politics

by

“Debating Apes” might be a good name for a band

Well, here’s another blog post, the third of the week.  It’s  11-11 today, written in the way the date is ordered in America.  On the other hand, in the European date ordering, the numbers would be switched, and it would instead be “11-11”.  Weird, huh?

For some people, the date ordering really seems to matter.  Some of them get snarky and heated, almost self-righteous online.  I’ve seen people make what they think are convincing arguments about why their particular date ordering system is the correct one, as though it were something objective and absolute that must be utterly and inescapably obvious to anyone with a minimum level of intelligence.  And, of course, those who prefer the other way will occasionally perform the same rhetorical dance to promote their side of things.

The funny thing is, both of them will often present interesting and even persuasive arguments.  This doesn’t tend‒in these exchanges, anyway‒to be an “Is not!” “Is too!”  “Is NOT!” “Is TOO!” type of clash.  These are people who have spent a certain amount of time really thinking about the issue.

But, of course, that thought, while admirable as far as it goes, tends not to be reasoning in search of an ever closer approach to truth and knowledge.  Rather, it tends to be self-serving and one-sided‒the work of lawyers, not scientists.

Neither side convinces the other, since neither is open to being convinced.  They are not seeking the truth, or to improve their understanding of a complicated issue*, they are seeking to score points, as it were.  This is primate dominance hierarchy competition; this is metaphorical feces throwing**.

And this, as I think I’ve written here before, is why I dislike the formal debate format.  Like the courtroom pantomime we act out in so many places every day, it is purported to be a means by which to seek truth, or at least to improve understanding, to test ideas against one another and see which come out intact.  But what it really entails is a competition between opposing would-be-dominant apes.  It is no more an intellectual endeavor intended to increase knowledge and arrive at greater understanding than is the clash of two rutting bucks.

Perhaps‒sometimes‒if there is a wide enough audience who are relatively ignorant (no insult) of the subject, such a debate may indeed give some people new and useful information, and one side or the other may even persuade them.

But such knowledge-seeking people do not require debates to learn.  Those who seek to understand a thing better‒really to understand it, not just to get simplistic answers that will allow them to stop thinking about the subject‒find many ways to take in knowledge, and a debate format may not be a particularly efficient one.

In a formal debate, arguments are couched in clever (i.e., manipulative) rhetoric rather than clear propositions with nuance and caveats.  This can make them entertaining as sporting matches, but it soils the potential for logic and reason.  Reality, on the other hand, is nuance incarnate.

It really ought to be thought to be full of caveats as well.  There should be caveat emptor warning signs posted everywhere.  Reality is, as far as we can tell, absolutely consistent internally; that does not prevent life from being full of deception, because deception can be a powerful tool for both predators and prey, in literal and metaphorical senses.

Since I just made the point about caveats, I’ll finish up with another point that has occurred to me more than once recently:  Many people watching horror movies and reacting to them, in real life or in YouTube videos or whatever, will bemoan the reckless behaviors of characters on screen, behaviors that end up getting the characters killed.  But then, sometimes, the viewers shake their heads and say something along the lines of “Well, they don’t know they’re in a horror movie, do they?”

Here’s the thing:  We are all, always, in a horror movie.  Horror movies can and do have other plots going on a lot of the time‒there can be romance and comedy and friendship and even politics and more prosaic crime and so on‒but the darkness is always coming for the characters, in whatever form it takes.

And the same is true for all of us.  The outer/inner/final darkness is stalking not just all humans, not just all life, but all things, and as far as anyone knows, there is no way to avoid it forever.

The Devourer, the Destroyer, will catch you and consume you sooner or later.  It may be swift and mostly painless, or it may be slow and agonizing‒or, I guess, it may be slow and mostly painless or swift and agonizing‒but it will happen.  According to the very best knowledge we have there is no way to get away from it.  For it is the very fact that entropy tends to increase that also drives and allows for life to exist in the first place.  “Death” makes life possible.

“Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes,” as Buck Murdock said.

Still, there’s no reason you can’t enjoy the movie while it lasts, as much as you’re able.  So, I’ll close by embedding two videos which deal with this subject rather brilliantly, and wish you a good day.

 

*And let’s face it, most issues on which people disagree are complicated.  There are few people who dispute whether 2 + 2 = 3 + 1 = 4, at least if they know what the symbols mean.

**A great many behaviors of humans in the world can be explained with a bit of applied primatology, from “Karen” type behavior and road rage to people’s dating strategies and relationship tendencies and office politics and politics in general and so on.  Indeed, I’ve seen a video in which one speaker told the interviewer that, in the run-up to Taco Piggy’s first Presidential election in 2016, the primatologists were the ones who thought it all too likely that the result would be what it turned out to be.  This fact does not surprise me.  Then again, it supports my general point of view, so I would find it convincing, wouldn’t I?

by

Smartphones, foolish humans, and vanishingly small giant numbers

Well, I’m writing this post on my smartphone today, not on the lapcom.

I’m okay with the term “smartphone”, unlike the term “laptop”.  It’s reasonably accurate, after all.  Especially compared to the phones with which I grew up, it is a very smart phone indeed.  I remember being quite excited when we got our first push-button phone, let alone one with “call waiting”.

Heck, this phone is very smart even relative to the first and second full-on desktop computers I “owned”*.  Those were an Apple II+™ and a Macintosh SE®, respectively.  Yes, I used to love Apple©.

Today is a big day in American** politics.  It’s the day of the midterm elections.  Of course, I cannot participate in that process, since the State of Florida disenfranchised everyone who had ever been convicted of a felony, even if it was the result of a coercive plea-bargain, even after they have served their sentences.

Of course, in a referendum, the people of Florida voted to amend the Florida constitution to correct that injustice and grant ex-cons the “right” to vote.

And then, instantly, the bottom feeders in the Florida legislature‒to a good first approximation, all of them are bottom feeders‒attached a bunch of legal hoops to jump through before someone could regain that “right”, hoops which many people, including me, find just not workable.

The people doing this disenfranchising almost certainly did so deliberately to influence elections, since the demographics of people who have actually been convicted of felonies tend to be quite different from those of people who can afford to pay for an adequate defense.

Anyway, let me not get going on that subject too much, except to say that I consider it a severe divergence from the spirit of the United States as represented in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Florida isn’t the only state that misses the point of the US, but they are among the most prominent and the most mentally deficient.

Oh, well.  What are you gonna do?  Any place where people can unironically use such phrases as “requesting the restoration of one’s rights” is a place of sophistry‒if even that‒not of actual rationality.  I say this because actual rights cannot be taken away nor returned.  They can be violated, of course, and sometimes this violation can be necessary and even morally right***, but they cannot be removed or restored by the action of some group of one’s fellow flesh-and-bloodlings.  Such things as those are better referred to as privileges.  George Carlin had a pretty good routine about that.

Anyway, again, I am not going to get into too much of the specifics of politics.  I think politics is important, in a relative sense, but only to humans and their chattel and to those within their sphere**** of influence.

But humans’ attitude toward such politics is often very melodramatic and even tragi-comic.  They seem to think that what happens to be happening right here and right now is the most consequential thing in the universe, ever (and not merely in a mindfulness sort of way).  It’s a frankly absurd, almost hilarious, solipsistic anthropocentrism:  what humans are doing right here and right now is the most important set of facts in all the universe, ever.

Alas, humans and human civilization and even all life on Earth from its beginning up to now***** are not merely cosmically tiny, not merely negligible, but to a very good****** approximation, they are nonexistent.  That’s not an insult, necessarily; after all, on the scale of infinity, even the largest number you can name is unreasonably close to zero.  Compared to infinity, everything finite is a rounding error on nonexistence, whether it’s one or pi or Graham’s Number or Tree(3) or anything else.

Kansas (the band, not the state) was being generous and a bit indulgent when they sang “all we are is dust in the wind”.

Dust in the wind?  Are you joking?  What in the world gave you the hubris to entertain the ridiculous, megalomaniacal delusion that you (or anyone or everyone around you) are as significant as dust in the wind?

With that cheerful thought, I’ll wrap this up.  Just reassure yourself that, not only is it true that in a hundred years no one will care; for almost everything, in a hundred seconds no one will care.

Have a good day anyway, despite all that.  It’s certainly possible.

*My Dad actually owned that first one, but he was not a computer hog.

**By which I mean “United Statesian” politics, but there really isn’t a good name for citizens of the United States that doesn’t require multiple words.  But, of course, every citizen of Mexico and of Canada and of El Salvador and of Brazil and of Chile, and so on‒everyone in North and South America‒can be legitimately called American.  I wonder how many of the ignoramuses who cheered for “Gulf of America” and “Lake America” actually realize that.

***For instance, we (officially) hold it to be self-evident that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable, and apply at the very least to all humans.  And yet, if someone is a true danger to others, all of whom have the same rights, and if that person cannot be convinced not to harm other people, it may be necessary to violate that person’s rights‒for instance by imprisoning them, or even by killing them if they are an immediate threat to others and there is no workable alternative.  It may be truly necessary and the best possible course of action, given specific circumstances, but I maintain it is still a violation of rights.  It may merely be the smallest set of such violations available and within the power of any group of mere humans.  But if one were omnipotent and omniscient, then one could merely adjust the settings of the dangerous person to keep them from being a danger to others and then allowing them to live and pursue their own relatively non-pathological happiness freely after that.

****I think it’s fair to use the term “sphere” here, because even though the dimensionality of that sphere is probably much greater than three, mathematically that’s fine.  There are four-spheres and twelve-spheres and so on.  A sphere is simply that collection of points, all of which are equidistant from some chosen center point.  Mathematically, a circle (for instance) is just a “two-sphere”, a sphere in two dimensions.  And I suppose any two points on a line could be said to constitute a one-sphere.  I don’t think it’s possible to have fractal spheres, i.e., a sphere in non-integer dimensions, but if I’m wrong, I would sincerely love to be corrected and educated by any mathematicians out there.

*****The future could in principle break this pattern, but I’m not holding my breath.

******How good an approximation?  Better than the most precise estimate that you’ve ever encountered or imagined encountering in your day-to-day life, even if your work involves measuring the magnetic moment of electrons.  99 and 44/100ths percent pure is galactically farther away from accurate compared to how closely all life ever on Earth approximates zero.  I think I get into that in the following video.

 

by

Wouldst thou blog that which thou esteem’st the ornament of life?

Hello and good morning.

It’s Thursday.

TTFN

Ha ha.  I’m just kidding.  It would be absurd for me to let you all off that easily.  Not that you don’t deserve to be let off easily; you probably do.  Whatever “deserve” means.

But it rarely matters in this world what you “deserve” or think that you deserve or have been told that you deserve.  Nature, physics, biology, the universe‒they don’t notice anything at all about what you might “deserve”.  They just do what they do, and if you don’t want to be ground into nothingness before your time, you’d better learn to surf on that chaos.

The notion of people deserving things has always been a bit strange to me.  It is nebulous and ill-considered in almost all situations.  What does it mean, for instance, for someone to deserve love?  How can you deserve something that is dependent on the judgment and emotion of another person or people?  You can’t have an innate right to another person’s esteem.

You can have a right, of sorts, to be left alone (as long as you’re not infringing other people’s rights) but not necessarily to be supported or admired or rewarded or what have you.

I suppose you can have a legal right, for instance, to health care (in principle), depending on the laws where you are.  But you can’t exactly have a moral right to it, because somebody‒a lot of people, really‒has to provide it, both the substance and the processes, the knowledge and the infrastructure.  You cannot morally own another person’s effort without a freely chosen mutual exchange for it.  Otherwise, you’re just enacting a form of slavery (which you’re only willing to do precisely because the service being provided is so important).  Think about the moral illogic there.

Don’t get me wrong; I’ve come to the pretty strong suspicion that “universal” healthcare is generally very good for a society.  It helps make the life of those in that society more stable and more worth living, and I think it tends to help people be more creative and productive, ceteris paribus.  And it can be made a legal right, as I said.

But it cannot be a moral right, and it’s important for people to remember that.  Because when people start feeling truly entitled, they tend to become unreasonable, forgetting that in the real universe, everything requires energy and effort and understanding, and there is always some tradeoff somewhere.

Again, I want to reiterate, I think universal healthcare is generally a good use of resources, one that has a sort of money multiplier effect on a society, at least when administered well (which is not a low bar to clear).  But, again, it cannot be a moral right.  It has to be paid for by somebody, somewhere.  You don’t have a moral right to a particular bridge being built, say, or to cable TV and internet access, or to a luxury car…or to any car at all, really.

How could people have an innate right to a car, for instance?  What would that mean for the billions and billions of people who lived before cars ever existed?  What about air travel?

Heck, what about space travel?  In the future, space travel might become necessary for most people to be able to work, rather as cars are in some places and situations now.  Will that imply that there is and has always been a moral right to space travel?  Have we all had our rights systematically thwarted by the tyranny of linear time and causality?  Whom do we sue?

I think we should dispense with the notion of “deserving” things in general, except specific performance or products for which one has paid through mutual, freely chosen exchange with someone else.  In other words, if you made a contract and you held up your end of the bargain, it makes sense to say that you deserve for the other party to hold up their end of the bargain.

Everywhere else, the notion of deserving things tends to be subjective and self-serving, and it tends to turn people into entitled assholes who appear to think of themselves as the center of the universe.

Of course, physically, each person is the center of their own visible universe.  Congratulations, you are experiencing the phenomenon of a 3-dimensional horizon.  It happens to us all.  You are not special.

Well, you are special in some senses, of course.  You have various specific, local aspects and attributes that are not exactly duplicated anywhere within our visible universe.  This makes you unique.  Which, ironically, makes you just like everybody else.

Dash was right; saying that everybody is special is just another way of saying that no one is.  And, in fact, except from the highly parochial, anthropocentric, myopic, terrified point of view of the typical human, no one is special‒not from “outside” anyway.

Still, it’s okay to think that the ones you love are truly the most wonderful people in the universe, because‒in the universe of your mind and experience‒they are.  Unless you don’t think they are, but that’s a different sort of problem.

Perhaps one of the biggest problems with the concept of “deserving” things is that it is a powerful impediment to feelings of gratitude.  And that’s pretty pathetic, both for those around the ungrateful ones and for the ungrateful ones themselves.  If you think you’re entitled to many things, you’re likely to be miserable, because you’re unlikely to get all those things to which you feel entitled, and you’ll be prone to make the people around you miserable, too.

You don’t deserve to read my blog.  And I don’t deserve to have you read it, nor to have you like and share it (as in my song, below).  But I am grateful that you are reading, and would be pleased if you decided to spread it around.  I am lucky to have any good things at all, as are all people who have good things.

And now, for real this time:

TTFN

by

You can’t teach an old dogma new tricks

It’s Friday, but I won’t thank God for it this time, because I expect to work tomorrow.  I also am simply disinclined to thank that imaginary sky daddy for much today, nor to say that he/it is great, since today is the 25th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, which were just the latest in the atrocities performed in the supposed name of the God of Abraham™ (other deities are available, though they are not really any better).

I’m not going to get into September 11th related stuff, though.  I doubt that I would have anything to say about it that others haven’t said at least as well as I ever could.  If you would like a good discussion by a very good thinker, Sam Harris released a recent, brief podcast about it.  The event both shaped and catalyzed his career as a public thinker.  It shaped a lot of things, and unfortunately, very, very few of them produced anything good or beneficial as a consequence, unlike Sam’s work.

I don’t know what I am going to write, though.  I’m still really wiped out from a very bad pain day yesterday (that pain is far from gone).  Also, I somehow scratched my right eye during the night, and it is quite irritated, so looking at the smartphone as I type is more irksome than usual.

I had at least a passing thought, though, about the notion of owning up to when we’re making immoral (but best available) choices rather than justifying to ourselves why what we are doing is “right”, which can sometimes lead to increasingly excessive behaviors driven by a sense (sometimes desperately clasped out of fear of facing the facts) of self-righteousness that can expand into dogmatism.

Dogmatism almost never makes any real sense, and it often leads to terrible, horrible, and reprehensible deeds (9-11 was just one of countless such depravities).

I think it would be better for us, culturally and perhaps individually, if we owned up to it when we violated our own precepts, even‒or especially‒when we do it out of real necessity.  At least it might give us more intellectual and moral humility.

For instance, it says in the founding document of the United States that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights.  In other words, they cannot ever be taken away by some outside power, not morally.

One can argue whether those rights actually exist and whether any such rights exist and so on, but I’m not interested in that discussion right now (though it is a good topic).  But if we assume arguendo that the rights enumerated are real and apply to the USA, then we cannot resist the fact that we violate them frequently‒by law, by custom, by various accidental means.

We imprison people, for instance, often out of necessity (when we do it “legitimately”, anyway, but again, that’s another subject).  If someone is dangerous to others and cannot be cured of whatever makes them dangerous, then we must separate such a person from others to protect their rights.  That doesn’t mean we aren’t violating the first person’s rights; those rights are declared to be unalienable.  But we are trapped in a place of competing rights, and must do our best to balance them.

We should admit that to ourselves.  We should say to ourselves, “Yes, we are violating this person’s rights, and it is not by nature a moral act.  But it is the best act we have available right now, so we will accept and endure the pangs of our consciences and do it, while always trying to find better alternatives.”

It’s that last part on which the crux of my point rests.  When we admit that we are doing something that is not moral, but that is the most moral option we have available, then we leave open‒indeed, we invite and encourage‒the quest for better solutions.  Whereas, when we tell ourselves we’re right to commit such violations, then we effectively raise a barrier against forces that might improve things.

When challenged on the morality of such deeds, if we haven’t already faced their morally turbid status, we unfortunately often get defensive and double down, because it’s too uncomfortable for most people most of the time to face the fact that they might be really wrong about something really consequential.

But dogmatism precludes improvement.  And if you believe that there is no room for improvement in any ideas you have been handed, then, well…I’ve got a bridge to sell you.  You can pay me for it in cash or, better yet, in precious metals and jewelry‒I’m hoping to make a great big heap of gems and jewelry and try to sleep on it.  Maybe it would cure my insomnia; I’ve always suspected that Smaug was onto something.

Anyway, that’s enough.  I don’t think I did justice to that random, walk-in topic, and I may not even have been coherent.  But, it was the best I could do for now, until I can figure out a way to do better.

I hope you have a good day today.  I will write another post tomorrow, exclusis improvisis.

by

Are there any insights in sight in this post?

It’s the beginning of a new work week.  By which I mean, it’s Monday.  But of course, the day to start a work week isn’t truly universal, is it?  That makes sense, since the very notion of a week’s length is pretty arbitrary, and it certainly doesn’t represent anything external in the universe, only things that are inside human minds and their artifacts.

Of course, having set lengths of typical weeks and having pre-programmed days off is probably very good for people at the overall and individual level.  After all, if left to their own devices (so to speak) most businesses would probably like people to work seven days a week (and probably 24 hours per day).

This is not a case of businesses being “evil” or capitalism being “evil”, it’s a case of everything and everybody tending to respond to local incentives and to support their own self interest‒because things and people that do not support their own self-interest tend to go away, as they are inherently outcompeted by things and people that do.

Of course, most entities have more than one local incentive going on, and these can be at relative odds with each other, just as in any individual human (and presumably other) mind, there are numerous modules that have parallel and sometimes conflicting drives‒parts of the mind/brain want specific kinds food at any given moment, and want rest, and want safety, and want excitement, and want companionship, and want sex, and want to learn, and want run around and play, and so on.  And the strength of these “wants” varies from moment to moment; their vector sum changes continuously.

So, getting all the incentives and forces lined up within one individual is already a complex and varying, nonlinear problem.  Then one has to work things out between individuals, and that often leads to groups and organizations of various kinds which then have to balance their own drives and interests and “fears”.

It’s tricky, it’s complicated, it’s immensely nonlinear, and it’s all highly “emergent”.  Almost none of it is actually motivated by any desire to be “evil”, to willfully harm others*, to be deliberately unfair.  Most negative behavior that isn’t entirely in the eye of the beholder is simply brought about by a kind of myopia, a nonreflective self-interest.

Very few people (or institutions) are specifically predicated upon doing harm.  Those that do consistently do harm seem a lot of the time to be motivated by fear.  This can exist, I would say, not merely at the level of an individual, but also at that of a larger organization, since organizations without self-preservation inclinations tend ceteris paribus to be less likely to survive over time.

To feel fear is not inherently irrational or even always detrimental or to be avoided.  But there are many kinds of irrational and nonrational fears.  And when one’s behaviors (whether one is a person or a company or a nation or a slime mold) are born of misapprehensions and even full-on delusions, those behaviors are going to tend not to be as productive as they might be**, and again, this makes for poor outcomes over time.  It is not, as the biological term goes, an evolutionarily stable strategy.

I don’t know why I’m writing about this topic and subject and whatnot.  I feel sure that I’ve written about all this before.  I didn’t use the exact specific words and ordering of words, of course; that would be vanishingly unlikely unless I did it on purpose, because there are so many ways to put together so many words to convey ideas.

In any case, it’s not as though they make any impact, even to the extent that I have potentially useful insights.  Very few people read my blog, and I don’t know that anyone “shares” it, even if they like it***.

Anyway, I don’t think I’m going to be able to do this much longer.  I don’t mean this blog, though that is subsumed by what I do mean, so it can at least serve as a marker.  I’m really not doing well.  This blog is, most days, my only social interaction that has to do with anything at all in which I am interested.  I have “social” interactions when at work, of course, but they are about work.

That’s usual for me.  I cannot seem easily to socialize for the sake of socialization‒it’s not that I don’t want to, I just cannot seem to do it‒but have to have some associated purpose.  Even things like movies and shows and so on have always been things in which I participate at least partly as a way of connecting with people.

Unfortunately, this tends to make shows that I used to watch (for instance) or books that I used to read and discuss or movies that I went to see and enjoyed with someone specific painful for me when those people are gone.  Actually, on a day-to-day basis, almost everyone is gone, many of them long gone.  Like the song below says, “everyone I know goes away in the end”.  Though it’s not even “the end” yet, and most of them are already gone.

It’s too bad my depression won’t seem to go away.  I know it’s not literally always at its worst, since that could only be the case for something with a constant level, but it does feel interminable.  That’s a commonly described attribute of depression, that when you’re in it, it feels as though it has always been and always will be.  I know that’s not literally true, and also that it’s not constant, but I also know that it never seems to go away for long.  And I am running out of countermeasures, and the ones that I still have are losing their effectiveness.

Whatever.  It doesn’t matter, anyway.  But I do hope you have a good day and a good week.

*Though sadism does exist, it tends not to be a stable attribute, because other people take a dim view of it (for reasons of self-preservation if nothing else) and will eventually expunge the willfully destructive from the world.

**Reality exists, whatever it might be, and those things that do not stay parallel to the course of reality are destined to crash into its walls.  And they will lose in that collision.

***I didn’t mean to refer to my song, Like and Share, but what the heck.  I’ll embed it here.

by

“…deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Well, first of all, happy Independence Eve to all my fellow USians out there.  I’m greeting you today because I will not be writing a blog post tomorrow, since I will not be working tomorrow, barring the unforeseen (exclusis improvisis one might say in Latin).

I suppose I could pre-write a post for tomorrow and schedule it to be published in the morning, but that would require a fair bit of extra work, and I barely have the energy to survive to the end of any given day as it is.

As for tomorrow’s holiday, I think it is important for US citizens (“Americans”) to remember what tomorrow represents: the signing (and publication) of the Declaration of Independence, asserting the end of British rule in the colonies and the formation of a new, independent nation.

In this present time, when the extremes of both ends of the political spectrum show all too clear leanings toward authoritarianism, it’s worth rereading the Declaration of Independence in full, including the list of grievances.  I will link to it as part of this post.  It’s not very long, really‒the main text contains only 1320 words, barely longer than yesterday’s blog post‒and it’s worth rereading at least once a year (as is the Constitution).

It’s not that there’s anything astonishingly ingenious about those documents, let alone “divine” in character, though they are well thought out and nicely expressed.  It’s the notions they convey that matter, among which (implicitly) is:  human “authority” is almost always a misnomer.

Stephen King has authority over the universes of his books, because he actually authored them.  Ditto for me regarding my universes.  But the real world is under no one’s authority, since as far as we can tell, it has no author, and no one understands it completely.

There is such a thing as expertise‒it varies quite a bit in its quality, but experts do exist and it tends to be worthwhile to listen to them within their areas of knowledge.  But experts are fallible, and those who would take part in “running” the various governments are extremely fallible, since it is an area of poorly developed science.

It’s worthwhile to remember and emphasize this fact, because naked house apes are prone to be swayed by primate dominance hierarchical urges, just as much as Vervet monkeys and chimpanzees and baboons are.  And since these proclivities are more or less instinctive, they don’t feel like mere thoughts.  They feel like perceptions.  They feel like direct experiences of the nature of reality.

They are experiences of some aspects of reality, of course, but they are frequently misleading ones.  It’s worthwhile remembering that politics, especially politics with authoritarian leanings*, tends to attract those who want to have power for its own sake, for their own sake‒not only those who really want to look out for the people and institutions of their particular nation‒though often they will pretend, even to themselves, that they are seeking some “greater good”.

But if there is such a greater good, and if the glaringly mediocre minds that claim such things can understand it, then that notion can be carefully communicated, and if it truly is good and great, then that should be clear and convincing to any honest and intelligent interlocutor.

Admittedly, there may be many biases that prevent every living hominid from accepting even the clearest bodies of evidence and argument; there are people who claim to believe the Earth is flat, after all, and that is not very bright.  But one should at least find a tendency toward confluence of judgment among those who live by the intellect, such as philosophers, psychologists, neuroscientists, biologists, physicists, engineers, etc.  When ideas are tested honestly and rigorously against reality, they tend to converge over time, because as far as anyone can tell, reality is at root unitary.

But those who seek political power are not generally drawn from fields that encourage and focus on rationalism, empiricism, and fallibilism.  And though I do not doubt that many people go into politics hoping to do actual good and to be of service, there are also very many who crave power over others, for whatever reasons, or even without reasons.  Such people do not tend to be our best and brightest, for as someone once wrote, “power lust is a weed that grows only in an untended mind”**.

This is why checks and balances and votes that include inputs from many (potentially all) people in a society, as well as frequent changes of office, are useful.  Weird shit, being unconstrained by reality, tends to be all over the place, ceteris paribus, compared to more grounded, realistic shit.  So, hopefully, in most cases, the overall mean or median or mode of good ideas is going to tend to be more reality based.

It’s not perfect, and we can certainly strive to improve it.  We can seek increased and better education, and encourage ourselves to seek to understand reality and to traffic in rigorous and self improving ideas to make it ever better.  But a crucial point is that there is no human authority over the world, and the sorts of people who would arrogate to themselves such power are not among the best and brightest.

As the old song says, “He can’t even run his own life, be damned if he’ll run mine.”

Anyway, Happy Independence Eve, again, and have a happy Independence Day tomorrow if you are in the US and celebrate it.  Don’t be put off by the lamentable state of current politics.  The ideas in the Declaration of Independence are still worth celebrating.

*e.g., the “dictatorship of the proletariat”.

**Yes, I know who said it.  But though I do like to give credit for well-turned phrases, it’s often the case that naked house apes will either latch onto or dismiss out of hand ideas solely based upon who said them, not on the quality of the ideas.  This is not rational, but it is horribly typical.  I’ve written about this before, this problem of attribution.  So, since it’s the message that matters, not who said it, I will sometimes refrain from revealing a quotation’s source, with implicit apologies to such sources.

by

While the orchestra blogs fitfully the music of the spheres*

Hello and good morning.  It’s Thursday (thus my standard “hello and good morning” salutation) and it is the 2nd day of July in 2026 AD/CE.

I don’t really expect that those reading this on the day are going to be unaware of the day and the date.  If they are unaware and yet are reading this online, then their unawareness must surely be willful or at least willing, for the day and date tend to be plastered all over most of our devices.  But in case someone reads this in the future‒even rather far into the future‒I figured I might give a bit of temporal context.

Admittedly, I don’t deal much with current affairs and politics and scandal and the like here, because I consider almost all such matters to be flashes in the pan, or stutters and sputters in the pan‒or even just flash powder that got drenched and then washed away in a dreary rain.

It’s almost all trivial, and almost all of it is so eye-rollingly repetitious, and much of the importance people attach to it is laughable.  The political concerns of a given modern human are no more important than the particular political concerns of a villager somewhere in the far-flung reaches of the Roman Empire…or the Phoenician empire, or the kingdom of Sumer or what have you.

All this local political turmoil, while not unimportant on a local level, is still vanishingly small and unnoticeably brief on any kind of even human historical scale, let alone something less anthropocentric.

Now, I want to be clear:  there’s nothing inherently wrong with taking part in local politics (local in space, local in time, etc.).  It makes sense to deal with one’s immediate concerns, as it does to try to secure one’s next meal.  That’s how you continue on to the following meal, after all.  As Jerry Seinfeld once said, “My favorite breath is whichever one gets me to the next one.”

But one should keep one’s next breath in perspective.  Your personal shortness of breath does not per se endanger the respiration of your office, your town, your region, your country, or the world.  It’s just you.

That’s okay.  It’s fair and reasonable for you to be concerned about things that affect your life directly.  But you should not expect others to be just as concerned about just the same things as those that concern you, nor should you consider it a moral failing if they are not.  If you think they ought to be concerned, then it’s incumbent upon you to use your reason‒not your emotions, they just won’t work‒to convince them.

Don’t behave like an adolescent who imagines that the world will end if they cannot see some particular show or play some particular game or attend some particular event.  Your emotions are salient and motivational only to you, at least directly, and they in and of themselves will influence only those who already care about your emotional state.

If you want to convince other, disinterested** people that something you find important should be important to them as well, merely weeping or wailing or shrieking at them is unlikely to persuade them (and will often do the opposite).  Your passion is persuasive mainly (or solely) to you.  You’re going to have to calm the eff down and explain things.

And you might fail to convince someone.  If so, the failure is on you.  Admittedly, it may not be solely on you; other people can be trapped in their own emotional cages just as you can be in yours.  You can only try.  And, if you want to be logically consistent, you should also listen to reasons other people might give for their own points of view.  You could be wrong, after all, hard though that may be to accept (especially about something about which you feel so strongly).

But there is no law of nature saying that people will definitely be persuaded even by the most rational and clear and complete arguments.  Sometimes you’re just banging your head against a brick wall.  It’s not a good state of things, but it’s just something that happens.

Of course, in the long run, nature itself will take care of those who are unreasonable and irrational‒and by “take care of”, I mean eliminating them.  Don’t get too smug about that.  To the degree that you are less than perfectly rational, you are at increased risk for nature “taking care of” you.

This is not to say that perfect rationality would protect you from every danger that might tend to “take care of you”.  Supernovas and meteors and earthquakes and the like do not respond even to your cleverest arguments.

That is to say, they don’t respond to them in the moment.  In the moment of a gigantic catastrophe, it’s too late to reason one’s way around it.  But being rational ahead of time can indeed affect how even the most calamitous disaster acts on you.  As I intimated yesterday, it’s conceivable that even the heat death of the universe (or the big crunch, etc., as the case may be) might be avoidable or at least endurable.

Maybe not.  But maybe so.  And the only way to know if it is amenable to intervention is to try to understand such things better and better all the time, to use the laws of nature to your advantage, for you cannot break or even bend those laws.  There is no lovely, tempting political corruption that can allow you to persuade the universe to waive the law of gravity just so that you don’t fall to your death after losing your grip on the edge of a cliff.  I’m sorry.

Except, I’m not really sorry.  You were under “constructive notice” of such things already‒a legal term meaning that you knew or should have known about the facts involved and so are responsible for what that knowledge entails.  Any genes that tend to make a human-sized organism less aware or less convinced about, say, the dangers associated with gravity are, ceteris paribus, less likely to persist throughout the generations than ones that give them real awareness of those dangers.

So, don’t casually walk along unstable cliff edges if you want to maximize your chances to continue living.  You may think you have “main character energy”, which sounds cool and all, but you’re only the main character of your own mind (if that).

To the universe, you are not even a paid extra.  You’re not even an offstage voice or a stage hand.  You’re at best a speck of dust somewhere on the rear-facing surface of some negligible bit of the backdrop, probably blocked by a curtain.  As Poe pointed out, the hero of the tragedy, Man, is the conqueror worm.

Which raises thoughts about that stupid social media based trend of asking, “Would you still love me if I were a worm?”

Well…maybe if you were a conqueror worm.

TTFN

*This is not a modified Shakespeare quote.  See if you can discern the source of the quote.

**Let alone uninterested.

by

The footnote may make the best point in this post

Well, it’s the start of another work week, and it’s also the start of another month‒June, in case you don’t know.  I wouldn’t say it’s a “work month” since there are no real non-work months.  Though in some cultures, there is (or was) at least a part of this month when people took several days off.  The time around the summer solstice was, in some cultures, a festival time.  They even suspended the counting of the months at that point, to make up for the 5 days (6 on leap years) left after 12 thirty-day months.

Actually, I don’t know for sure if any real cultures did this, but the hobbits of the Shire, in Tolkien’s world, did something like this, and I have long thought that it seemed like a nice way to go.  However, apparently taking 5 days off completely in the middle of the year‒at the beginning of summer, though it’s sometimes called midsummer‒would fall afoul of commercial pressures, much as have most holidays in general in the modern world.

There is too great a perceived disadvantage to taking any time off when one’s competitors are working (and that perception is probably not entirely illusory).  So, one business working on the holidays is liable to spawn others who wish to compete.  Those that don’t may be less likely to survive ceteris paribus.

And the implementation of the decision to work on holidays is made by people in echelons so far removed from the consequences of overwork and the rat-race-ification of daily life that they feel no pressure not to grind their employees into dust; there are (so far) always more potential employees, and the stockholders only pay attention to the last three months if that when deciding how to tell the boards of directors to act.

It’s not so much that (as many young people seem to suspect) capitalism is an inherently evil system‒it is not.  It has indeed contributed greatly to the productivity and prosperity, to the physically good, that exists in the modern world.  But it is not a perfect system.  Or rather, it is a system that is useful for what it does, but it does not encompass or elicit or create all the good things that humans might need to prosper in any thoroughgoing way.  How could one expect it to do so?

Humans are displaced and distributed hunter-gatherers from sub-Saharan Africa; the “modern world” is an epiphenomenon that has developed and grown and is continuing to develop and grow and change, after have been created‒without any prior planning nor understanding of what it is or its implications‒by humans who were, as at all times, working almost entirely under the influence of local incentives and disincentives.

No one designed the world economy, nor any local economy, nor most of the other trappings of civilization.  I almost wanted to add “any more than any ant designs an ant hill”, but the human society/economy is far less a preplanned thing than is even the most haphazard ant hill or termite mound or beehive, for those structures are guided rather specifically by instincts selected and honed over countless generations and eons.

No human society has been in any kind of equilibrium anywhere near long enough for it to have had a very strong evolutionary impact on human attributes.  Some of the pre-civilization eras of humanity endured and were consistent enough to have impacts, certainly, but nothing in culture since the dawn of agriculture has stayed the same long enough for humans to adapt to it biologically in any significant way (though there are probably some effects).

I’m not sure what point I’m trying to make here, except perhaps to remind people that we should not expect pure capitalism and/or free markets alone to be perfectly conducive to every aspect of human thriving in and of itself.  It is useful and productive, far more so when dealing with primate hunter-gatherers than is any kind of pure socialism or communism, let alone any brand of authoritarianism or totalitarianism.

But there are certainly socialistic things that can be added as tweaks, if you will, to a society that is productive of goods and services thanks to capitalism, to try to counteract the tendencies of unregulated capitalism to produce inadequate and counterproductive* equilibria as well as uncompensated externalities.

We shouldn’t expect society to be simple, nor for any one notion of things to be adequate to ensure or even encourage health and well-being and flourishing in the people in the society.  This all relates to my earlier point about how all ideologies are wrong.  There are unlikely to be any simple answers that describe and ensure beneficent and productive cultures.  Like a building that exists for decades or centuries while still being used, there is going to need to be constant maintenance and updating and sometimes even rebuilding of portions that are crumbling.

It’s that or just knock the whole thing down‒but don’t expect to be able to build anything better from the wreckage.  The same forces and principles will apply to your new edifice as applied to the old one.

*They are counterproductive to the great majority of people in such cultures, at least.  There will often be individuals who do very well even while participating in the stagnation of such detrimental equilibria.  Someone who accumulates great wealth‒and, thanks to that wealth, can gain more, and so on, perhaps creating a monopoly‒might consider the system just peachy, at least for them.   But hoarded wealth does not do anything to contribute to an economy.  It’s like biological energy (calories) stored as nearly-impossible-to-mobilize fat.  Indeed, the stagnation of oligopolistic economies may have many similarities to someone who is obese and in a profound state of insulin resistance but with pathologically high insulin to compensate, so they cannot release their stored energy and feel miserable and constantly fatigued despite having plenty of calories in their bodies.

by

Try not to let the wrong kind of strangers depend on your kindness

I don’t have anything planned to “talk” about today, unlike yesterday, which makes this a much more typical‒though possibly less auspicious‒beginning for a blog post.

In any case, I feel the pressure to keep writing, because this is my only real contact with the outside world in which I share anything like my real, deeper thoughts and so on.  When I bring such matters up at work, people tend to laugh a bit‒I can be relatively funny when I try‒but otherwise they tend to look a bit confused or just awkward.

I don’t know whether any of the people from back home, who might occasionally have encountered my blog via Facebook or Threads, will ever happen to come read it here.  That’s one reason I always tried to encourage people to interact with the blog in the comments section below, rather than in the posts on social media.  That way they are more sure to be able to keep getting the posts.

But I haven’t received any comments from any of them here since the Meta-based platforms kicked me off for no reason I can discern.  I suppose it’s a lesson of sorts, not to place any reliance upon third party businesses that don’t even have an arguable fiduciary duty to me, since I am not their customer but their product (as are you, if you use them).

They clearly don’t feel any significant moral or ethical obligations toward the people who use their platforms.  You should all remember that fact if the time comes where you have them in any sense at your advantage.  Don’t be kind to them.  To be kind to them is to insult those who do show signs of ethics and morality and good will, to those who deserve (whatever that might mean) and will appreciate kindness.

Whom do you think ought to be most rewarded by your good will?  Which form of being do you want to encourage?

Of course, kindness being what it is (if it is authentic kindness, rather than someone just being “nice” or being “charming” as tactics for advancing their own interests) the tendency is to be kind to all comers.  I get that, and I applaud it.

But the kindness of those who are truly kind‒or at least their ability to enact it‒is finite, as is their personal time and energy.

If one had unlimited strength and energy and time, one could simply be kind to everyone, and it would almost certainly make the world a better place overall, by most reasonable definitions.  For kindness may not have the same immense R0 value, the same easy transmissibility as do malice and contempt and rudeness and anger, but when it takes hold, it can be much more persistent, and can change (for the better) the kind individual as well as those around them.

The negative contagions‒malice, anger, contempt, and so on‒tend to be self-corrosive and destructive, in addition to being highly transmissible.  They are like the “Spanish” flu, or even like a highly virulent form of measles:  readily transmitted but terribly damaging (and often fatal) to those they infect.

Kindness is more like‒I hope you’ll pardon the seemingly negative comparison‒HIV or HTLV-1.  It can intercalate (or, to be technical with respect to the mentioned retroviruses, reverse transcribe) itself into the very DNA of those who “catch” it, changing them slowly and gradually but profoundly and‒unlike those two viruses I mentioned‒almost always for the better.  And true kindness can be very difficult to “cure”, thank goodness.

But it is a finite thing, and there are always those who will make use of the kindness‒even just the implicit kindness‒of others for their own ends, without rewarding anyone but themselves any more than they must, least of all those who are unselfishly kind to them.

In any ecosystem, if there is “free energy” floating around, then sooner or later some organism is going to develop the ability to exploit it.  And the exploiters can then readily grow and mutate and can even become pernicious or overt predators and parasites.  In this, they can be like the fungi that had been breaking down dead matter, but which went on to develop the capacity to infect living bodies and even to manipulate some of them to encourage the fungus’s spread.

None of this requires conscious intent (there certainly is no such thing evident in fungi, for instance).  It does not require foresight or planning.  Ideas and strategies and ways of being simply develop and mutate and “try out” various seemingly available niches, never knowing ahead of time which ways of doing and being will succeed.  It’s just that those organisms (or companies, etc.) who happen to stumble upon a useful and “profitable” way of doing things will happen to survive and grow and, relatively speaking, to thrive.

So, don’t give too much credit or admiration to the Zuckerbergs and the Musks and the Bezoses, nor to any of the others of their ilk, and certainly not to those who inherit success, like children born with an infection passed on by the mother* in utero.  Their success is stochastic, and was certainly not thanks to any particular prescience or cleverness on their part.

They are no more inherently impressive than any of the thousands and even millions who tried to do similar things and failed.  They simply happened to stumble upon a strategy that, in the local circumstances in which they found themselves, happened to work.  And once a degree of success happens, it tends to be self reinforcing, ceteris paribus.

This is to no credit of the viruses and parasites in and of themselves.  It is simply the way of economies and ecologies, no matter what such organisms may tell themselves to justify their actions to themselves and to assuage whatever rudimentary consciences they may possess.

Don’t waste your admiration, and certainly not your kindness, on those who happened to be in the right part of some particular phase space at the right time, through no virtue of their own, unless you would also feel fine giving that admiration and kindness to the many variants of influenza and coronaviruses and poxviruses and liver flukes and malaria protozoans and so on that spread and consume and have their various effects on the lives and bodies of other organisms.

And certainly don’t trust them to be kind to you or to anyone else.

*This is where my analogy with HIV falls short, but of course it was inevitably going to do, since HIV is pathogenic, whereas kindness does not tend to be so, nor does inherited wealth (except perhaps in more subtle ways).  Perhaps one might think of kindness as like the first archaea that “infected” another type or archaea and became, in the fullness of time, our mitochondria.  Okay, I’m pushing my analogies here, I know.

by

Still queasy after all these years

Okay, well, it may not have been going on for years, but I am feeling queasy again this morning.

It’s Tuesday now, and for the first time in what feels like a long time, I’m writing this post on the lapcom.  I’m doing this partly because my thumbs, despite attempts at good care by me, are feeling quite sore and stiff*.  When I take enough NSAIDs (usually naproxen) to keep them calmed down, then my hands and probably some other parts of my body eventually get swollen and feel…inarticulate, I guess might be the right word.

I worry that this means the NSAIDs are doing a number on my kidneys, along with other parts of my body.  I know that, at baseline, my kidneys appear to be functioning fine—when I went into the hospital with my kidney stone last year, of course I had lots of blood (and urine) tests.  But I don’t want to roll the dice on them too much.  Because if I ever do have kidney failure, there’s no way I’m going to be dialyzed.

That’s not because I have anything against dialysis, but because I know I will not be able to afford it; I don’t have insurance, of course, and also, I don’t have any kind of support if I were to undergo dialysis, which usually must be done two to three times a week.  I just don’t see that all happening.

Anyway, there’s no immediate danger there, as long as I don’t take too many things that are going to box my kidneys.  It seems likely that something else will take me down before they go.

Speaking of ill health, I had a rough day at the office yesterday.  I was fighting a sinus headache on the left side (of my head, that is; I did not have a headache all along the left side of my body) all day, and it was really uncomfortable.  I think I was fighting off a local, bacterial infection.  Thankfully, decongestants and such all took care of it, and the problem appears to be resolved, or mostly so, today.  What regional lymphadenopathy I had is all but completely gone.

The irritation caused by that process seemed to trigger an exacerbation of tinnitus, but that might have been a coincidence, since it was acting up in my right ear, not my left.  To be fair, my right ear is where the tinnitus is worst and so is my hearing.  This asymmetry can be quite disorienting (or, as the Brits would say, disorientating), especially when one is in a room in which overhead music is playing and a large number of people are all on the phone at the same time.

Well, I say “large”—it’s really about a dozen.  But it’s a smallish office, so that number of people can make it feel packed.  And the noise is problematic for me at the best of times.  Among other things, I have a hard time telling where any particular voice or noise arises, because my one ear is nearly useless.

Wow, this is really lame and boring, isn’t it?  I’m sorry.  At least I’m not talking to you about my mental health problems anymore, right?  They haven’t stopped or diminished in any way; quite the contrary.  But I’m pretty sure no one wants to hear about them, and certainly, no one can do anything about them (least of all me, it seems).  Mostly, even the people who want to help just respond with clichés and homilies and so on.  That sort of stuff just makes me feel worse, if anything, because it’s so disappointing.

As for other things, let’s see…no, I don’t think I have anything exciting on which to report.  I did just have a bit of a fudge-up on my MS Word as I’ve been typing; somehow the striking out and red-lining of new words and erased previous ones got activated.  I don’t know how that activation took place, but it was not what I wanted.  I was, at least, able to stop it.

It’s very irritating.  It’s one of those things that arises, I suspect, because Word is trying to keep up with the web-based word processors, but I don’t want it to do that.  And, to be fair, it might just have been me accidentally hitting some shortcut on the keyboard.  In any case, I want Word to be the same reliable word processor it’s been for such a long time.

I want a word processor that doesn’t require me to have an internet connection to use it.  Fie upon the internet for ordinary, local tasks.  Why do people need web connections for games and for word processing and for all those little things that we used to do on our computers long before the internet/web became publicly available?

The internet requires many systems to be functional and operational to stay in business, and I’m not confident those things will remain so.  Huge server farms and various other tech matters use tremendous amount of energy and other resources (such as water for cooling), and sooner or later, if they are receiving those resources instead of humans, the humans are going to blow them up and/or burn them down, along with the companies and people who create them, and it will be deserved.

All this complex, manipulative technology is quite breakable, as are pretty much all things.  The underwater cables that carry the information of the internet between continents are also vulnerable.  Chip manufacturers, and particularly the machines that etch microchips, are particularly expensive and vulnerable.  Sources of rare Earth minerals are perhaps slightly less vulnerable, but it doesn’t take much to interfere with finely tuned infrastructure.

I’m frankly amazed that no one has done a Fight Club (specifically, a “Project Mayhem”) on the whole international set of communications hardware on which the internet is based.  Just screwing up heat exchangers would probably be enough to bring large portions of the cloud down semi-permanently.  And how many people have their important data backed up in hard copies anymore?

Do you want to stop the advent of artificial intelligence that might wipe out human civilization?  Wipe out the infrastructure of the companies that are working on it.  We know that it is always much easier to destroy than to create, but we definitely want to destroy a thing that will pull a “Project Genesis” on us and wipe us out to instantiate its own existence.  Throw some of those sabots into the machinery, if you’re worried.  The law is not going to protect you from the wealthy and powerful—or so it certainly seems, and it seems to be less likely to protect you with every passing moment—so why obey it?

Meh, I’m probably being too pessimistic.  Anyway, maybe it’ll be a good thing, from the cosmic point of view, if the human race and all other organic life on Earth is erased and replaced by electronic life.  It might even be a good thing for humans themselves.  There are certainly fates that are worse than death.

That’s enough for now.  I don’t think I’m making much sense.  I hope you all have a good day, despite having foolishly opened yourselves to my thoughts early in the morning.

*It’s also because I fear my typing skill has deteriorating due to lack of use, so I figured it would probably be good to get back into it a bit.