the person could carry a Taurean energy on the whole, seeming “unchanging in your ways” due to the fixed dominance of your chart and “grounded” in attitude due to the earth dominance.

If there is one specific area of astrology that seems to provide the deepest insight into the whole of human psychology, it is the aspects. An aspect in astrology is a relationship between two planets that forms a more complex and unique energy. Aspects show up within someone’s birth chart and between the charts of two people. Contrary to what pop astrology may have you believe, it is aspects, not signs, that are the most important parts of a chart. Whereas a sign represents a style of expression of a particular part of someone’s personality, an aspect combines the styles between two parts of oneself, providing more substance about what someone is like. The type of aspect is determined by the angular relationship between those planets.

A CONJUNCTION between two planets means that they fall at or near 0 degrees of each other and therefore likely share the same sign and house, but they may not if they are on a cusp. Either way, these two parts of one’s personality will be in harmony with one another. It is as if one part of yourself has seamless communication and understanding with that other part. The most common example is Sun-conjunct-Mercury which means that there is a fluid connection between one’s ego identity and their style of communication. A conjunction is thought to be a positive aspect, and it usually is. I think, however, this can blur lines too much at times just as two people who are very similar can lose their senses of individuality when together. There are clearly times in which one should be able to separate conjuncted parts of his or her personality (e.g. romance and work) and reflect on which part needs tweaking in order to make better decisions in the long run. For example, if one’s sun and moon are in a strong conjunction, it means that one has trouble understanding whether he or she is acting from ego or from emotional reflection. Neither way is entirely good in my estimation. This person may need to work extra hard to understand where the origins of their behaviors lie. I have a friend, for example, whose sun and moon are both in Virgo. She makes quick and confident decisions, but she often winds up in a hot mess because she doesn’t take time to think about why she is so confident in that decision. I have another friend who is a double Taurus. Equally confident and simple-minded in her decisions, she moves more slowly and carefully, so she doesn’t find quite as much trouble. She still, however, lives with some regret about her decisions later on. The style that a conjunction takes on depends on the sign, but in any case, this harmonious aspect comes with challenges. A good rule to keep in mind while dealing with matters related to a conjunction in you chart is: “separation, then integration”. We have to understand our individual bits in isolation before we can make them work together in a way that aims us toward the true potential that a conjunction can afford.

An OPPOSITION aspect is when two placements fall within or near 180 degrees of each other, meaning that they are directly across from each other in the chart wheel. They fall in signs and houses that seem on the surface to be opposites. One should not think of them as opposites, however, but as being in opposition with one another. They are shadows of one another, to speak in Jungian terms – two sides of the same coin, each wishing at times that the other did not exist. They have the same modality but different elements, so they play tug-of-war with each other, struggling for power. This inner tension may be felt very deeply by the individual and stunt decision-making ability. The opposition is often regarded as an adverse aspect, and it often is. However, I think it is the best aspect when it involves key planets. As someone who has a chart dominated by opposition aspects, I can firmly say that this presents the greatest and most necessary opportunity for growth of any aspect. I see it not as a struggle for power, but as a struggle for balance, for both sides of the personality must learn to coexist. At 180 degrees they are at opposite ends of the universe, so to speak, but they forced to face each other from afar. When balance between them is found, another level of self-awareness and confidence is reached, and people notice it. I have personally been told that I possess a very balanced personality. The reason is because of all of my opposition aspects between my Cancer and Capricorn planets and the degree to which I consciously seek balance between them.

Whereas the adverse nature of the opposition presents an opportunity to grow, planets in a SQUARE aspect are usually better off avoided. This is a 90 degree relationship between planets that creates perpendicular lines through the center of the chart; it the most harsh relationship between any two parts of one’s personality. These planets will be expressed through signs that are three removed from each other, so they will be similar in modality but not in element. This means that they want to play the same role but have incompatible styles in which they do so. It is never a case of opposites attract as it is in an opposition, but rather, these two parts of oneself will constantly be in competition with one another, struggling for power. They will create difficulty because there is a lack of understanding between them and often a stubborn unwillingness to come to an understanding. My Capricorn ascendant and Aries Mars (the masculine, action-taking, and sexual part of one’s personality) have a strong square aspect. This can lead me to come off as very argumentative and abrasive with certain new acquaintances, especially if I perceive them as ignorant and weak. Both Capricorn and Aries have leadership tendencies, but in styles that don’t see eye to eye. Whereas opposition placements such as Capricorn and Cancer are at 180 degrees and play father/mother roles, Aries will be pointed north when Capricorn is pointed east. They see past one another as they are literally aiming in different directions. When they are forced to work together, it is typically best for them to find structured roles in which they are both naturally suited and to stay out of each other’s way.

Learn your square aspects if you have any, and keep those parts of yourself compartmentalized whenever possible. On the relationship side of things, there are no two sun sign people who cannot make it work if both are willing. As a Cancer sun and a Capricorn-dominant chart, I have issues making it work with Aries women as most of my planets will be squared to her sun. This difficulty comes solely down to an ego battle, so if two people can leave their egos at the door, then there is no firm reason why a relationship between two square sun signs cannot work. In fact, a romantic relationship between to squared suns can be ego-shattering and therefore extremely fruitful for the personal growth of each individual. My brother is an Aries sun, and his girlfriend is a Cancer sun. There is nothing else in their composite chart to indicate that they would be incompatible for any other major reason, and as it turns out, they have an extremely harmonious and relatively ego-free connection. Of course, it helps that my brother’s ascendant and moon are both in Cancer.

The SEXTILE is a type of aspect that places the two planets at or near 60 degrees apart. There is usually, but not always, one sign between the signs of those two planets, so sextile sign pairings (e.g. Aries + Gemini with Taurus between them) share neither an element nor a modality. What they do share, however, is yin (earth + water) or yang (fire + air) energy., so they complement each other in the key ways. They have different reasons for valuing similar things and different ways of achieving many of the same goals. There is a lot of agreement between them about what needs to be done and respect for each other about their differing styles on how to do it.

TRINE planets are about 120 degrees apart and usually fall within four planets and four houses of one another, so they share an element but not a modality. One comfortably cedes control to the other, but they are similar in their grounding. Cardinal Capricorn and mutable Virgo are compatible signs, for example. Capricorn takes on a leadership role and Virgo a more following role, and they feel comfortable in this dynamic since they are both “grounded” and “in their element” as earth signs. My chart, for example, is Capricorn dominant, and I find myself highly attracted to Virgo women. There tends to be an understanding and acceptance about our lifestyle choices and personality quirks, and I am able to express my natural cardinal decisiveness with the comfort of knowing that she will not only go with it but will also generally agree that the right decision is being made for us both.

There is one aspect that is often overlooked, and when it occurs in one’s natal chart, one should be made aware of it. It is not always considered a major aspect, but I think it should be. That is the INCONJUNCTION (or QUINCUNX). Whereas the trine at 120 degrees is seen as a nice, complementary aspect and the opposition at 180 degrees is seen as a challenging one, the quincunx is at 150 degrees. These two placements are completely neutral toward one another, for they share neither element nor quality and are distant from one another. They therefore lack an understanding and any ability to communicate. They speak different languages, have different goals, and deeply value different things. These two parts of one’s personality will be naturally compartmentalized and kept separate unless they encounter a tremendous stroke of harmonious luck. My Venus, for example, is in Gemini, which is already a taboo placement as it means I’m kind of a whore. To make matters worse, it is inconjuncted with my Midheaven in Scorpio which deals with career ideals. Details aside, what this means is that my romantic pursuits, and even platonic friendships, seem to be things that I cannot reconcile with the vision I have for my career potential. I often feel I am at a crossroads between having to choose love/friend interaction and work toward my bigger goals. Gemini and Scorpio are two signs that are infamous for not being on the same page when it comes to organizing time and priorities. An inconjunct between two of your placements will make you feel that confusion very deeply. As a side thought, I would suspect that many wrong decisions in life made by people, who are otherwise perfectly self-aware, are the result of a inconjunct/quincunx between two key planets in a birth chart.

I hope that the technicalities that I have just described are somewhat clear. I suspect that most writing about astrology that is to come will be about the aspects, so I wanted to lay out these descriptions as a foundation for future posts. As always , you can visit my YouTube channel for more regular content about astrology and my other areas of research.

My Journey to Astrology and Its Advantage Over Other Systems

The thesis of this post is to give brief descriptions of what led me to astrology and of its main advantage over other personality systems on account of its being an “open system”. I will also mention in the conclusion what I believe to be its purpose. This is not a technical description of any aspect of astrology, nor is it an account defending its validity. There will be more on those topics later!

For the last 10 years, I have been independently researching the human personality in its many conceptions, including but not limited to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Enneagram, Big 5, and Hermann Brain Dominance Indicator. One of the reasons for my interest in this is to give myself an intellectual framework within which to understand other people. The reason I need an intellectual framework within which to understand people is because I almost completely devoid of empathy.

OMG!

It’s true. I don’t care about you.

This doesn’t mean I don’t value your existence, however, nor does it mean that I’m not intuitive of morals and intentions – that I don’t know things that transcend the facto-linguistic realm. Not at all. In fact, I’m probably more intuitive than most because I lack empathy. At the end of the day, the truth doesn’t care about how you feel, and since I can’t feel what you feel, then I can’t be distracted by it, and so I can intuit the truth unhindered. I can tell quite clearly when someone is behaving in a way that is directed by their emotions and impulses, completely devoid of thought. Although I cannot share the experience of those feelings, I can still observe them and “play the role” of some beneficial course of action. Intuition and feelings are not the same. Personality systems have given me secret knowledge that helps me to do that.

One thing that I intuitied growing up as a virtual-sociopath is that people’s words and actions almost never lined up. I couldn’t simply ask them why they act the way that they do. They’d just lie, usually for ego-preservation.

Maybe they just don’t think before they speak or act.’

Maybe they’re just animals, and I’m the only rational being on the planet.’

Maybe they’re just less intelligent. I mean, I’m the only one around here in a “gifted” program, right?’

Maybe this is just how humans are, and I’m actually an alien.’

These are all thoughts that I had as a child. I didn’t get it. I could put patterns of behavior together, but I didn’t get why those patterns were so. Adults were kids to me, and kids were infants. I was an old soul, an impartial observer looking down on everyone. I couldn’t share what I cared about with people in the way I wanted to: e.g. my thoughts, my jokes, my music, my writing, etc. Interest would spark for a moment, but they would quickly lose attention like a dog getting distracted by things of impulse, completely devoid of thought and substance. Their lack of understanding forced me into isolation. I was used to and naturally inclined toward being alone, and I found solitude at a very early age, but did I need to be alone always? That didn’t seem right.

It wasn’t all premature narcissism, by the way. In fact, to be clear, I’ve never had a superiority complex that outweighed an inferiority complex somewhere else in my being. So, as I was looking to understand others more, I knew I had to try at least as hard to understand myself, where my inner balance was to be found. There were certain norms that I just didn’t understand or abide by: I think before I speak and act, so why would I apologize if I meant it? Giving should be a reflection of your understanding of and love for a person, so why would I exchange presents with someone just because it is Christmas and when I don’t know or like them? Why would I date or be intimate with someone before understanding myself? Wouldn’t I just fuck up their life? This all seemed like reckless behavior to me, and it still does to a large degree.

Fast-forwarding to young adulthood, I had found a personality system or two (starting with MBTI) that made it all begin to make sense – why I was the way I was and how those ways were different from others. I began to practice those foreign social norms a bit more frequently as I tweaked my social value structure ever so slightly to accommodate this new knowledge. I became a more likable and outgoing person overall. I became much more balanced. I became much more aware of other value structures that people lived by and more forgiving of them for being wrong (and for not caring that they were).

However, I came to exhaust the systems I had been studying. I knew everything about them, but I still didn’t know everything about people. They were closed systems. I needed more if I were to know the full truth.

The problem with a closed system is that what you can learn about its subject is limited to that system’s structure while the subject, especially in the case of human personality, is virtually unlimited. What happens in research within a closed system is that when you gain precision, you lose the probability of accuracy. The more detailed a rabbit hole you go into, the less generally-true it becomes because the more conditional that truth becomes on the unquestioned, and false, general theory. Whatever actual truth is found is by a stroke of luck and often not recognized. That “knowledge” will therefore be severely limited in usefulness for individual cases. The point of knowledge is to be used, right?

Carl Jung is known as the founding father of MBTI because of his work in “Personality Types”, but in the preface to that book, he warns of the limitations of taking the “cognitive functions” at face-value, formulating rigid types on their basis, and then stuffing every individual into one of 16 boxes. The more boxes, the more accurate each will be for some individual, but these typing systems should be taken with a pinch of salt when in fact, if the point of personality psychology (as with any science) is to be generally accurate as well as precise, then there are as many personality types as there are people on earth. Closed systems lack depth and substance despite their frequent utility. Jung acknowledged that his system was a closed one and would probably bawk at where MBTI has taken his ideas, though he wouldn’t be surprised.

I share Jung’s sentiments, and I could say that astrology found me more than I found it. It found me, perhaps cosmically, because I actually care about what is true (and maybe that’s all I care about), and that truth is best for everyone whether or not one wants it. Astrology immediately began to account for all of the mistakes of the other systems I had studied, and it seemed to have infinite substance beyond that. It seemed to be metaphysical as well as quantifiable on the local level. How could it “do it all” philosophically and scientifically?

For one, astrology is not a closed system and is therefore virtually un-masterable. My mastery of the other personality systems forced me to grow out of them. I don’t claim to know everything there is to know about people simply because I know everything there is to know about those systems. That would be foolish. Those systems are rational conceptualizations with limits and flaws as obvious as the people who created them. In realizing those flaws, I had to move on to discover astrology. It was just the natural progression that my interest took me in. It contains all of the knowledge of the other systems combined more holistically, and it has an abundance of additional knowledge that is intended to be useful as long as one is truly open to learning without ego. Each astrological natal chart is unique to that person. It cannot on the whole apply to any other person on earth when it is properly understood. As I began to study mine, I began to see the openness of the system. It seemed like a “system of systems” in fact, as its micro-theories remain fluid. It can afford this fluidity and still remain consistently oriented toward general truth because it has no general theory governing it. The general theory, if any, is simply “that Truth-itself and about oneself matters”.

Astrology does not contain a general theory, nor is it a religion, nor is it a belief system of any sort. As astrologer Edwin Learnard says, “the stars may impel but do not compel.” It simply regards humans as ancient, spiritual beings possessing a unique and unlimited degree of complexity, which we obviously are, and goes from there. We can still willfully direct our lives despite where our nature may incline us. Our complexity must be fleshed out in both specific and general ways. Most scientific approaches to understanding human personality are only specific or general, but not both. Again, when you gain precision, you lose the probability of accuracy. Astrology becomes more accurate in detail, however. It challenges one to constantly go between dilating and constricting focus every time a new bit of information is presented. The more you do this, the more you can see in detail, and then the bigger the picture you can gain of the individual as a being who transcends the sum of those individual parts. Because of this, Carl Jung himself regarded astrology as representing “the sum of all the psychological knowledge of antiquity” although he never wrote a formal work on the subject.

The last point that I will emphasize – and there will be more technical posts to follow – is that the will to learn is vital when it comes to astrology. There is no rational argument that will convince the most intelligent person in the world to take astrology seriously if they are unwise and unwilling to look inward. Yes, there are many people who learn about it in its shallow, pop-horoscope manifestations for self-validation purposes, but that is neither its purpose nor will that be its effect if you take learning about it seriously. That is not what looking inward affords you. Astrology presents what is, allowing you to make the choice to look inward, and that will destroy you before it validates you, hence the fear surrounding it.

Of course, by looking inward, one also is forced to look outward. One should always be doing both – dilating and constricting focus from general to specific and back. There are qualities within us that are both general and specific, as well as we individuals are specific parts of our general reality. Without understanding yourself, you cannot know how to fit into reality as it is. If personality research is your preferred means of gaining self-awareness, that most local part of “that which is”, astrology is the best of those means. I know because I have studied them all, and after just one year of researching astrology, I find that I know more about myself and about people in general, yet I simultaneously discover every day how little I know about astrology, about people, about the universe, and about what is most true. If you’re learning in the right way, then the more you learn, the more you find that you don’t actually know.

The truth is a skittish, feral cat. You cannot act too quickly. You must sit without attitude and expectation, and let it come to you if and when it is meant to. Astrology, as it seems to me, is the only avenue toward understanding human nature and the self that is systematically without hubris. It simply presents all that is, leaving you to discover why.

Writegenstein #1: Does this look right to you?

We do not typically think of Wittgenstein as an aesthetic philosopher, but he was. So much of his writing, regardless of the perceived topic, was not strictly about the topic we attribute to it. It was most fundamentally about intuition.

“Does this look right to you?” (Lectures on Aesthetics, 1.)

Things of an aesthetic nature (art, music, wine, etc.) are things whose objective critiques — insofar as those can be made — are founded in intuition. Sometimes that intuition is shared among a group, and sometimes it is not. Nevertheless, we often criticize the validity of the critique itself as often as we criticize the aesthetic object.

Funnily, we seem to reserve “critique of critique” for the greatest thinkers and artists, at least before they’re dead and gone. Wittgenstein himself is no exception. Ironically, it is establishment critique that is most worthy of such criticism but least often receives it, e.g. mainstream journalism that simply parrots whatever cherry-picked information will most easily push along their political agenda.

Critique of what is good and true, however, is an endeavor that is too far removed from the very art, music, or idea in question. This is an act of ego, fueled by preconditioned hate, based on a willful misunderstanding of the object. That ego encompasses one’s identity. That which one hates, one in fact cares about deeply, and that about which one deeply cares, one is.

Wittgenstein wrote on every topic of philosophy, but when you read him closely, it is clear that he was always writing with one intention: to conceptualize ‘the person’. What we are cannot be sufficiently described on material grounds. Our perception sets us apart from other beings as as it does from one another.

What it looks like to me — taking ourselves as aesthetic objects worthy of critique — is that we are things that care about things. Ironically, the less you care about something, the more clearly you will be able to conceptualize it. This is the job of the philosopher. This is why Wittgenstein, not limiting his work to one topic or another but focusing on how to conceptualize each part as an aspect of the grander reality of the human condition, should be regarded as a pure philosopher — one who is indifferent to the outcome as long as that outcome is true.

Opinion: Joe Rogan, a Renaissance man

Edited by Mike Gorman

Like most millennials, I remember the early 2000s when Joe Rogan was just that drill sergeant who hosted “Fear Factor,” but it turns out he’s actually a pretty cool and well-rounded dude. Was he just playing a character back then, or was he actually that guy that we loved to hate?

His reputation is different now. He’s a man’s man, a talented TV and UFC presenter and a former national champion martial artist himself. He enjoys hunting wild game and running through the Hollywood Hills with his insta-famous dog. He likes cars, music and unfiltered conversations about everything from science to sex. He has an open, refreshing sense of humor and is one of the most popular comedians of our day. If I were pressed to choose one individual as our Renaissance man, I’d look no further. The fact that Joe has accomplished so much is impressive, but there is another purpose he serves which might top it all: his podcast called the “Joe Rogan Experience.”

Podcasting is kind of a new thing. Just as emojis and memes allow us to express thoughts and emotions more simply than through text alone, podcasting is a platform for learning that is less limiting than reading a book or sitting through a lecture. The latter two involve someone “talking at” you, leaving you with the feeling that you must agree or disagree with the whole message or with the person.

Although podcasting is new, it is ancient in essence. Podcasts, in the form that Joe’s takes, are closely in line with forum-style discussion used by philosophers in ancient Greece. The long format has no time limit, and the goal of each conversation is to understand as many sides of the topic as possible and to make clear the terms with which that is being done, all with a healthy dose of humor. Joe converses from near-universal appeal given the broad spectrum of his interests, not in a manner that is too intellectual or pretentious. He stops his guests and plays devil’s advocate when he senses that the audience might be getting lost. His curiosity is sincere and child-like. He asks “why,” is a good rhetorician and doesn’t shy away from debate when his guest seems rigid or incomplete in a position. But because he is so open and versatile, it rarely comes to debate.

This is precisely what education was all about in Greek times, and which we’ve strode far from in recent centuries: thinking, discussing, arguing, structuring, understanding and learning from ideological conflict. That has been lost, however, and now the academy is saturated by pretentious book-readers who stay locked in their ivory towers, closed off from all but those who share their path and their unchallenged, institutionally dogmatic opinions. Readership of academic journals is confined to those who are actively participating in the research. It has no popular appeal and little impact on the world. The university, from a humanities standpoint, is worthless.

In Greece, philosophy and critical thinking were the core of learning, and things anyone could participate in. Joe is a player in the resurgence of that ancient game. He has had guests such as fellow comedians, physicists, academics, journalists, celebrities, nutritionists and provocateurs of all sorts. He has produced more than 1,200 episodes. If there aren’t a few that you find interesting, then it’s likely you have no interests.

Having begun 10 years ago as a comedy show from his living room, Joe’s is by far the most listened-to in the world. His subscriber base and monthly downloads are in the tens of millions and are growing. But why? The episodes typically range from one to four hours. Who has time for that? The answer is: anyone. First of all, it’s easy. You don’t have to physically be anywhere. You can listen on your own time while you perform mundane tasks. Having a good podcast can even motivate you to get those dreaded things done. Podcasts essentially sell time, but there is something much bigger going on that Joe does best. It is the search for truth, in the philosophical sense, and it is essential.

We live in the best time to live, in the most liberated country that has every been dreamed of. Quality of life for my great grandparents would be considered poverty today in almost every way. We now have access to luxuries beyond our ancestors’ wildest dreams. Yet we are ungrateful. We are divided by opinion and seek confirmation of our beliefs by filtering our Twitter and Instagram feeds to see only those things that offer us expedient pleasure, without having to challenge ourselves in the ruthlessly competitive jungle formerly known as the real world. But, challenge ourselves we should, to question confirmations of what we think we already know. Challenge ourselves to expand our knowledge while we go for a jog or do the dishes. Learning is a form of growing, and one cannot grow without shedding layers of stubborn deadwood from our ripe, malleable cores. Challenge ourselves by seeking truth, through podcasting, as philosophers do – philosophers like Joe Rogan.

, Houma Courier & Thibodaux Daily Comet

Opinion: The difference between empathy and compassion

Edited by Mike Gorman
To lack compassion is seen by many today, especially in political debates, as a humanistic fallacy. Compassion is portrayed by lefties in the social justice fight as the highest virtue, and to be rational and factual is “triggering.” As a fairly rational and factual person, I would understand this better if “compassion” weren’t so often interchanged with “empathy.” It is typically empathetic people, unlike myself, who make a deal of this. Today I want to explore the difference between empathy and compassion and how can we define compassion so that it is something worth striving for.

Empathy is more straightforward. We ca define it as the ability to understand someone’s experience by sharing their feelings. One can have an empathetic understanding of parental love of a child only by having a child and loving it. Others can only sympathize with that feeling – to understand that parental love is somehow deeper and more unconditional than other types of love, for example, by relating it what one feels for one’s dog (which is not a child, by the way). Apart from life-changing experiences such as having a child, however, there isn’t much one can do to learn to empathize – to feel what another is feeling. It seems to be an ability that one has to a fixed degree from birth. Many psychologists agree.

Since the 1980s, psychologists have used the Big 5 model to measure and understand personality traits in a consistent way. The acronym for the traits is OCEAN (openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, neuroticism). Once measured, the results are understood in percentiles, and the distribution among the data pool is represented by a bell curve where most people center around the average. These traits show that everyone’s personality is unique. They explain the ways in which my biological brother and I are so different despite our having been born less than two years apart with identical upbringings. They strongly indicate that one’s personality is more nature than nurture, it is thought, by about an 80-20 ratio.

The trait relevant to these purposes is agreeableness. This is the maternal aspect of personality that measures rates of aggression on the low percentile end and empathy on the high end. The average woman is over 20 percent higher than the average man in agreeableness. This trait difference explains why women are more likely to choose people-based professions such as health care and social work, why they are more suited (apart from obvious biological reasons) to care for infants and why there are 10 times fewer of them in prison. Men tend to be more thing- and system-oriented, dominating fields like engineering, economics and serial killing. In short, agreeableness measures one’s innate propensity to empathize, and that is a people-oriented matter. This trait cannot be changed throughout life – only managed. If we assume that compassion is a moral virtue, and if empathy and compassion are the same, then there is plenty of empirical evidence to suggest that women are better people than men are. Of course, this is absurd.

If compassion is a virtue, as I think it is, we cannot equate it with empathy. No one is a better or worse person than anyone else simply because one is born with a particular temperament. A woman hears an infant crying and thinks, “What can I do to care for and nurture it?” A man in the same situation thinks, “How do I stop the crying?” Though the woman acts from empathy and the male more systematically, they can achieve the same positive result of giving the child what it needs.

Politically, to be more empathetic is to say that one sees the victimized and underprivileged as exploited infants. The resurgence of coddling, socialist political ideals in the west have been described as a “feminine philosophy” that is somehow preferable to the competitive, masculine capitalism that has brought the entire western world out of crippling poverty. Even masculinity itself has been described by supporters of this neo-socialism as “toxic.” It is assumed that maternal empathy is more virtuous than masculine rationale despite all of the 20th century history of communism and current socialist disasters such as in Venezuela. They mask these ideals as compassionate, but that is fake. Compassion, as I define it, must involve the feminine and the masculine.

Empathy is founded mostly in one’s biology, so it indicates how one reacts. It must, therefore, be tempered. Compassion is exemplified by how one willfully acts, so it must be cultivated. Men often have to work hard to act with care and gentleness. Having a daughter is one way a man can be forced into to achieving this. Imagine if Donald Trump did not have a daughter; he might have become an actual tyrant. Women have to learn to recognize contexts where empathy is not appropriate, so they can hold back from acting on it – such as in not sheltering their children into dependency and resisting the urge to vote Democrat. Cultivating compassion must come from both ends. There is a time and place for both maternal and paternal interference in society as well as in the family. Too much or too little of either can be fatal. Real compassion is the ability to find the right balance between the two.

, Houma Courier & Thibodaux Daily Comet

Opinion: Why your kid is smarter than you

Edited by Mike Gorman

Teaching logic has shown me that everyone is born with some capacity for critical thinking, but most people lose the skill over time. Children, specifically those aged 3-5, happen to be the best at it. This can be proven by a single, dreaded word: “Why?”

When someone asks a why question, they are asking a question of reason, which is to say they are thinking critically to some degree. Children do this much more openly than adults, which is why most adults think children are simply being pests when they do. They’re not. The root of their questioning is different. It is not aimed toward a predetermined goal. It is not funneled through other knowledge accumulated over time. It is genuine curiosity, it is philosophical. Children challenge assumptions, premises and claims more openly than anyone, and they demand reasons to back up new knowledge. Their brains are not computers that simply accept input data. They are inclined to put effort into developing beliefs, and they should. Unfortunately, many parents and teachers are not ready to cater to such relentless curiosity, nor do they want to. Who can blame them? Thinking is calorie-intensive and requires effort. This neglect, I think, is a critical mistake. Parents and teachers have a tremendous job to do.

A child’s tendency to ask why will persist for some time, but his or her continuance to do so will depend greatly on how open and able his or her parents and teachers are to dealing with it. In a perfect world, adults would take this as an opportunity to think critically about those questions themselves when they likely had not done so before. Instead, they get frustrated or annoyed, react with an answer such as “because I said so,” and send their kid straight to bed or wherever to keep them out from under the their skin. This is an uninspired and resistant approach to educating. The child’s curiosity is repressed, and they gradually stop asking questions and start submitting more and more to whichever ideology they find immediately pleasing to their temperament. The more conscientious children by nature (who are no smarter, despite what convention might suggest) give in more quickly to the rules set before them. Others become rebellious. Either way, their guardians’ attitudes have lasting, negative effects on how they think.

I do not have any children of my own. On that basis, one might think that I have an incredible opinion on the matter. I would like to think that the contrary is true for two main reasons. First, I am a good planner. I am fully aware of the challenges of raising a child and thus take the necessary precautions to prevent having one before I’m ready. Secondly, experience isn’t everything. I can observe the effects of bad parenting because my thoughts about the matter are not distorted by the shifting perspective caused by having a child – a perspective that centers one’s concerns around the child, inhibiting one’s ability to reason outside of the scope of the child’s perceived well-being.

Having said that, this is my quick and dirty “philosophy of learning” that is critical for parents and educators, though often painfully difficult to implement.

There is a modern saying that goes, “grade school teaches one what to think whereas college teaches one how to think.”

Unfortunately, by the time we get to college age, we have already developed a foundation for our system of beliefs. It is almost too late to teach one how to think. What’s more, universities since 2014 – humanities and social sciences in particular – have become politically correct indoctrination machines designed specifically to prevent critical thinking. Critical thinking should start much sooner, well before one considers entering that battleground. Small children ask the most critical questions. Parents should help them improve that ability at that point. The obstacle here is that the parents have previously adopted certain beliefs and have largely surrendered their own ability to think well, much less will they be able to teach that skill to someone else. Leading by example is vital, though, as kids learn largely by copying. If they learn to suppress their intellect – their interest in ideas – at a young age, there is a good chance that you won’t like how they turn out. There’s nothing worse than that (so I’ve heard).

How can someone be ready to raise or teach a child in this manner?

This seems like a personal question that everyone has a unique answer to. That is true to an extent, but there is also an ideal that all should embrace. What readiness should mean here, in my view, is that one is willing to accept the intellectual challenge of teaching a little person how to think, and this involves letting go of certain beliefs of your own. Don’t shrug or shirk every time your child asks “why,” but ask it for yourself, and develop genuine interest for your child’s questions and ideas, no matter how absurd they may seem. Do a quick Internet search of the facts, reason through the answer together, and you’ll both learn something about the topic, about each other and most crucially about yourselves. The best part? It’s free!

, Houma Courier & Thibodaux Daily Comet

Opinion: Why you have to trust Generation Y

Hi there. My name is Generation Y. I was born between 1980-94. If you are of the traditionalist or baby-boomer generations, I expect that you are a bit worried about my place in the world today. I like alternative rock music, thrift stores and video games. I’m on anti-depressants, and I am still in debt from being unable to monetize my liberal arts degree that I earned almost a decade ago. I rent a room in a three bedroom apartment and have virtually no chance of purchasing a home in the foreseeable future as two salaries are required for that, while my salary – due to the inflation that you caused – barely qualifies as one.

It’s fair to say that I’m a bit of a mess. I like to think, however, that I am an organized mess.

Why am I such a mess? This is largely a matter of perception, for we have different values. You value hard work while I value passion. You value family while I value personal freedom. You value tradition while I value new ideas. We couldn’t seem more different on the surface, and therefore, as the moment creeps nearer, you are extremely hesitant to hand down the torch of society to me. All of your feelings are completely justified, and even I can admit that much of what you do works. You’re right about a lot. I am here to convince you that things will work out just fine despite out differences. I may have led you to believe otherwise because I’ve asked of your values “why?” Hence my name, but that very question is what will keep society afloat for the next few decades. Allow me to explain.

First, I’m trying my best to live a life that is meaningful and unique, and, without discrediting your values, I question whether your path should become mine. I see the world as a place of possibilities rather than inevitabilities, and the difference in our values not as “mine-not-yours” but rather as “mine-then-yours.” Don’t worry, you’ll get your grandchildren – just fewer of them and later than you’d like. I want it all, and I think I can have it. I’m a dreamer, but I am also aware of the utility and importance of your values. It is taking me a while, however, to find balance between them. This balance is necessary, as the next point will show.

Secondly, the world is changing quickly, and my logic suits it. Technology is evolving at a much faster rate than our brains can, and however unfortunate, this is having a harder impact on my future everyday. I often praise it, for it allows me to entertain myself and work freelance from home in my pajamas while I order food to be delivered right to my door. You see that as a threat to the value of hard work, and that is often correct, but what constitutes work in the first place is changing. I’m doing my best to adapt to this shift to an extent that you don’t need to.

Thirdly, my conditioning, due in part to your well-intentioned attempt to protect me, has led me into the forest without a flashlight. As a child, I was often rewarded for participating incompetently. I left a box in your attic full of green ribbons to prove it. You knew that wasn’t true, so you reassured me that in the case that I could not make things work on my own, you would pick up the slack. I’m grateful for that, sincerely, as it has given me short-term security, but you have overcompensated for my delayed success; I still have to take responsibility for my long-term ends. I am having to cut myself off since you didn’t have the heart to do it when I was 22. I’m sorting through the mess, finally, and I’m even teaching myself to cook out of necessity just to save money – a skill I could have learned from you.

We’re different, yes, but we’re also the same. I didn’t grow up like my little cousins in Generation Z are doing right now, having had an iPhone from age 12 and forming personal identities through others’ verification on social media. I’m only minimally influenced by it. Gen-Z, however, is a lost cause in that regard. They are lazy, have no practical skills, use GPS on their phones to get to the vape shop and will gladly pay $9 for avocado toast at the Internet cafe on the corner. They have no sympathy for tradition nor understanding of the depth of your values. They’re too far removed from them. Who is parenting them anyway? Oh yeah, Generation X. Let’s not mention them.

Unfortunately, Gen-Z isn’t simply going away, and that means I have a job to do: serve as the mediator between your generation and theirs. I understand and can get through to both sides. As long as I take over the world before they do, perhaps even through negotiating with them, then I can guarantee that it won’t come to an end just yet. Just sit back and relax, for your job is done. Trust me like the greatest generation trusted you (for better or for worse), and let me organize my own mess. You have no other choice.

 

Writegenstein #2: Philosophy of Psychology 205 (Seeing-As)

How does one play the game: “It could also be this”?

[…] “I see (a) as (b)” might still mean very different things.

Here is a game played by children: they say of a chest, for example, that it is now a house; and thereupon it is interpreted as a house in every detail. A piece of fancy is woven around it.

— aphorism 205 of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s “Philosophy of Psychology” from Philosophical Investigations

It could be this and I see (a) as (b) point to different ways in which one could interpret a material object. That object alone has limited value, if any at all. In a sense, the material aspects of the object are arbitrary compared to the conceptualization of the object on the whole. What is conceptualized of it, i.e. how it is understood, depends on its place in its environment – what use it is to its environment. When children are playing house, they are playing a game. They see a chest as something to use in a game which mimics the game the child sees its parents playing daily and of which they are a part. They do not see it as something with material, mechanical parts as the builder might see it (that is what it would mean simply to see, though the builder may see the bigger picture as well.) They ask “What can we do with this?” and understand the chest to be a house, having already established, and taken for granted, the rules for what constitutes a house.

It does not end there. Playing the game of house is itself a very sophisticated perceptual process. Our ability to formulate and make use of abstraction is perhaps what separates human perception from the perception of other animals – not in terms of form, importantly, but in terms of degree. A cat, for example, will definitely see the chest as something other than a bundle of wood and nails assembled in a particular way. It will almost certainly see it as a scratching post or a place on which or in which to sit or sleep (depending on whether the chest is open or closed and on how tired the cat is), but the cat lacks the ability to conceptualize the chest as anything more than that with which it is afforded these very basic “cativities”, if you will. The reason for this, from an evolutionary standpoint, is that these cativities are all the cat needs to achieve its potential. So, the cat’s abstraction is of the same sort but of a much lower degree than that of the child. The cat’s abstraction is more like that of an infant’s than the young child’s, for an infant, like the cat, only seeks in objects the fulfillment of very basic needs. The only difference between the cat and the infant is the potential of growth and development.

One still might ask “what objective or quantifiable relation is there between a chest and a house?” One should see now, unless one is blinded by a materialist view of reality, that this question now becomes arbitrary because one cannot speak of perception in this example without qualifying the individual subjects’ understanding of it. Perception as we experience it does not seem to be a mere material process. One does not need to understand anything about brain matter to understand something. In fact, it is that understanding that is indeed the goal. One could say that in the cat’s mind there is very little understanding taking place at all, while in the child’s mind there is no limit, especially since the child’s capability for abstract thought will continue to develop. The child understands much more than the cat does. To understand an object, I should say, is to make an abstraction of it – an abstraction that has utility in the greater context of its environment – to allow one to be successful at a game. To see-as, then, is to understand, and vise versa.

Don’t Use Sarahah; Own Your Words!

The problem with the new anonymous messaging app Sarahah isn’t that it creates a platform for cyberbullying (just walk away from your computer screen, jackass); it’s that it is playing a role in the leftist movement against free speech by ridding people of the responsibility of owning their words.

I don’t need to have used the app to know this. It’s obvious. In this time when social media is allowing for people to communicate less and less directly, making them more and more thin-skinned, careless with their speech, and, quite frankly, stupid, this app deals with the free speech problem by cleverly working around it. While most leftist social media platforms attempt to censor content or to simply suspend accounts when people say things that don’t conform to their collective beliefs, Sarahah allows the content to flow freely because no one in particular can claim responsibility for it. It is an anonymous free speech safe space, if you will.

Of course, the app knows who said what, so it allows you the option to anonymously block users if you get an undesirable message, so content can still be managed in that way.

Fair enough.

If someone messages you through the app telling you point-blank “you’re a dumb fuck”, you might not want to hear from that person again since they are lacking the tact and constructive criticism that the app would like of its users, and the same would be the case in real life, you can be sure.

The point I’d like to make in this post is that the Sarahah concept can seem all well and good on its own, but when you put it into a real world context, as with any new product, the users will determine its true identity. (this is through no clear fault of the creator; not every app developer knows enough about human nature to think through every scenario in which someone might use the app differently than he intended… this is why user feedback is so crucial). This post is my prophesy about why Sarahah’s identity will turn out more bad than good and why I would generally advise against using it.

Why Sarahah is Bad for Business

A good business provides a valuable service to the community. In order to ensure that the service continues to grow and improve, it is necessary that the employees work in an environment conducive to the free-exchange of ideas. That might make Sarahah seem like the perfect app, right? Actually, the contrary is true because of what the idea leaves out.

What is just as important as the idea itself is the employee’s taking credit for it. Sarahah doesn’t allow for this, neutralizing the dominance hierarchy within the company. The employer can reap the benefits of having the idea, but he does not have to give credit where it is due. This is convenient for the individuals at the top whose jobs won’t be threatened, and for the human resources department because they will have fewer cases to deal with, but it could hurt the company in the long run when their employees’ intellects are suppressed and promotions are given to the wrong people. This is bad news for female employees who, if they thought they were disadvantaged in the workplace before, will be even more so now, perhaps without their even realizing it. It is also bad for male employees who will inevitably lack the motivation to give any criticism at all.

Here are the differences between how women and men will be affected by Sarahah in the workplace.

Sarahah sneekily caters to the female temperament.

From a personality perspective, women tend on average to be higher than men in Big5 trait agreeableness. This means they are more compassionate, less assertive, tend to underestimate their abilities, and they don’t as often take credit for their achievements. They are also higher in trait neuroticism, which is sensitivity to negative emotion. This makes Sarahah the perfect place for women to speak their minds. They don’t have to give criticism directly, and they don’t have to claim fault if that criticism hurts someone’s feelings.

This might sound appealing to women, but I see it as taking advantage of the woman’s common workplace weaknesses. Though (probably) not intended, the inevitable consequence of this will be that even fewer women will stand out among their coworkers and be considered for promotions. They’ll be comforted now more than ever that simply sitting there and doing their jobs is enough, instead of taking the risks necessary to advance. (Of course, personality studies show that this is a good thing if they want to maximize their mate options, as women prefer mates who are at least as smart and successful as they are) All of this is true for some men as well, but I suspect men in general will encounter a different set of problems.

Sarahah Suppresses the Male Intellect

Since men are more assertive and aggressive, they will still be more likely than women to give criticism face-to-face, and there’s bad news for men who do. If a company begins to rely on Sarahah as the primary means by which to take criticism, then direct dialogue between people will be constricted, not enforced. Any man who does not use the app to speak his mind is taking a dangerous and unnecessary risk. He may get into trouble and risk losing his job if his speech is in violation of company policy. He won’t be able to play the traditional, competitive, risk-reward game that is crucial to his potential to climb the company ladder.

Challenging the status quo is an important way in which men typically show their ability to think critically, articulate, and negotiate – skills that are necessary for managing a good business at all levels. Sarahah suppresses these skills. This will allow HR to keep the hiring process neutralized, so they do not have to promote people within the company based on merit, but rather by whichever absurd and counterproductive standards they choose (e.g. to meet notoriously anglophobic ethnic diversity quotas).

Why Sarahah is Bad for Personal Relations (to point out the obvious)

It might sound appealing to find out what your friends and acquaintances really think of you, but I suspect that the anxiety that will result from not knowing who exactly said those things will far outweigh any positive effect that the criticism may have on you. Imagine walking around at a party where all of your closest friends are present, knowing that half, maybe even all of them have only been able to honestly open up to you anonymously.

A good friendship or relationship should not only be conducive to, but founded on open, honest communication. I know it sounds cliché, but this cannot be overstated given that Sarahah exists to deny that. In fact, we identify who our friends are based on how open our communication is with them, do we not?

Consider this… your primary or best friends are those few who you can be absolutely open with. You know who they are. Your secondary friends encompass a wider circle. They are people you may call on regularly, but the subject matter of your communication with them is limited, whether to specific topics or to a level of depth in general. Your acquaintances are everyone else you know – people you could (and often should) do without.

Which friend group do you suspect is the most likely to send you overly-critical messages on Sarahah? Acquaintances? The people who know you the least?

Hmm, maybe not.

Acquaintances might be the most likely to send you the occasional “you’re a dumb fuck” sort of message. But, since they know you the least, they think of you the least. They care for you the least. They’re the least likely to try to help you. So, I’d guess not.

What about those best friends who use the app? They very well may use it to give you some much-needed advice, but who are they? Though the advice is sound, are they really your friends if they can’t sit you down and talk to you?

You might be disappointed (or even relieved, if you’re a particularly strong person) to find out that some people who you thought were your best friends are really secondary friends, or mere acquaintances, or just snakes and not your friends at all. In fact, any “best friend” who might use the app out of fear of being honest with you, no matter the content of their message, is doing you a huge disservice. They’re simply acting cowardly.

Conclusion: Don’t Be a Pussy

Don’t use Sarahah. Own your words. Be an open, honest, and responsible human, for your sake and the sake of your friends and coworkers. If your company tries to adopt Sarahah in order to take criticism, explain to them the problems that would cause for you and for them. If they insist, then give criticism directly anyway. Get into a fight with those dumb cunts in HR. Get fired. Chances are that it’s not your dream job anyway.

If your friends announce on social media that they just started a Sarahah account, they’re reaching out for help. Take them out for a drink and ask them what’s up. It may require a bit of persistence, but if they’re really your friend, then it will be worth it.

Despite the difficulties in the short-term, the long-term benefits of having straightforward, critical discussions with people will be worth it. You’ll show them that you are worth it, and they will reward you for it. But, of course, don’t do it for the reward; as with anything, do it simply because it’s right.

A Thank You Letter to an Ex