Eudaemonia

In two installments the ancient idea of eudaemonia is redefined and perfected by introducing the requirement that it be tied to "promotive" action rather than "flourishment," in terms of our happiness.
Part One: Eudaemonia
Part Two: Promotive Eudaemonia
An exclusive at Science20.com

Toward 2011

This has been a productive year for me.
Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self is out, finally...
The traffic to this site has more than doubled. I'm currently averaging forty visits a day.
Most of these visits stay between 7 and 12 mintues.
Many of these visitors return at a later date to read more.
The days I release new material, the visits quadruple.
My multi-language experiment has opened my work up to new audiences, albeit poorly translated. Obviously, given my subject matter, a global audience is preferred.

I couldn't have done this without you, the audience, the reader, the thinker and so I thank you.

According to the stats, my most popular essays are:
1. Capitalism isn't evil, it's stupid
2. The Philosophy Generator
3. A comment on Canadian nationalism
4. The War on Reason (in English, although most popular as Причина войны)

I also publish material at science20.com, which gets a great deal more traffic than I do. Check out the most popular essay I have there...
Shame Theory

Thanks again for reading, love to have more comments...
Looking forward to 2011, the year of accountability.

As always,
Best Thoughts,
Brian Taylor

Book Release

Post Paper Publications and Brian C. Taylor are proud to release  

Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self

ISBN	978-0-557-99909-5
Copyright	Brian C. Taylor (Standard Copyright License)
Publisher	PostPaper / Lulu Enterprises
Published	December 20, 2010
Language	English
Pages	310
Binding	Perfect-bound Paperback
Interior Ink	Black & white
Dimensions (inches)	6.0 wide × 9.0 tall

 The book contains charts, photos, a bibliography and index. 


    Synopsis:
    Some of the problems we face in modernity are of our own design, but we are manipulated to desire the design. In philosophical terms, it is the semantic deception of dialectical theses. Explaining what this means, how it works and what can be done to combat it is the goal of this book.    We used to rely on our wits. Now our problems are solved for us. This is a pleasant state of affairs, but it does not speak to our essence, nor even allow us to practise it. In a way, the system is living our lives for us. What if the system is wrong?
    In this short work Brian C. Taylor, writer, philosopher and social critic follows our ideas about the self through the ages, into modernity, into consumerism, the war on terror and other timely concerns that aim to socially engineer our ideas. His goal is to scientifically return your authenticity.
    Chasing philosophers through the ages, following our own ideas about the self, to dismantle both himself and modernity, the author brings in this tiny work, with candour, wisdom and depth, a dismantling of thought, a critique of the species, a pathway to virtue.

    Quotations from the book:
    "We are not talking about God here, nor even the grand scheme of society, we wonder about ourselves. By realizing when someone or something asks us to believe in it, in its intention, to create some reality out of an idea, we can begin to wonder about the value of following the rule."

"If modernity is the cause of complexity and systemic complexity is the cause of the rampant ineptitude that keeps rearing its ugly head, and we, in our infinite confusion, attempt only to counter this problem by adding further complexity, are we not just denying there is even a problem?"

"No matter how you reduce it, the events that took place on Manhattan Island, September 11, 2001 were a direct result of the intentions of the American government."

“Here, in our modern times, we don’t have to look to conspiracies or politics, just turn on your TV and watch some commercials. Is it not a paranoid delusion that sells anything to rid you of it? Is it not a hallucination that plays a jingle in your head when you see the golden arches of McDonalds? Do you not feel depressed when you can’t get what you want? Blame your thoughts on your environment for the problem, not the environment. You are the problem, change your thinking.”



Paperback is available at the following stores:


The Digital Download is available at the following sites:

Intentional Claus

Intentional Claus
The Santa Intention

Globalization and the New World Order

The following is a snippet of Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self. 

 

Globalization is inevitable and it is a good thing too. The sooner we all get over our issues with this fact, the better. The reason for my believing this to be true is due to the failure of the systems we design. Specifically, the counterproductive, paradoxical aspects of those systems. We've already mentioned the semantic deception of a dialectical thesis and how our need to express our individuality from within conformist boundaries confounds our beings. Further adding to our problems are the ideas of nationhood and “spreading democracy,” religion and yes, even the double standard the war on drugs represents. Now, ask yourself, are there any countries in this world where you can't buy a Coke? The answer is no. So why is it that the Coke company can get along with everyone, yet our supposed leaders cannot. Please note, I didn't say we can't get along, it is not we that start these fights amongst our little, global parcels. One way or another, we are told who to hate. 

 

The speech that should be given here is redundant. How many more times do you have to hear, “We're all one people. We've only got one planet. Everyone deserves the right to live as they see fit, providing they're not hurting anyone. Peace. Love. Etc.”? We, as I've stated and believe, for the most part, are good people. We work hard, we raise our kids, we seek joy. If we all were allowed to leave each other alone, we wouldn't have any problem. Alas, we are raised to want to be different, to have nationhood, to have culture, to differentiate, to expect growth and realize superiority, the list of erroneous philosophies rages on, programming us to fail at the one reasonable reaction that life affords us, prudence. Thus, globalization will be the result of collapse.

I say, if you find yourself resistant to Globalization, examine what kind of notions you harbour about it. We are one people, we do find ourselves partaking of the same pleasures and pains. For me globalization represents the opportunity to work out those pains together. If the world of business can become globalist, why can't we all? It is, after all, why we're here. We are here. We're all here. We're all here together. We may never know why, but we know what we can do. We also know we can't do it alone and what we have to do, we all have to do. William S. Burroughs said, “We're all here to go... We're all here to go, into space. But what are you and you and you and you and you and you and you here for?” I suppose this is true assessment and a fair question. Eventually, we will have to leave the Earth. The life cycle of the Sun guarantees this fact, however far off in the future this transformation will take place. 

Perhaps it is the nerd in me, but I think Star Trek is the pinnacle of globalization and should be its desired outcome. So too shall it be attached to my globalist paradigm, I have decreed. The “prime directive” of the “Federation of Planets” goes well beyond global concepts, but it must first have been achieved globally for it to work universally, that being, a strict policy of non-interference. “Don't love your neighbour, leave the poor bastard alone.”

   

Business is pushing this one currently. The world of trade has a monopoly on the idea of globalization. It has been argued that this definition is changing because of modern travel, the internet, the environmental movement and other “global village” concerns. Business, of course, has profit as its goal and for certain businesses, the idea of “everyone being on the same page” is not profitable. Although this seems rather transparent to me, I suspect there are at least one billion people who would like to argue the opposite. However, if you are in the business of killing people, I think it's plain to see how globalism, “one world-ness,” is counterproductive. This is why I don't get too excited about the so-called New World Order, the idea of the utopian future shifts and changes with each passing age. This particular gaggle of idiots is just premature. 

We will have our new world order, when we are ready, when it is ready. We won't make it, it will make us. The median will be determined by our balancing of all extremes, of all differences, into something that we can be proud to call human.

Although there are tangible results, from within the already successful business/trade aspects of globalization, as well as the burgeoning “attitude shifts” developing within this new global paradigm, the evaluability of the phenomenon itself is limited. There is also the usual problems we have with knowing we are doing right, as we do it. Some hindsight is preferred. There is certainly a very real opportunity for danger represented by the suggestion that the entire human species follow some particular philosophy or other. Unless of course, the philosophy be that we strive to do our best possible thinking, working toward virtue in all endeavours. 

This continues to be my wish.

When you reduce globalization to its fundamental components, it becomes attached to emotions, such as competition introduces a desire to see your opponent fail and cooperation develops a desire to see your partner succeed. There are also going to be emotional compromises in achieving some virtuous mean, particularly if you currently find yourself comfortable in some extreme or deficient aspect of modernity.

I am strongly in favour of all humans getting on the same page, the right page, the page this book attempts to define. Of all the possible typification that can describe the human species, eudaemonic and virtuous are the ones most likely to contribute to any lasting success. I'm unable to score it as a perfect interpretation because of the dangers present in adopting other, more directional paradigms, such as in the socially engineered forms we find ourselves presently combating, “think this about that.”