Blogging With Intrinsic Motivation

          Often it is the case with me, and one of much consternation; that when I'm presented with an assignment; it will likely be met with such anxiety and indolence, that I go through something similar to the "five stages of grief." The bright side to this, is that I always end up at the acceptance stage. For this reason, it didn't take very long to get the sense that Alex Reid; in his essay Why Blog? Searching For Writing On the Web; was speaking directly to the kind of person that I am.

     I didn't find any of the content within the numerous pages to be dry; nor did any of those familiar thought traps slither into my consciousness while reading it. By thought traps, I'm referring to that little black dot in the back of my mind; that whispers things like; "this is boring-- you're wasting your time."Each time the little black dot repeats itself; it grows a little bigger. Before long, my being stifled transforms into a vegetative trance, and the little black dot-- with its unceasing mantra-- becomes a whirling black hole; which sucks the wrinkles out of my brain until it's totally smooth.

          When Reid made the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivators, and explained how blogging offers pure freedom to experience writing based on things that inspire them to practice; he delivered a powerful alternative to giving the thought traps their way. I think that written language is a thing of the highest beauty. I also think about what a fortunate circumstance it is to have inherited English as my primary language. I suspect that the shocking erosion of skill with the use of written English in the U.S. is not caused by some dark illuminati conspiracy; one which aims to dumb everyone down for social control purposes. The infinitely more probable explanation, and infinitely less idiotic, is the individual's struggle against the little black dot in his or her head.

     Causation and correlation being two different kettles of fish; there are indeed apparent societal factors which contribute to the volume of the wretched sounds of internal discouragement from writing practice. For one, it doesn't help to be arrogant; always boasting about the fact that one has learned the difference between your and you're; thus feeling just enough superiority over the peer network to justify the discontinuation of learning, and moving on to more fun and worthwhile things -- like drinking heavily and arguing about politics. If there really were such thing as grammar police on facebook; it would probably be the most corrupt department that the English speaking world has ever known.

          Another cultural factor which further separates both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations from the art of reading and writing; is the fact that gadgets have taken such a dominant role in our lives. Our technology has risen to such a height that it is no longer a means of communication between people. It is an end in itself now. Our technology is our communication, and many if not most people these days feel lost without it. Without their devices people feel muted, disconnected and lacking; when in reality they haven't been as free and connected to the world around them in years. Great ideas and stories are swept away by the sheer speed of it all; as the ability to slowly absorb the stories and ideas is no longer thought of as useful. We now read things as fragments; comments; blurbs; headlines; tweets, and yelps. It's no wonder so many people leave most of their thinking up to the big boys on tv. It's a shame--space exploration could've been a really interesting part of our lives by now.

     For as much as I wish things could go back to the way they were in the analog era, I know that it's over. I can see no better way of reclaiming at least some percentage of what has been lost than through blogging. In a way, blogging is a direct defiance of this high-tech hangover of ours. It utilizes the same technology not as an end, but as a means of facilitating literacy. Thoughts can once more be shared, and processed slowly by others. Reasoned responses take the place of "likes," and "lol"s, and if one wants to play the funny man who always has a wisecrack against a skilled blogger; then it would be a good idea for that person to bring their A- game. Personally, I would really love to be able to witness Immanuel Kant and David Hume argue about metaphysics in a blog; responding to each other in real time.

And so, while I was apprehensive at first about blogging; reading Alex Reid's essay has changed my mind. I'm even feeling excited about getting started on it. My primary goal for starting this blog is to stay current with it, and revisit it every day. I hope to be as excited about blogging my thoughts and ideas in a month from now as I am today. There are a number of things I would change if I could, but much of it can't be. Knowing this is to know that the connection between extrinsic motivators, and writing is not likely to be made -- at least not anytime soon. It will all be okay if I can grasp and hold on to the idea that the reward for this undertaking is not merely something for me to put in my pocket. The reward is to earn a skill to put into my mind, and with it, I will enhance my life to something of greater quality. BLOG!

Response: Dogs Are People Too

          Far be it from me to put too hard a knock on the rational thoughts of rational people. Animal rights advocates; people who opine in the New York Times letters to the editor; even professors of neuroeconomics are all worthy of having their opinions considered, and they're all A-okay with me. I've read each perspective offered in this assignment, and I find each to have its own merit; being correct in some ways, and I dare say a bit silly in others. It is still very unclear to me why it's imperative to apply legal "personhood" status to a dog.

          When I look at my American-bulldog/boxer, Sheena, as I am at this very moment; I do indeed see more than a dog; a mutt; an object. She has been a loyal and true friend to me -- often when no friends of my own species were to be found. I would even go so far as to nominally award her the title of "family member." She is a good girl. I cannot, however, connect "personhood" with her. Personhood is not relative across species. It is reserved for human beings. Humans are possessors of the human essence; that is to say, we possess "humanness," or defining characteristics of the animal of which we are.

          Conversely; canines, i.e. dogs have an essence, or "dogness" entirely of their own. This "dogness" is something unique to their species, as personhood is to ours. Suppose one day you, or I, or anyone else decided to tear our clothes off; get down on all fours, and never again utter a word recognizable to the human ear. Suppose having done this, we decide to hang out only with other dogs; howling; barking; whining in a high pitch, and these would be our only means of communication. Would this make either of us dogs? There is no judge; in any appellate who would bring down her gavel and declare: "This man is a dog! Court is adjourned."

          No rational judge would rule in favor rule in favor of granting "dogness" to a human; whatever that would en-tail. This is not to say that within our exceedingly weird times that it would be shocking, or even... too far-fetched, to imagine some nut from Florida, or California, attempting to convince the court of his new found "dogness." Take about thirty seconds to picture what that scene would look like; Some weird naked guy in front of the bench panting; drooling all over his lawyer's shiny oxfords. I would even go out on a limb to guess that there would be people who would take the guy seriously, society being how it is, and all. All kidding aside, a dog can no more be a person, than a person can be a dog.

          I also wonder why some humans are prepared to offer such latitude as "personhood" to all dogs, but don't lift a finger to help themselves, or others who are already supposed to possess this so-called status. It seems far more logical to figure out what a person's rights actually are; than to waste more time and resources on new legislation which may feel great for emotion's sake, but pragmatically accomplishes very little. Changing the way we label something; while being utterly unable to change the essence of the thing, is a complete waste of time. Not only that, but it's also pretty insulting when we live in a society that considers itself to have such robust freedom of thought; only to be commanded to think along the lines of someone else's dictates (especially when the decrees are fallacies in themselves). I'll spare you from making metaphors that go further than trying to talk into a banana, and trying to eat the phone; though my argument is as simply premised, and inferred as such. 

          My purpose is not to assert that [Dr.] Berns' study is a sham. I'm certain that of Callie, and eleven other dogs-- when placed in an MRI machine, their caudates lit right up like christmas trees in response to certain physical cues. To me this in itself is remarkable; considering that I can barely persuade my dog to stay in the bathtub. While I'm sure his findings were exciting to see, I think what Berns considers to be "evidence" is quite sketchy at best. I also think that his so-called "inescapable conclusion" that "dogs are people too;" is merely an appeal to emotion, and also an appeal to popularity; as there are many folks out there who love their pets more than they could ever love another human being. For Berns' conclusion to be categorically true of all dogs; the paradox of Hempel's Raven must be considered; i.e. all ravens are black, and all non-black things are non-ravens. To prove the validity of his claim, it would require the study of quite a few more dogs than twelve; over the course of quite a few more months than twenty four. Such a task would actually require the use of a magical genie, and the study of all dogs; everywhere in the universe.

And so, if there is anything that this article proves, it is that [Dr.] Berns loves dogs. He loves dogs so much; he seeks to find evidence to assign a new definition to the species with regard to how we all view, think, and speak of dogs. If his research really proved what he had intended; it would be front page news everywhere on planet Earth. It would not have been buried in the opinion section of the New York Times. Alas, dogs are dogs; people are people, but what really brings both species together-- is the birthright of not being treated as mere objects by anyone, anywhere, ever. 

Link to the original article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/dogs-are-people-too.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

Readers' responses:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/opinion/is-fido-a-person-under-the-fur.html