Baldwin, Addiction, and Music

I recent listened to Never Enough: The Neuroscience and Experience of Addiction by Judith Grisel-. Grisel gave a TED Talk Feb 2020. I didn't listen, but I'm sure it is a 12 minute version of her book.

Never Enough is her experience as a hard core drug addict, and what she learned studying drug addiction as a neuroscientist. The book is great. It gives a deep dive into the science and chemistry of drugs and addiction. If you can't tell by the title, the book is about why drugs will never be enough. James Baldwin understood and described this in his 1957 short story titled Sonny Blues.

Grisel must agree with the perception Baldwin creates in his character Sonny. The following scene is between Sonny and his brother, the narrator.

[Sonny] walked away from the window and sat on the sofa again, as though all the wind had suddenly been knocked out of him. "Sometimes you'll do anything to play, even cut your mother's throat." He laughed and looked at me. "Or your brother's." Then he sobered. "Or your own." Then: "Don't worry. I'm all right now and I think I'll be all right. But I can't forget- where I've been. I don't mean just the physical place I've been, I mean where I've been. And what I've been."

"What have you been, Sonny?" I asked.

He smiled-but sat sideways on the sofa, his elbow resting on the back, his fingers playing with his mouth and chin, not looking at me. "I've been something I didn't recognize, didn't know I could be. Didn't know anybody could be." He stopped, looking inward, looking helplessly young, looking old. "I'm not talking about it now because I feel guilty or anything like that-maybe it would be better if I did, I don't know. Anyway, I can't really talk about it. Not to you, not to anybody," and now he turned and faced me. "Sometimes, you know, and it was actually when I was most out of the world, I felt that I was in it, that I was with it, really, and I could play or I didn't really have to play, it just came out of me, it was there. And I don't know how I played, thinking about it now, but I know I did awful things, those times, sometimes, to people. Or it wasn't that I did anything to them-it was that they weren't real." He picked up the beer can; it was empty; he rolled it between his palms: "And other times-well, I needed a fix, I needed to find a place to lean, I needed to clear a space to listen-and I couldn't find it, and I-went crazy, I did terrible things to me, I was terrible for me." He began pressing the beer can between his hands, I watched the metal begin to give. It glittered, as he played with it like a knife, and I was afraid he would cut himself, but I said nothing. "Oh well. I can never tell you. I was all by myself at the bottom of something, stinking and sweating and crying and shaking, and I smelled it, you know? my stink, and I thought I'd die if I couldn't get away from it and yet, all the same, I knew that everything I was doing was just locking me in with it. And I didn't know," he paused, still flattening the beer can, "I didn't know, I still don't know, something kept telling me that maybe it was good to smell your own stink, but I didn't think that that was what I'd been trying to do- and-who can stand it?" and he abruptly dropped the ruined beer can, looking at me with a small, still smile, and then rose, walking to the window as though it were the lodestone rock. I watched his face, he watched the avenue. "I couldn't tell you when Mama died-but the reason I wanted to leave Harlem so bad was to get away from drugs. And then, when I ran away, that's what I was running from-really. When I came back, nothing had changed I hadn't changed I was just-older." And he stopped, drumming with his fingers on the windowpane. The sun had vanished, soon darkness would fall. I watched his face. "It can come again," he said, almost as though speaking to himself. Then he turned to me. "It can come again," he repeated. "I just want you to know that."

Later in the story, Sonny's brother goes to watch Sonny play the blues. Here is his experience watching and hearing his brother.

Then they all gathered around Sonny and Sonny played. Every now and again one of them seemed to say, amen. Sonny's fingers filled the air with life, his life. But that life contained so many others. And Sonny went all the way back, he really began with the spare, flat statement of the opening phrase of the song. Then he began to make it his. It was very beautiful because it wasn't hurried and it was no longer a lament. I seemed to hear with what burning he had made it his, and what burning we had yet to make it ours, how we could cease lamenting. Freedom lurked around us and I understood, at last, that he could help us to be free if we would listen, that he would never be free until we did. Yet, there was no battle in his face now, I heard what he had gone through, and would continue to go through until he came to rest in earth. He had made it his: that long line, of which we knew only Mama and Daddy. And he was giving it back, as everything must be given back, so that, passing through death, it can live forever. I saw my mother's face again, and felt, for the first time, how the stones of the road she had walked on must have bruised her feet. I saw the moonlit road where my father's brother died. And it brought something else back to me, and carried me past it, I saw my little girl again and felt Isabel's tears again, and I felt my own tears begin to rise. And I was yet aware that this was only a moment, that the world waited outside, as hungry as a tiger, and that trouble stretched above us, longer than the sky.

Christian Apologetics

This is for my buddy Luis who wanted me to listen to a talk with five questions answered by Ravi Zacharias and William Lane Craig. Here is a link. the five questions make up the sections.

I'm not the intended audience for this talk or discussion. Almost all the arguments require an important precursor, faith. Without faith, the Christian apologetic stories and evidence sound like the stories and evidence from any other religion which Christians apologists do not accept.

Popular Christian apologists fill large halls with people who share their beliefs. That is the intended audience. The talks solidify Christians' faith, give advice for conversation with non Christians, sell books, and or, for Zacharias and others, build a global franchise.

Before I start, I want to define faith. Faith has many meanings and usages, but I am using it very specifically to refer to belief without proof. I know proof can be subjective in the degrees of certainty, but when I use the word proof, I mean it in the strictest sense, like a mathematical proof.

Faith-

• strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. (Google)

• belief that is not based on proof (dictionary.com)

• firm belief in something for which there is no proof (Merriam-Webster)

This is a big problem for faith is God. If it was a fact, there wouldn't be an argument. Christian apologists and atheists apologists wouldn't be able to write and sell books. On a similar note, the existence or nonexistence of God is non falsifiable. No one can prove or disprove God's existence. This is a crucial assumption I accept.

But just because there isn't mathematical proof of God, doesn't mean there isn't evidence for and against God. I think there is a lot of good evidence to believe in God. But without faith, the evidence against any specific religion can be overwhelming. The cumulative effect leads many non religious people to atheism. 

I don't find the five questions from talk insightful, maybe these questions are for immature and or less educated atheists.

1) What is the meaning/purpose of life?

Zacharias’ sermon about children and fairy tales is terrible evidence. For one, children are always asking why. For one, children believe in all sorts of imaginary ideas: Santa, Tooth Ferry, imaginary friends, monsters, etc. His example of children is not true. Children ask why all the time, and that is ironic considering his following anecdote about the court case.

Zacharias is not practicing good philosophy. A good philosopher presents and debates the oppositions best arguments. Zacharias either makes up or uses the weakest oppositional arguments, strawmen. But since he is a great speaker, smart, and loaded with charisma, he became extremely successful. His talks are mostly  rhetoric. When you break down what he is saying, there isn't anything new or convincing to someone with who has thoughtfully considered the philosophical arguments. I will focus more on Craig's ideas.

I agree with Craig's opening statements to the meaning of life. Life, in the vast scope of the universe, is absurd and meaningless. I can say more if Luis wants, but Craig represented my view pretty well. But that doesn’t mean life and people on Earth cannot find meaning. We all do. Everyone finds meaning just fine. People found meaning before Abraham or Christianity spread. Atheist find meaning just fine. Every human, with the ability to kill themselves who doesn't, finds meaning. Christians find different meaning within their religions. Even those who commit or attempt suicide, I'm not sure if a meaningless universe is a common reason.

2) What good evidence is there for the existence of God?

The origin of the universe is good evidence for a God. As Craig mentioned, if you adjust the conditions of the beginning of the Universe, the conditions we know for life vanish.

During the talk Craig cherry picks science when it helps him and discards or misrepresents science when it doesn't help him. Craig is a philosopher academically, so I have high confidence that he understands the ideas of the Big Bang and Theory of Evolution. His audience likely doesn't, so maybe he is attempting to make it digestible for his audience? It's bad philosophy, and I doubt he does this in academic settings.

Craig claimed that the Big Bang says the Universe started from nothing. That is false. The Big Bang theory has only strengthened the last 100 years. But science cannot say anything about what happened before The Big Bang because there is no evidence for anything prior. Scientific theories need evidence and or mathematical models that can be observed and verified. So although there are theories of what might have happened before The Big Bang, those a separate from the Big Bang theory..

Side note: Brian Greene is a famous physicist and an excellent writer. I recently listened to his book The Hidden Reality. He explains the evidence for infinite universes. It is a mind blowing progression of ideas. But in his book, he discusses the limitations of what we can know, prove, and the possibilities of what we might be able to find in the future. Greene's modesty about the limitations of science to describe reality is very close to my beliefs on the subject.

Evolution has nothing to say about how life began. It is a theory that explains how life evolved on Earth. This is another extremely strong theory. DNA and fossil records almost prove how natural selection can produce complex organs and life over millions to billions of years.

Natural Laws or objective moral laws do not convince me of anything. If they exist, or do not exist, what does that prove? Reality is what reality is regardless of what we think. Our thoughts and feelings do not affect objective reality. Our thoughts and feelings only affect how we perceive reality.

I think science can offer many plausible explanations as to why people/cultures can accept similar ideas on morality. It isn't objective moral laws. History suggests cultures decides what is right and wrong, and culture is always changing. As people collaborate and create a greater collective knowledge, culture and morals change. Ideas in society evolve. I choose not to eat factory farmed animals because I think those animals suffer and I do not need them to live a health life or feel good. It is not because eating meat or killing an animal is wrong. We could all come up with exceptions for any so called natural law.

3) How can a good God allow evil?

Easy. This is a bad question and the arguments from skeptics about the contradiction between our world and a just God aren't good. Freedom is a perfect example and reason for an ambivalent being to allow suffering.

If God is outside of time and space, then it's fair to say God's capabilities are far beyond humans'.

4) How can we know that the resurrection of Jesus really occurred?

This is a tough question. I like an explanation I read from Reza Aslan (Aslan is another poor philosopher but great writer), he states people in Jesus' and Muhammad's time wouldn't have thought about facts the way we do today. They would have looked for the meaning of a story. It wasn't if Jesus was resurrected, but what does Jesus' resurrection mean? (They also might not expect people 2000 years later to be arguing about it either, or maybe they would. I don't know. Seems like an interesting idea to consider later.)

I'll speculate more. I don't know how plausible people of Jesus' time would have considered of a resurrection. Did the biblical writers try to prove Jesus was resurrection by 21st century standards? Certainly not. Since Jesus was a mostly obscure Jewish man (by Roman standards), skeptics of the news wouldn't have had any reason to record their disbelief. Most people alive at Jesus' death wouldn't have suspected his life would spark a new religion that would cover the Earth. So why would they mention Jesus or some little uprising in the middle east?

Craig says Jesus' resurrection is the most plausible account. Craig should add "to him." It's most plausible to Craig. If one believes it is plausible, it'll be more plausible. The resurrection is essential to the claim of Jesus' divinity. So people who believe in Jesus will find it most plausible. I'd really like to make a detailed list of evidence that people could plug their own probabilities into to spit out a probability using Bayes' theorem.

Here are a few ideas I find a lot more plausible:

1. Jesus had a twin. People thought Jesus resurrected because they saw his twin. Identical twins happen about 3-4 times per 1,000 births. Given high infant mortality rates (over 25%), and it is possible twins would suffer higher mortality rates in ancient times. The chances of a woman in Roman times having twins who both survived to adulthood is low. Using Beyesian reasoning, the question becomes how probable is it that twins could pull off a resurrection? This seems unlikely too, but all those unlikely events combining are still more plausible than Jesus' resurrection to me, and probably many people who don't presuppose a God is trying to reach people.

2. Jesus didn't die. People used to be buried with a string and bell because people would misdiagnose death and bury people alive. Jesus being presumably dead and returning three days later is plausible.

3. Jesus died on the cross and didn't physically resurrect. All the accounts of his resurrection where spiritual, imagined, exaggerated, and then over time collaborated to prove his divinity. This is most plausible considering the distance between Jesus' death and the writings of his physical resurrection, empty tomb, etc in the New Testament.
   

Plausibility isn't the only important factor, but as a person who doesn't believe in the supernatural, plausibility is the most important factor in determining the evidence for Jesus' resurrection.

5) How is the exclusivity of Christianity fair to those who don't hear the Gospel?

The answers here were the most unsatisfying. But there are a lot of reason and answers.

Conclusion

There are a lot of good reasons to believe in God and Christianity. There is evidence for both. I admire and respect people who live their life like Jesus of Nazareth.

But I do not think he was God or resurrected. It is possible that ideas exist that I haven't heard yet, but I have studied Christianity and the major world religions, and their answers do not satisfy me. I have thought and read a lot about these topics. I enjoy learning and reading about religion. Religions help me grow as a person and understand other people and the world. Still, they are human creation, like science, philosophy, or mathematics.

Religions were created and served a function in their cultures. Then the religions that benefited people most survived and beat out other religions. Eventually states and nations used religions as a systems of control. Today, the major religions are the religions that provided people meaning but also allowed allowed people to be controlled. Religions evolve. Christians today are different than Christians 100 or 1,000 years ago. As society changes and progress, religions and Christianity will adapt and evolve. Churches in the US and Europe especially are adapting to meet progressive ideas.

Even though I see problems with religions, I don't see religion as bad, nor do I use any of my time or effort to disprove people's faith or beliefs. That isn't my place. I love to argue and critically analyze ideas. I'd like to help people think better, but I don't want to tell people what to think or believe.

I want to be a good person. I'm interested in finding out how I can be a better person, but my current condition has my priories to my immediate family. So the questions and answers discussed in the talk, do not interests me nor help me or my family.

In my experience, people believe because of two main factors: 1) how they were raised or 2) what they feel or experience. It is as easy for me to reject Christianity as it is a Christian to reject Islam, Hinduism, or Scientology. I wasn't told or taught anything growing up. I wasn't brought up to be an atheist either; we just didn't go to church or talk about religion. I accepted God because everyone I knew did, and I didn't know it was an option not to believe in God until I was an adult. I didn't think The Big Bang or evolution were serious ideas until I went to college.

Lacking religious ideas growing up, I consider a blessing. I am able to think about philosophical questions with a less bias towards a religious idea, allowing me to be more critical in general, or it feels that way at least.

Luis, I love you brother. I appreciate you wanting and trying to save me. And I'm happy you have found meaning and answers in your life.



Jimbo out

A 1950's perspective of a police killing of an unarmed blackman

I'm reading and listening to Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison. The reader Joe Morton is excellent. I'm not sure how much he is adding to the story. I think the story and reader are both outstanding. But back to the reader, his additions, infections, and use of verbal expressions are the best. I can't recall a better reader. He surpasses Levar Burton.

The best part of the story is the narrator. I don't want to give away too much or spoil anything. Plus I didn't finish it yet, but the narrator is unique. He weaves in and out of hindsight and nativity, and the story uses an optimal mixture of philosophy and poetic descriptions.

Here is a speech the narrator made at a funeral of an unarmed black man who was shot and killed by a police officer.

"Here are the facts. He was standing and he fell. He fell and he kneeled. He kneeled and he bled. He bled and he died. He fell in a heap like any man and his blood spilled out like any blood; *red* as any blood, wet as any blood and reflecting the sky and the buildings and the birds and the trees, or your face if you'd look into its dulling mirror--and it dried in the sun as blood dries. That's all. They spilled his blood and he bled. They cut him down and he died; the blood flowed on the walk in a pool, gleamed a while, and, after a while, became dull then dusty, then dried. That's the story and that's how it ended. It's an old story and there's been too much blood to excite you. Besides, it's only important when it fills the veins of a living man. Aren't you tired of such stories? Aren't you sick of the blood? Then why listen, why don't you go? It's hot out here. There's the odor of embalming fluid. The beer is cold in the taverns, the saxophones will be mellow at the Savoy; plenty good-laughing-lies will be told in the barber shops and beauty parlors; and there'll be sermons in two hundred churches in the cool of the evening, and plenty of laughs at the movies. Go listen to 'Amos and Andy' and forget it. Here you have only the same old story. There's not even a young wife up here in red to mourn him. There's nothing to give you that good old frightened feeling. The story's too short and too simple. His name was Clifton, Tod Clifton, and he was unarmed, and his death was as senseless as his life was futile. He had struggled for Brotherhood on a hundred street corners and he thought it would make him more human, but he died like any dog in a road."

You can read the whole scene here.

People to Me

I started listening to Never Enough: The Neuroscience and Experience of Addiction by Judith Grisel-. She recently gave a TED Talk, I didn't listen to yet but I'm sure it is a 12 minute version of her book.

The book is a mix of memoir, Dr. Grisel is a recovered addict, and a science of addiction and drugs. The book is very informative on the subjectively and objectively. All young people should read and study, at least, the content of this book with similar detail of how drugs affect our body.

In the introduction there was a passage that really spoke to me. In fact, I would extend this sentiment to all people and it explains how I see the world.

“...of the addictive experience. I don’t think I was basically a good person who got mixed up with a bad crowd, for instance, or that I was somehow dealt a crummy hand in terms of genes or neurochemistry, parents, or personal history (though these all certainly had an influence). I also don’t think that I am essentially worse than or even different from others: not those spending down their allotment of days under bridges, or in prisons, or for that matter managing PTAs or running for public office. All of us face countless choices, and there is no bright line separating good and bad, order and entropy, life and death. Perhaps as a result of following rules or conventions, some live under the delusion that they are innocent, safe, or deserving of their status as well-fed citizens...”

To Defund, or not to Defund

Draft in Progress

I've discussed defunding police with conservatives and liberals, and I usually find a somewhat common ground with policy, not philosophically, but in a practical sense. I'm finally getting around to research. The sections below are my findings and sources.

First off, I realized I didn't know the definition of defund. Here it is: defund- prevent from continuing to receive funds.

I've discussed the use of the word defund too. I have high confidence that the word defund was strategically chosen. If you think of it, defund sounds way better than terminate, eliminate, abolish, etc. If fact, I bet there is an anchoring effect as well with pairing defund campaigns with the more extreme abolish campaigns. What is the best way to sell a $30 wine, anchor it next to a $70. What is the best way to sell people on defunding police, anchor it next to abolish police and whatever the far right is selling.

Police have a grueling job, and people are blaming too much of America's racial and judicial problems on cops. With that said, cops are not trained the way I would want police to handle violent or aggressive situations. In addition they would benefit from studying psychology, understanding their and other people's biases, and learning the historically discriminate policies and laws that affect people today.


The following I found worth sharing. I added links to all my sources. I tried to leave my opinions out, and save my ideas for my final thoughts in the conclusion.

Police Spending

The following is from a fortune.com article titled "What U.S. police spending looks like in 3 charts"

"State and local governments spent a combined total of $115 billion on police in fiscal 2017, according to the Urban Institute, equal to about 4% of their cumulative expenditures. While that total was up from $42 billion in 1977 (calculated in inflation-adjusted dollars), the 4% portion of total spending is approximately the same and has remained consistent over the past four decades."(fortune.com)

Here are more graphs that help understand funding of police by the Urban.com article titled, "What Police Spending Data Can (and Cannot) Explain amid Calls to Defund the Police"







 

US vs the World

 

There is a cool Wiki page on police per capita for close to 150 countries. Here is the link. The info is nothing special or game changing. I thought it was fun enough to share. The Vatican is the most police heavy country with a little over 1.5 police officers per citizen, haha.

Police Polls

So what do cops think about all this?

FiveThirtyEight, a media company, has a nice summary or poll findings titled, "How The Police See Issues Of Race And Policing." I'd recommend reading the bolded headlines and then the details if you're interested.

Pew has a few polls on race and police. Here are recent conclusions from 2020. Here are 2017 conclusions. Here is a 2017 police vs the public views. There are a lot of overlap in these articles.

Defund the police is "unpopular with most demographic groups, too, with two notable exceptions: Black Americans and Democrats." (How Americans Feel About ‘Defunding The Police’)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Increase Police, Decrease Crime

COPS (Community Orientated Policing Strategies), an agency under The Department of Justice, has a program that gives police departments grants to hire more police. Results from COPS's grants and studies on crime provide evidence that when you increase the quantity of police officers, it decreases crime. (More Cops, less Crime; The Relationship Between Economic Conditions, Policing, and Crime)

"The effects are driven by large and statistically significant effects of police on robbery, larceny, and auto theft, with suggestive evidence that police reduce murders as well. Crime reductions associated with additional police were more pronounced in areas most affected by the Great Recession. The results highlight that fiscal support to local governments for crime prevention may offer large returns, especially during bad macroeconomic times." (More Cops, less Crime)

I'm not interested in crime rates. For many reasons, crime rates are incomplete evidence of a functional and or health society. I wasn't looking for crime rates, but came across these. I wouldn't be surprised if other studies found opposing evidence. Or if increased police, can influence people's likelihood of reporting crimes. I could also see a benefit in increased crime rates due do to more police available.

 

Economic Impacts of Policing

First problem,

"It is difficult to reliably demonstrate a causal relationship between the economy, the number of police, and crime, and attempts to focus on those relationships run the risk of missing the true value that police can bring to our communities—which cannot simply be measured through crime rates alone. The challenges in understanding these multi-directional relationships only expand for attempting to look at them on a national level; public safety is an inherently local condition. The health of the economy will likely always have both direct and indirect effects on crime and safety, but to differing extents across communities and neighborhoods." (The Relationship Between Economic Conditions, Policing, and Crime Trends An Addendum to The Impact of the Economic Downturn on American Police Agencies by Matthew C. Scheider Ph.D., Deborah L. Spence, and Jessica Mansourian)

"Efforts to measure [police reform] are highly flawed... Defund the police is exposing gaping holes in how we measure what good police work really is, and how we gauge a reform’s success. Because after decades of research on policing and police reform, we still don’t know that much about what police are doing, how their presence actually affects the people who experience police violence, and what people in those communities want from reform." (Is Police Reform A Fundamentally Flawed Idea?)

In Is Police Reform A Fundamentally Flawed Idea?, Emily Owens, a criminology professor at the University of California, Irvine, added, "We don’t really have the data or the studies right now for me to say with confidence, ‘We know that these reforms work and these don’t.’"

Mesa, Arizona did a study comparing the greater Phoenix area's police spending, publish in 2010. Mesa identified a need for police reform. Here is their conclusion:

"Police departments today have to develop a new and different kind of bottom line, one that resonates with the communities most in need of safety and justice. The steps outlined here for man­aging that process — reducing costs, managing demand, revaluing policing and re-engineering operations — may not solve all of the emerg­ing problems of affordability in policing. Surely there is no blueprint or universal formula for the re-engineering of police departments in a coun­try with such a decentralized system for policing and public safety. But these four steps provide a framework for more deliberate experimentation within individual departments." (Making Policing More Affordable Managing Costs and Measuring Value in Policing by George Gascón and Todd Foglesong)