|
JonathanBoyerSecondPaper 7 - 25 Jan 2010 - Main.JonathanBoyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
*UNDER CONSTRUCTION* | | | "Always with you this freedom! . . . as if it were obvious to all people what it wants to mean this word. But look: it is not so simple as that. Your freedom is the freedom from: no one tells your precious individual U.S.A. selves what they must do . . . . But what about the freedom to? Not just free from. Not all compulsions come from without . . . . How to choose any but a child's greedy choices if there is no loving-filled father to guide, inform, teach the person how to choose? How is there freedom to choose if one does not learn how to choose?" --p. 320 | |
<
< | When both autonomy and susceptibility to coercion is influenced by education, what is the appropriate role of government, as adult, in shaping the decision-making process of the greedy child? To what extent should temptations and their advertisement be prohibited; to what extent should school curriculum function to indoctrinate/ routinize cognitive decision-making algorithms of children from a ripe age; and to what extent can/should those algorithms be shaped to leave room for multiple and equally correct solutions to the same problem of choice (a kind of freedom via relativism)? | >
> | Consumer education and consumer protection, then, define the debate. And given the implication that both miscibility variables -- autonomy and susceptibility to coercion -- are influenced by education, what then is the appropriate role of government, as adult, in shaping the decision-making process of the greedy child? To what extent should temptations and their advertisement be prohibited; to what extent should school curriculum function to indoctrinate/routinize cognitive decision-making algorithms of children from a ripe age; and to what extent can/should those algorithms be shaped to leave room for multiple and equally correct solutions to the same problem of choice (a kind of freedom via relativism)? | | | "This is the crux of the educational system you [anti-American people] find so appalling. Not to teach what to desire. To teach how to be free. To teach how to make knowledgeable choices about pleasure and delay and the kid's overall down-the-road maximal interests." --p. 429 | |
<
< | But when is the targeting of known Pizza-Hut-lovers, entranced by the comfort of heart-stopping hydrogenated cheese grease, akin to dangling the fatal fruit? Are we all adults here, or do some temptations reduce us to children in need of government rescue? | >
> | But when is the targeting of known Pizza-Hut-lovers who become entranced by the comfort of heart-stopping hydrogenated cheese grease akin to dangling the fatal fruit? Are we all adults here, or do some temptations reduce us to children in need of government rescue? | | | "Get real. The Entertainment isn't candy or beer . . . You can't compare this kind of insidious enslaving process to your little cases of sugar and soup." --p. 430 |
|
|
JonathanBoyerSecondPaper 6 - 25 Jan 2010 - Main.JonathanBoyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
*UNDER CONSTRUCTION* | | | "We don't force. It's exactly about not forcing, our history's genus. You [as an American] are entitled to your values of maximum pleasure. So long as you don't fuck with mine." --p.424 | |
<
< | But arguably nary a case exists in which choice is not accompanied by at least some level of coercion. In other words, much of human decision-making derives its structure from extraneous, often social, pressures that are specifically designed to coerce. And depending on the magnitude of coercive pressure at play, an individual's capacity for resistance and autonomous choice-analysis will be tested to varying degrees. If individual autonomy, then, can be defined as an inverse function of coercion level, one can also imagine a full range of solutions, or mixtures, of autonomy relative to coercion, given more or less of each. The autonomy question, then, is one of miscibility: at what point(s) does the coercion:autonomy ratio produce an immiscible solution -- point(s) where the coercion level is no longer soluble within a free-flow of autonomy? | >
> | But arguably nary a case exists in which choice is not accompanied by at least some level of coercion. In other words, much of human decision-making derives its structure from extraneous, often social, pressures that are specifically designed to coerce. And depending on the magnitude of coercive pressure at play, an individual's capacity for resistance and autonomous choice-analysis will be tested to varying degrees. If individual autonomy, then, can be defined as an inverse function of coercion level, one can also imagine a full range of solutions, or mixtures, of autonomy relative to coercion, given more or less of each. The autonomy question, then, is one of miscibility: at what points does the coercion:autonomy ratio produce immiscible solutions -- point(s) where the coercion level is no longer soluble within a free-flow of autonomy? | | | "Now you will say how free are we if you dangle fatal fruit before us and we cannot help ourselves from temptation. And we say 'human' to you. We say that one cannot be human without freedom." | |
<
< | "Always with you this freedom! . . . as if it were obvious to all people what it wants to mean this word. But look: it is not so simple as that. Your freedom is the freedom from: no one tells your precious individual U.S.A. selves what they must do . . . . But what about the freedom to? Not just free from. Not all compulsions comes from without . . . . How to choose any but a child's greedy choices if there is no loving-filled father to guide, inform, teach the person how to choose? How is there freedom to choose if one does not learn how to choose." --p. 320 | >
> | "Always with you this freedom! . . . as if it were obvious to all people what it wants to mean this word. But look: it is not so simple as that. Your freedom is the freedom from: no one tells your precious individual U.S.A. selves what they must do . . . . But what about the freedom to? Not just free from. Not all compulsions come from without . . . . How to choose any but a child's greedy choices if there is no loving-filled father to guide, inform, teach the person how to choose? How is there freedom to choose if one does not learn how to choose?" --p. 320
When both autonomy and susceptibility to coercion is influenced by education, what is the appropriate role of government, as adult, in shaping the decision-making process of the greedy child? To what extent should temptations and their advertisement be prohibited; to what extent should school curriculum function to indoctrinate/ routinize cognitive decision-making algorithms of children from a ripe age; and to what extent can/should those algorithms be shaped to leave room for multiple and equally correct solutions to the same problem of choice (a kind of freedom via relativism)?
"This is the crux of the educational system you [anti-American people] find so appalling. Not to teach what to desire. To teach how to be free. To teach how to make knowledgeable choices about pleasure and delay and the kid's overall down-the-road maximal interests." --p. 429
But when is the targeting of known Pizza-Hut-lovers, entranced by the comfort of heart-stopping hydrogenated cheese grease, akin to dangling the fatal fruit? Are we all adults here, or do some temptations reduce us to children in need of government rescue?
"Get real. The Entertainment isn't candy or beer . . . You can't compare this kind of insidious enslaving process to your little cases of sugar and soup." --p. 430 | | | |
|
|
JonathanBoyerSecondPaper 5 - 20 Jan 2010 - Main.JonathanBoyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
*UNDER CONSTRUCTION* | | | "We don't force. It's exactly about not forcing, our history's genus. You [as an American] are entitled to your values of maximum pleasure. So long as you don't fuck with mine." --p.424 | |
<
< | But arguably nary a case exists in which choice is not accompanied by some level of coercion. In other words, much of human decision-making derives its structure from extraneous, often social, pressures that are specifically designed to coerce. And depending on the magnitude of coercive pressure at play, an individual's capacity for resistance and autonomous choice-analysis will be tested to varying degrees. If, then, individual autonomy can be defined as an inverse function of coercion level, one can also imagine a full range of solutions, or mixtures, of autonomy relative to coercion, given more or less of each. The autonomy question, then, is one of miscibility: at what point(s) does a coercion:autonomy ratio produce an immiscible solution -- point(s) where the coercion level is no longer soluble within a free-flow of autonomy? | >
> | But arguably nary a case exists in which choice is not accompanied by at least some level of coercion. In other words, much of human decision-making derives its structure from extraneous, often social, pressures that are specifically designed to coerce. And depending on the magnitude of coercive pressure at play, an individual's capacity for resistance and autonomous choice-analysis will be tested to varying degrees. If individual autonomy, then, can be defined as an inverse function of coercion level, one can also imagine a full range of solutions, or mixtures, of autonomy relative to coercion, given more or less of each. The autonomy question, then, is one of miscibility: at what point(s) does the coercion:autonomy ratio produce an immiscible solution -- point(s) where the coercion level is no longer soluble within a free-flow of autonomy? | | | "Now you will say how free are we if you dangle fatal fruit before us and we cannot help ourselves from temptation. And we say 'human' to you. We say that one cannot be human without freedom." |
|
|
JonathanBoyerSecondPaper 4 - 19 Jan 2010 - Main.JonathanBoyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
*UNDER CONSTRUCTION* | | |
| |
<
< | Autonomy & Infinite Jest: "Children" & "Adults" in Pursuit of Pleasure | >
> | Autonomy Framed by Infinite Jest: "Children" & "Adults" in Pursuit of Pleasure | | | JonathanBoyer
| | | David Foster Wallace's highly acclaimed novel, Infinite Jest, revolves around the unknown whereabouts of the master-copy of a film so seductive and pleasure-inducing that its viewers invariably lose all interest in anything other than its perpetual viewing (a scenario perhaps not entirely far-fetched). As a kind of psychological weapon of mass destruction, the captivating power of the film exposes a precarious tension between maintaining respect for freedom of "choice" in the Oh-so-American pursuit of happiness, sacrosanct on the one hand, and advocating for appropriate government intervention on the other, i.e., when the choices of an orphan citizenry beg for parental guidance -- when by reason of undue influence or moral turpitude the citizenry is deemed incapable of choosing for itself. Salty snacks for example.
| |
<
< | Of course, this calls for an explanation of what terms like "choice," "freedom," and "autonomy" mean, a task which can leave even the fittest and most dexterous of minds exhausted and stretch-torn. Perhaps only in the contexts of outright coercion or total elimination of options is the issue relatively simple: | >
> | Of course, this calls for an explanation of what terms like "choice," "freedom," and "autonomy" mean, a task which can leave even the fittest and most dexterous of minds exhausted and stretch-torn. Perhaps only in the contexts of outright coercion and total elimination of options is the issue of autonomy vs. unfreedom relatively simple: | | | "We don't force. It's exactly about not forcing, our history's genus. You [as an American] are entitled to your values of maximum pleasure. So long as you don't fuck with mine." --p.424 | |
<
< | But arguably nary a case exists in which choice is not accompanied by a level of coercion. In other words, much of human decision-making derives its structure from extraneous, often social, pressures that are designed to coerce. And depending on the magnitude of coercive pressure at play, an individual's capacity for resistance and autonomous choice-analysis will be tested to varying degrees. If, then, individual autonomy can be defined as an inverse function of coercion level, one can also imagine a full range of solutions, or mixtures, of autonomy relative to coercion, given more or less of each. The autonomy question, then, one of miscibility. In other words, at what point does the coercion:autonomy ratio create a solution that is immiscible -- unfree? | >
> | But arguably nary a case exists in which choice is not accompanied by some level of coercion. In other words, much of human decision-making derives its structure from extraneous, often social, pressures that are specifically designed to coerce. And depending on the magnitude of coercive pressure at play, an individual's capacity for resistance and autonomous choice-analysis will be tested to varying degrees. If, then, individual autonomy can be defined as an inverse function of coercion level, one can also imagine a full range of solutions, or mixtures, of autonomy relative to coercion, given more or less of each. The autonomy question, then, is one of miscibility: at what point(s) does a coercion:autonomy ratio produce an immiscible solution -- point(s) where the coercion level is no longer soluble within a free-flow of autonomy? | | | | |
<
< | "Now you will say how free are we if you dangle fatal fruit before us and we cannot help ourselves from temptation. And we say 'human' to you We say that one cannot be human without freedom." | >
> | "Now you will say how free are we if you dangle fatal fruit before us and we cannot help ourselves from temptation. And we say 'human' to you. We say that one cannot be human without freedom." | | | "Always with you this freedom! . . . as if it were obvious to all people what it wants to mean this word. But look: it is not so simple as that. Your freedom is the freedom from: no one tells your precious individual U.S.A. selves what they must do . . . . But what about the freedom to? Not just free from. Not all compulsions comes from without . . . . How to choose any but a child's greedy choices if there is no loving-filled father to guide, inform, teach the person how to choose? How is there freedom to choose if one does not learn how to choose." --p. 320 |
|
|
JonathanBoyerSecondPaper 3 - 19 Jan 2010 - Main.JonathanBoyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | *Under Construction* | >
> | *UNDER CONSTRUCTION* | | | | | |
| |
<
< | David Foster Wallace's highly acclaimed novel, Infinite Jest, revolves around the unknown whereabouts of the master-copy of a film so seductive and pleasure-inducing that its viewers invariably lose all interest in anything other than its perpetual viewing (perhaps not entirely far-fetched). As a kind of psychological weapon of mass destruction, the captivating power of the film exposes a precarious tension between maintaining respect for freedom of "choice" in the Oh-so-American pursuit of happiness, hallowed on the one hand, and advocating for appropriate government interference on the other, i.e., when the choices of an orphan citizenry beg for parental guidance -- when by reason of undue influence or moral turpitude the citizenry is deemed incapable of choosing for itself. Salty snacks for example. | >
> | David Foster Wallace's highly acclaimed novel, Infinite Jest, revolves around the unknown whereabouts of the master-copy of a film so seductive and pleasure-inducing that its viewers invariably lose all interest in anything other than its perpetual viewing (a scenario perhaps not entirely far-fetched). As a kind of psychological weapon of mass destruction, the captivating power of the film exposes a precarious tension between maintaining respect for freedom of "choice" in the Oh-so-American pursuit of happiness, sacrosanct on the one hand, and advocating for appropriate government intervention on the other, i.e., when the choices of an orphan citizenry beg for parental guidance -- when by reason of undue influence or moral turpitude the citizenry is deemed incapable of choosing for itself. Salty snacks for example.
Of course, this calls for an explanation of what terms like "choice," "freedom," and "autonomy" mean, a task which can leave even the fittest and most dexterous of minds exhausted and stretch-torn. Perhaps only in the contexts of outright coercion or total elimination of options is the issue relatively simple:
"We don't force. It's exactly about not forcing, our history's genus. You [as an American] are entitled to your values of maximum pleasure. So long as you don't fuck with mine." --p.424
But arguably nary a case exists in which choice is not accompanied by a level of coercion. In other words, much of human decision-making derives its structure from extraneous, often social, pressures that are designed to coerce. And depending on the magnitude of coercive pressure at play, an individual's capacity for resistance and autonomous choice-analysis will be tested to varying degrees. If, then, individual autonomy can be defined as an inverse function of coercion level, one can also imagine a full range of solutions, or mixtures, of autonomy relative to coercion, given more or less of each. The autonomy question, then, one of miscibility. In other words, at what point does the coercion:autonomy ratio create a solution that is immiscible -- unfree?
"Now you will say how free are we if you dangle fatal fruit before us and we cannot help ourselves from temptation. And we say 'human' to you We say that one cannot be human without freedom."
"Always with you this freedom! . . . as if it were obvious to all people what it wants to mean this word. But look: it is not so simple as that. Your freedom is the freedom from: no one tells your precious individual U.S.A. selves what they must do . . . . But what about the freedom to? Not just free from. Not all compulsions comes from without . . . . How to choose any but a child's greedy choices if there is no loving-filled father to guide, inform, teach the person how to choose? How is there freedom to choose if one does not learn how to choose." --p. 320
| | | |
|
|