Closed systems

I'm in a starbucks. Odd. But the music here is so much better than at the Common Cup the other day. At least it was. Now it's sappy Country schlock. Before it was Jazz. Nothing crazy but still stuff like Miles Davis.

I'm waiting for my car to get a $500 makeover: rear struts. Apparently they're blown and leaking grease. And I just had to transfer $$ from my savings to pay a credit card bill. And last night I spent more than I wanted going to a couple restaurants with Darick. You would know already where if we were friends on foursquare. Darick and I are in competition; it's neck and neck.

But I'm not going to worry about money. The universe will provide. Or so I keep telling myself.

I'm still trying to figure out what lesson I'm looking for in Nazi Germany. Right now, my conclusion is that we would all have been in one of 5 camps: Active supporters, passive supporters, passive resistance, active resistance, or in the more literal camps. And we could speculate where we would have been, but our hindsight is too clear for it to mean too much. I, for instance, would love to think I would be a Sophie Scholl in the active resistance, but I think I would be more of a passivist. I think it's more helpful to think about what today's holocaust is and which camp we're in now. But there are so many good candidates that we may not all agree on one. Which seems fine; to each their own. But I think it's important to at least define [what we perceive as] the problem. And then choose a camp.

The other lesson that I'm taking away is the difference between a closed system and an open system. I was reading this introduction to a philosophy book that called Hegel's system a closed system, one that follows an internal logic to pursue absolute truth. Which sounds like what Hitler did. If you believe that his system was reality, then his actions follow logically. But his (closed) system, like all closed systems, was merely a reflection (and distortion) of reality in the warped mirror of his mind. I have such a hard time understanding this because I don't believe in absolute truths--at least not ones that we can know. But that's also because I'm comfortable with uncertainty--very. So maybe this whole exercise is about me trying to understand a mind that I not only disagree with (and am revolted by) but whose process is diametrically opposed to mine.

It's not like we don't have absolutist thinkers in American politics but thankfully they are (currently) balanced by relativists.

But let's be vigilant. Closed systems require a foundational truth from which all grows. To close the system, then, requires leaps of logic. If the leaps are not big and are taken very slowly, any country could become absolutist.

I think we're also saved by the fact that we are required to think in so many different systems just to survive in the contemporary world. How could any one beat out the rest?

Ok, too much lite Country dripping with high fructose corn syrup. I rescind any praise of Starbucks music.