Values was a big operative word a few years ago.  Religious leaders pounded on the theme of values as the key to our daily existence.  While I agree with the fact that there needs to be a fundamental basis for one's actions, values seem to me the wrong word choice.  To me values are transient fads, based on base principles but subject to the on rush of trend, cultural expediency, and the direction of the wind.  I believe that principles, while seemingly identical to values, is the better and more permanent word.  It implies a dynamic and living yet also implies permanent personal philosophy.

The main difference is that principles are often and necessarily challenged by those who try to live by their principles.  Those that can withstand the test of time are principles, values are those that wanders with the onrush of time.  All too often, people will stand by their values as if they were principles, the key is that they will cling to the values and not challenge the premise or the underlying belief of the value.  This zealotry in homogeneous thought leads to dogmatism and has led the human civilization into intractable wars and ponderous institutions like organized religion and major political parties.  As history has shown, zealotry serves no one positively in the long term.  it may give some the justification short term for acting selfishly, but it serves humankind adversely in almost all instances. 

On the other hand, a nihilistic view of guiding structure and wisdom creates chaos and confusion.  Not believing in anything is believing in nothing.  While relativism serves a great role in philosophical thought experiemntation, and does reveal a certain amount of truth, a moral system based on constantly changing foundations mean inpermanence and volatility of the moral center.

So it seems that a firm walk down the middle of the extremes would be the wisest and safest route.  Yet the adherence to the middle also becomes zealotry and dogma in and of itself. 

Whoever said life was easy.

My education

I have always fancied myself an autodidact, even though I was more efficient when I was taught via the standard lecture pedagogy.  Since I have not been on campus in quite a few years, and my focus for my education is much too varied for a degree program.  No such thing as a masters in polymath-ology.  So, I have taken it upon myself to teach myself what I want to learn.  I have been pretty unsuccessful so far, but I have found a way to do this, after my volleyball season had ceased. 

The new method is to immerse myself in the readings and do it the slow and gradual way.  I go to the coffee shop or Border's and put on the headphones.  Then I sit and read, for an hourm two hours, how ever long I can read before I have to go somewhere.  It has been fruitful so far.

My standing list right now is kind of varied and probably too big to be very efficient, but I am plugging away. 

My list right now:

• Hermann Hesse:Pilgrim of Crisis by Ralph Freedman.
• How to read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren.
• On Liberty and Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill.
• Great Books by David Denby.
• How to Live or a Life of Montaigne by Sarah Bakewell.
• Fearless Symmetry: Exposing the Hidden Patterns of Numbers by Avner Ash and Robert Gross. 

I have always been a great fan of Hesse's writing.  So it is natural that I get interested in his biography.  Especially in how he came to believe what he believes.

The Adler and Van Doren book is a revisit of a classic.  Just a reminder on how to read effectively.

John Stuart Mill's On Liberty is the key piece of writing for Liberalism.

The Denby book is actually my way of cheating.  Denby gives a rather short synopsis of his second time reading the Great Books at Columbia.  But he also gives a personal reflection on each book and the place these books have in today's intellectual environment.  He also takes on the objections to the list and the emphasis on western, male authors in the list.  I am finding it more interesting than I thought.

The book on Montaigne is a new one, which gives us another take on Montaigne's essays, i.e. as it applies to living.

Finally, the book on symmetry is a pretty hard slog.  Not being a mathematical slouch, this book really knocks you back a bit and jumps straight into Groups, transformation and representation.

Of course, I am also doing some recreational reading.  I have two Inspector Montalbano mysteries, an Inspector Alan Banks mysteries, and the usual magazines waiting for me.

Of course, the volleyball season has to start now.