Psychology

by

“Nothing to do to save his life, call his wife in.”

What a strange night and morning it has been.  I had a terribly disjointed sleep, which itself is not surprising‒in fact it’s more or less par for the course‒but then I dozed off for a bit just after 3.  Then I almost overslept for my reserved Uber to the train station.  I reserved the ride to make sure I wouldn’t be tempted to walk any part of the way to the train, since my knees and hips and everything else are still bad, and I have taken significantly less naproxen than usual, so I am very stiff and sore.  But I didn’t set my alarm, because I’m almost always awake anyway.

I was able to scramble and even to shower and then make it for my ride without any penalties, though that wouldn’t have been too horrible an outcome if it had happened.  Indeed, I might have then bit the bullet and gotten an Uber all the way to the office.  That would cost a lot more, though.

Anyway, I hate the very notion of being late for something, even if it’s not really important and was a deadline/time semi-arbitrarily chosen by me.  There’s no one really in my life for me to disappoint, other than myself, of course, and I’m already almost always disappointed in and by me.  Still, the notion of being late is mortifying to me, and I really need to struggle to resist as much self-loathing as possible, so it’s best not to fail at one of the few things at which I usually succeed.

So, here I am.  I made it to the station and I’m writing this post.  To that degree, at least, I am successful.  I am, of course, a failure at pretty much everything else.  Certainly I have failed at nearly all the things that have been truly important to me.

C’est la vie, I suppose.  Some people succeed through no credit of their own, and can thereby develop a sense that they are special and divinely protected or some such stupidity, when in fact they are some of the least impressive humans around.  Other people‒many more, it seems‒fail and fall despite having done everything they could, in the ways they were told they ought to do things.

They keep trying to be and do good, trying to achieve success and stability, maybe even trying to have a family and a career.  But they end up seeing everything fall apart, feeling it crumble in their hands even as they try to hold it together.  Indeed, often their attempts to buttress and repair things seem merely to speed up the destruction and exacerbate the decay.  Then, finally, they die alone, surrounded by no one (or at least by no one they know, no one who loves them, if such people even exist).

C’est la mort as well, I guess.  The universe makes no special deals.  It makes no promises, either, other than its implicit “promise” always and only to proceed by its own rules, though we only incompletely know what all those rules are.  It certainly never said, “If you do everything right according to these very human-invented and evolved and imagined rules of behavior, I will ensure that you have something at least approximating the good life you have been told to seek and to expect.”

The universe doesn’t actually say anything at all, come to think of it.  Well, it “says” stuff in the sense that people are part of it, and they say various things, but they in no sense represent the intentions and thoughts of the universe (these do not appear to exist, so people could not represent them).

The universe, as far as we can tell, has no larger scale intelligence and intentions.  It merely is, if the concept of “mere” applies to something that may well be infinite in spatial and temporal extent, and at the very least is much, much larger than anything humans evolved to grasp directly, and also much, much smaller and more finely grained than humans ever evolved to grasp directly.

I guess “mere” is in the eye of the beholder.  And joy is in the ears that hear, not in the mouth that speaks, as Foamfollower often said.  Though I doubt there is much, if any, joy for anyone anywhere in “hearing” my words.

It’s hard for me even to say that I have joy in writing them.  I certainly feel internal pressure to write them, and going with it does relieve some of that tension, and that relief could be called joy, I suppose.  But I don’t think that’s what poets and plasterers and everyone in between really imagines when they speak of “joy”.

Still, we can only take what the universe gives us.  It’s not offering any exchanges.  And it’s not as though we can just go somewhere else to see if they have a better deal.

So, I guess we do what we can with what we have where we are and try not to let ourselves get distracted by foolish notions that the universe owes us some reward.  As far as I can see, the universe “promises” us only one thing, and‒also as far as I can see‒it never fails to deliver this, sooner or later.

Anyway, I hope your weekends are starting off more auspiciously than mine is.  Of course, my weekends always have the major drawback that I am there, and so far, it is certainly a drawback today.

Please take care of yourselves.  I hope you have some joy this weekend that isn’t just a dishwashing liquid.

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

“Perfect” IS the enemy of the good

I would like to propose that we eliminate or at least strongly curtail the use of the word and concept of “perfect”.  And since there is no reason for me not to propose it, I will do so:

Let us eliminate or at least strongly curtail the use of the word and concept “perfect”.

I wrote those two short paragraphs‒really, a short paragraph and a single sentence‒yesterday afternoon, starting this blog post much earlier than I usually do, because it’s a subject that’s a bit of a pet peeve, but which is also, I think, important.

People have this word, “perfect”, and they think it means something, so they try to behave as if it means something.  But for all but the most trivial cases‒one’s score on a straightforward test, the answer to a well-defined problem in mathematics, et cetera‒it’s a word with no serious meaning in actual reality.

What would a perfect person be?  What would that even mean?  Perfect by what criteria?

What could it mean to say that a work of art is perfect, that a song is perfect?  One can say an interval of notes is “perfect”, e.g., a perfect fifth, but that is because it is a concept with a precise definition in a very limited bailiwick.

In the real world, so to speak, “perfection” is a will-o-the-wisp, an illusion without underlying substance that will tend to lure one into a treacherous (metaphorical) bog.  I think it’s fairly widely recognized that perfectionism is a dangerous and usually detrimental habit or attribute.  One can almost never achieve perfection, even by relatively serious criteria, in the real world; reality is too complex and unpredictable.

But the notion of perfection can certainly succeed at taking most of the joy out of one’s accomplishments.  No matter how good one already is, or how much one improves from one’s previous state, one can never just feel pretty good about it if one is always measuring oneself against an unrealistic and unachievable standard, so one is always failing.

The desire for perfection can also lead to misplaced notions of idealism, which can engender well-meaning atrocities, as one strives to achieve some imaginary, impossible, invented notion of a perfect world.  I’ve written before about the fact that all ideologies are wrong.

The world is simply too complicated (har) for any relatively simple and concise set of ideas* to apply all over, unless you’re counting quantum field theory and general relativity as a relatively simple set of ideas.  They are simple in a certain sense, of course, but that’s a rarefied kind of “simple”.  And we also know they are not complete and do not apply everywhere in their present form as we understand them; they conflict with each other in regions where gravity must be quantized, e.g., the Big Bang or the inside of black holes.

Having the notion of “perfection” also does us the disservice of implying that there is some upper bound on improvement, whether personal or societal or anything in between.  It’s as if there were some analog of the speed of light, an ultimate limit that can only be approached asymptotically.

But, as far as we can tell, there is no upper limit on improvement, at least not by anything other than trivial measures.  A person can, on average, continue to improve over an entire lifetime, never reaching a limit, always able to get better and better, however they might reasonably define “better”.  So can a city, or a nation, or a civilization.

It can be quite discouraging and enervating to compare oneself always to an ideal that is impossible to achieve, at least partly because it is not sensibly defined and cannot be so defined.  And then, as Hamlet said, enterprises of great pitch and moment with this regard their courses turn awry and lose the name of action.  Or something like that.  If you are always falling short because your measure of worth is unattainable, you’re liable to become quite discouraged.

Even in fiction, there are no interesting “perfect” heroes.  Sir Galahad is just boring, for example, while Sir Lancelot is interesting, because he has flaws.  He’s still a good guy, though, even though he may consider himself a failure in the end.

Anyway, there’s more that I could say, and I’m not at all sure that I’ve made my point very well.  This has just been a minor rant about a personal pet peeve, but one that I think has actual detrimental consequences for the world at large.

Speaking of imperfection, my pain persists (of course) and my insomnia has been horrible, particularly last night.  I hope you all have a good week.  I just want to rest.

*Such as the notion that unregulated, truly free markets are the most ideal and efficient way to run an economy for all purposes, or the contrapuntal idea of “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”, or even the seemingly decent “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one”.  For the “many” consists entirely and always of a collection of “ones”, and if some larger group can violate the rights of a smaller group or an individual simply because their “needs” are those of a greater number of people, then there are no rights, and no consistent argument for why anyone’s needs should matter at all.  Even the Golden Rule is far from straightforward in its application.

by

Brownian motion, eat your heart out

Okay, well, it’s Tuesday.

Ummm…

I’m not sure what to say now.  I have probably already used all the potential plays on words based on the fact that Tuesday sounds like “twos-day” or similar.  I suppose I could invoke something like a “too’s” day, suggesting the notion that this is too many days in the work week already, or that there are too many weeks, or other similar ideas.  But that doesn’t seem too clever, let alone funny.  It’s certainly neither insightful nor thought-provoking.

So, I’ll leave that be for now.

I was thinking this morning about the time when I used to write my fiction in the morning, back before I did this blog every day (it used to be something I did only on Thursdays, partly in homage to DentArthurDent).  One of the things that made that process perhaps a bit more streamlined‒or less clunky or however you want to characterize it‒than this blog was that I was either editing or I was writing first draft stuff, but I wasn’t publishing what I wrote every day.  So, I would either write my four pages (roughly) of new stuff or edit for a certain period of time, and then I would just save my work (in two places) and then close the lapcom and get on with something else‒often working on music or summat.

This blog is not as seamless to produce as writing fiction was day-to-day.  I have to edit every post and then post it and share it every day*.  That can involve a fair bit of extra time.  On the other hand, at least some people actually read this blog.  It’s not as good as my stories (in my judgment) but it comes in smaller chunks, which allows it to fit into the stunted attention span of the modern adult human.

I don’t refer just to the latter generations in that statement.  Attention span seems to be a bit like muscle tone; it’s not a fixed thing, it’s a neurological habit (or, well, its set-point is influenceable through neurological habit).  It can be made stronger with exercise, and a lack thereof will tend to lead it to atrophy**.  On average, I suspect that everyone’s attention span is not what it would have been in the past.

I don’t know what I’m trying to do or what point I’m trying to make right now, with this post.  It feels like it’s just all over the place, though perhaps that’s merely me projecting the experience of my own attention-fatigued state onto the experience of other people reading my blog.  I don’t know.

I’m having difficulty deciding what to write.  And yet, I’ve already written more than 500 words (counting footnotes).  I feel, as I said, very much all over the place, and pretty stressed out‒not by anything in particular, just as a kind of baseline.  I’m also tired, of course, since nothing about my insomnia or my chronic pain has changed.  And other than talking to people at work, this blog is the only social interaction I have during the week, so I guess I have some pent up conversational or interactional urge in me.

I do feed some neighborhood cats‒so that’s a bit of social interaction of a sort‒but the ones who seemed to like me and let me pet them and sometimes even sat on my lap are all long gone.  The ones who hang around now are just self-serving opportunists.  That’s not a surprise; they are cats.  They are all unabashed, self-serving opportunists.  It is, as they say, the nature of the beast.

They are not solely self-serving opportunists, of course.  But it is always at least part of their character.  Probably, it’s also always part of ours.

The world is complicated.  The fundamental building blocks are‒duh!‒fundamental, but if simple water molecules stacking together stochastically, following precise, local laws can produce all the variegations*** of frost on a window pane, think what the possibilities are for all of reality, with its Planck-scale interactions happening at astonishing rates and in inconceivable numbers.  The possibilities include all that is around you, but also (almost certainly) much, much more.

What if our reality were a simulation, but a fully simulated one, down to the quantum state.  Perhaps it could merely be simulated as those quantum states, with no eye to any larger patterns.  To calculate each next Planck time “frame” of that simulation could require a billion years of processing time in the simulators’ world, and so to them their simulation would plod at a ridiculously slow rate.  And yet, for us‒the simulated‒time would proceed as it always has and does, since our experience of time is internal to our universe and based on interaction rates within our universe.

Okay, that was a severe tangent, sorry.  I don’t know that it actually made sense relative to what I was trying to discuss (if such a thing really exists).  So, I think I’ll wrap this up for today.  I hope you all have a good one.

*I can no longer share it to Meta♣-based platforms, so a fair few people who occasionally stumbled upon it before (and people I knew from back in the day) won’t see it now.  That’s frustrating.  If anyone out there wants to share my posts to those platforms, I would be grateful.  I know it won’t reach the same specific people, but that’s okay.  I don’t have much choice, anyway.

**This is the general tendency of most biological traits or functions or attributes.  In the sieve of natural selection, if one wastes one’s energy and other resources maintaining functions at peak strength that are not actively used, one uses resources that could go to things that are actively useful, and resources are always finite.  Genes that tend to create bodies that tend to do such things will be less likely to get through the filter to the next generation.

***That’s not quite the right word, but it sounds so nice that I’m leaving it.

by

O Caesar, these blogs are beyond all use and I do fear them

Hello and good morning.

I thought of a good opening sentence and line for this blog post today, but unfortunately, I thought of it at around one in the morning, during one of my earlier mid-night* awakenings.  These happen more or less every night, at various times.  Sometimes I will start** awake thinking I’ve badly overslept, only to find that I’ve been asleep for less than an hour.  Sometimes the opposite sort of thing happens.  Anyway, one of the hallmarks of things I think during those early midnight awakenings is that I don’t remember their specifics very well.

In other words, I don’t recall what the opening sentence that came to me was.  Given the nature of nocturnal, half-awake thoughts, it might well have been an idiotic starting sentence.  It might have been utter gibberish.  I might not even really have thought of any sentence at all; I might just have had one of those curious activations of certain brain modules without the usual stimulus (such as thinking of an actual sentence) that engenders them.

I suppose it’s somewhat similar to déjà vu, that free-floating feeling of familiarity and recollection that isn’t actually triggered by something familiar but by stochastic activation of areas of the brain that register familiarity and memory.

So, I might have had the feeling that I had just thought of a good sentence to start this blog post, but it was triggered by something that wasn’t related to any actual sentence.  Like Scrooge said to Marley’s ghost, “There’s more of gravy than grave about you.”

The quote was something close to that, anyway; I don’t feel like going to look it up and check.

All this highlights how important it can be not to trust your feelings.  As Radiohead sang, “Just ‘cause you feel it doesn’t mean it’s there.”

Please don’t take this to mean that I think you should repress or ignore your feelings.  Feelings exist for good, sound, biological reasons.  But while they can be good sources of motivation‒indeed, one might argue that any motivation is a feeling‒emotions are unreliable guides for action, especially in the complex modern human world.  It is still certainly worth attending to them, however, rather than merely ignoring them or trying to push them down.

I think fear, in particular, is usually worth noticing and inspecting.  Just because you feel afraid doesn’t necessarily mean that there is some threat or danger nearby, even a merely social one, but nature has clearly arrived at the provisional conclusion that it’s better to be afraid of something that turns out not to be a danger than not to feel afraid of something that is a danger.

Of course, ideally, one would like to feel fear only for real dangers, and only to the degree that they are dangerous, and otherwise to feel fine.  It would similarly be nice to desire to eat and to enjoy eating only those foods that will be most healthy for us at that moment, at that time, and to desire only just as much as we need, and not to want those foods that will be bad for us in the short and long term.

Such perfect accuracy is not even close to being possible, not even for deliberately designed systems, let alone for evolved biological organisms.  And when survival and reproduction are the means by which genes go on into the future, it’s far better (up to a point) to make a type 1 error‒sensing or fearing nonexistent danger‒than a type 2 error‒not recognizing actual danger.

Modern society has discouraged us somewhat from listening to such fears, sometimes out of a desire to be polite, but again, though one should not take such fear, or other emotions, at simple face value, one should listen to them.  One should inspect the feeling and one’s surroundings and circumstances and try to discern why one feels that fear.

If it becomes clear after honest internal and external inquiry that it is a baseless anxiety, a fear without focus, then one can try to shrug to oneself and simply go about one’s business as best one can.  But if there’s a colorable explanation for your fear‒such as a possibly dangerous or certainly unknown person nearby during moments of potential vulnerability‒one should pay attention and act appropriately.  This is especially true for women (and girls), but it applies to men as well.  Gavin deBecker wrote a powerful book about this subject called The Gift of Fear, and I recommend it (this is one of those rare instances in which Oprah and I agree on a book recommendation).

Fear is not the mind killer.  Fear can be the mind sharpener.  The only people who don’t feel fear are fools and corpses.

On the other hand, to go back to the earlier point, emotions are still very blunt and fuzzy instruments, so don’t just let them push you around willy-nilly.  Just because you feel angry, for instance, doesn’t mean that anyone actually did anything to deserve it.  You might be hypoglycemic, you might have had too much caffeine, you might be in pain and/or have had chronic bad sleep***, you might be feeling residual emotional upheaval from something you saw on the news.

The feelings you have can be misleading, but they are not merely random nor are they completely irrelevant or unreliable.  Some of them are positive in and of themselves:  Joy and love are certainly worth not avoiding, for instance.

And middle-of-the-night feelings related to the nebulous impression that one has thought of a good start for a blog post can sometimes be without substance entirely.  And yet, even then, they might sometimes lead more or less directly to a blog post.

TTFN

*As opposed to “midnight”, which would usually mean 12 am.

**I.e., “a sudden, jerky motion, usually a response to some alarming and/or unexpected stimulus” not as in “begin”.

***This can happen, or so I’m led to understand.

by

Wotan can KEEP this day as far as I’m concerned

Okay, first off, to begin with‒or should it be “with which to begin”?‒it is the 6th of May today (a Wednesday, though that fact is not terribly relevant) and to continue the Star Wars related references, I will note that today is the date of the Revenge of the Sixth.

Get it?  It’s a bit tortured, I’m afraid.  I don’t think anyone would have come up with the notion had it not been for “May the 4th be with you”.  That, at least, is a more straightforward play on words, and is specific to this month and that day.  “Revenge of the Sixth” doesn’t specify the month; one could, in principle, use that line on any 6th of a month.  But one would not, because this day is “celebrated” only in reaction to Star Wars Day on May 4th.

It’s sort of funny and fun, but it reduces the Sith to merely a perverse notion, existing only in reaction to the Jedi, like a whole order of Force users acting out the parts of rebellious teenagers.

Of course, probably that was sort of what happened in George Lucas’s mind when he came up with the Sith:  They were the anti-Jedi, a parity-violating, distorted reflection of the “good guys”.  But, of course, a whole philosophical movement that sprang up only as an enemy to another is intellectually and narratively vacuous.

It’s somewhat reminiscent of the moronic religious people who seem to think that if one does not believe in God, then one must worship Satan.  It can be very hard for some people to get around the whole “if you’re not with me, then you’re my enemy” notion.  Only in this case it’s not even a philosophical enmity, but is merely a reactive enmity.  Also, it doesn’t take too much thought to realize that such a situation would seem to imply that whichever of the two sides came first would be assumed to be the “good guys”.

But one doesn’t look at any random patch of spacetime and think, “if there’s no electron in this spot then there must instead be a positron”, or vice versa.  As a matter of physics and of logic, this is a pretty glaring error.  Just as indifference, not hate, is the complete absence of love, the default state of reality is not the opposite of some particular presence, it is simple absence.  In physics, that means all the quantum fields being in their vacuum states, with minimal energy (it’s not zero because of the uncertainty principle).

In the Star Wars extended universe, the Sith have a background that is separate in origin (I think) from the Jedi.  I think they began as a race of Force users.  I could be wrong about this; I’m not all that much of a Star Wars nerd.

Ask me questions about the backgrounds of things in the universe(s) of my stories and I could share some serious lore with you.  But no one is going to ask me about those because essentially no one has read them.

Boy, it would be cool to have someone write fanfiction based in the worlds of my stories.  I remember reading a lot of Harry Potter fanfiction while waiting for the next book(s) to come out, back in the day.  Some of it was bad, of course, but not much of it, and some of it was really quite good.  People who love to read and feel the urge to write an homage out of love for a work and its characters tend to be at least somewhat okay at it.

Some of it was downright brilliant.

Of course, humans being what humans are, some of it was smut.  There’s nothing really wrong with that, when you get right down to it.  Members (ha ha) of a sexually reproducing species are going to tend to find sex…engaging, to say the least.  Every human alive (and that has ever lived) comes from a long, unbroken line of ancestors who had sex at least once*.  That includes your parents and your grandparents, by the way.  You’re welcome.

In a species like humans, those who are more into sex and more driven toward it and obsessed with it are, ceteris paribus, going to have more offspring.  It won’t take very many generations for any genes that make one less interested in sex to fade out of the gene pool‒again, and very importantly, ceteris paribus.

All other things are essentially never equal, of course, and there are complex tradeoffs in all such behavioral tendencies, but that’s a can of bees I really don’t have the energy to open right at this moment.

I’m in a truly terrible amount of pain this morning, I’m afraid, continuing from last night and yesterday and so on. and it’s making it a bit hard to write, though that somehow doesn’t keep me from running off at the figurative mouth.

I think it would be harder for me not to write right now, though.  I don’t know for sure.  I haven’t tried.

Even thinking about not writing at all makes me feel squirmy and cringey and quite strange.  It’s not quite as bad not to play or listen to or sing any music‒which I haven’t done for weeks now, alas‒but that does also feel bad.

But I think if I were to stop writing, and at least every week sharing my writing‒particularly now that I don’t have access to Facebook or Threads‒I would pretty rapidly feel that I didn’t even exist.

I have no real life here from day to day.  There is no joy, there is only (attempted) distraction.  Other than my episodic interactions with my youngest child (which are distinctly good and real and joyful to me, a real oasis in the desert) everything in my life from day to day feels less real than the events of the most banal video game.

Yesterday, I started searching eBay and other online sources for used ECT devices (they are out there) and looking up whether one can legally buy insulin over the counter (one can, to some degree), or what medications are prone to produce seizures.  The idea was to see if it would be possible for me to induce a seizure in myself and hopefully treat my depression.

I know it can’t help my underlying ASD, but ECT and other kinds of induced seizures have consistently been shown to work against even highly treatment-resistant depression.  I have tried every class of (legal) medication and many different types of therapy for my dysthymia/depression.  I think most regular readers can tell just how well that arsenal has worked.

Of course, pain complicates everything.  It taints everything, it erodes everything, it corrodes everything, it corrupts and desecrates everything.  I really want it to stop.  Sometimes I want it to stop at nearly any cost (at least to me, though I can’t in good conscience invoke avoidable costs upon other people).

If I thought inducing seizures would help my pain, I would probably just do it.  I know how to make such things happen‒the research I did yesterday was just to indulge myself so I could more realistically fantasize about the outcome if it were to work.  It was one of those distractions I mentioned above.  But having seizures would probably make my physical pain worse, since seizures are not easy on the body.

They could also kill me, but that would be far from the worst outcome.

Death‒not necessarily seizure-related death, but death generally‒will probably be the only thing that relieves my pain.  Well, “relieves” is not really the right word.  But could death be what ends it?  Yes.  And thankfully, no one is dependent upon me or is very close to me or is really used to having me around, so the collateral damage would be minimal, no matter what all the simple-minded (but well-meaning) Instagram videos try to tell you.

Maybe I’m just as well off not to be able to go to that site anymore.  Everything there would be irritating.  Though, that’s just like more or less everything else in the world, to be fair.  Right now, I could almost wish for everything else in reality to cease to exist so I could just enjoy some silence.  But that would be unkind and terribly presumptuous.  It would be better to go back to the nidus of the pain and pluck that out.

Have a good day.

Though I suspect Mr. Smear would disagree with me:

by

What should I title this post?

Well.  Wednesday.  Okay.  What in the world should I write today?

I don’t know.  I have very little energy at the moment; I feel quite exhausted.  That’s not terribly atypical for me, but it feels worse than usual.  However, since I don’t have any kind of objective, consistent gauge of precisely how exhausted I am (or feel) and certainly have no records of the past gauge readings to which to compare things, I don’t know for sure how my current state compares to my typical state.

 Nor do I know what the distribution of such states is.  Is it a smooth “bell” curve, a Gaussian distribution?  Is it bimodal?  Is it trimodal?  Is it some more weirdly shaped curve, like a function in several different exponential orders of a variable or in more than one variable?  That last one seems most likely.

I guess the specifics don’t really matter, though it would be at least interesting to have an objective, graphical measure of things.

Anyway, I’m tired, my pain continues (as always) and the present “flare” has not significantly died down.  And, unfortunately, there’s nothing in my life to provide any counterbalance to the horrible stuff.

Well, okay, that’s not entirely true, and I should try to avoid being overdramatic.  There are clearly some good things in my life, and particularly, some very good people.  But they are few and far between (in time and space) and/or far away.  I sometimes interacted with some of them through Facebook or Instagram, but I’ve been kicked off those platforms, as you know, for no particular reason I can discern.

Well, it’s their platform, they own it, and I wasn’t paying, so I guess they have the right to do as they please.  But I do hope they all crash and burn and suffer and then cease to exist (I mean Meta/Fuckerberg* and his cronies, not the people with whom I had nominal, distant connections).

I’ve been fairly grumpy lately, as you can probably tell.  Nearly everyone and everything pisses me off at least a little (and I don’t exclude myself from that “everyone”).  This is one of the things that can happen when you’re in pain a lot.  If you also have social difficulties and insomnia and the like, they can contribute, too.  Anxiety really doesn’t help, though its outcome depends upon how one experiences anxiety and how one reacts to it.

This is one of the things that gets me irritated at Yoda™ and the fact that people think his character is very wise, when he really isn’t.  I feel that fact should be called out more often than it is, lest the impressionable populace, particularly young people, get exposed to his trite homilies and think them words by which to live.

For instance, the whole stupid “Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering” shit he pulled on the child Anakin in Episode 1 pissed me off and continues to do so.  He seems to imply that fear => anger => hate => suffering as a mathematical theorem, some kind of Jedi syllogism**, which is not necessarily true in any simplistic kind of sense.

It would have been much more useful for him to say “Fear can lead to anger, anger can lead to hate.  Hate itself is a form of suffering, and it’s a contagious one with many potential side effects, so you should learn, not to repress your fear or to deny it, nor to be ashamed of it, but to recognize it, to understand it, and to use it when it is useful rather than allow it to rule you, as it does if you merely give in to it but also if you refuse to let yourself feel it.”

If the Jedi had a sensible approach to such things, I think Anakin would never have fallen to “the dark side”.  That term itself‒the dark side‒betrays bigotry and judgmentalism and arrogance and narrow-mindedness.  Anytime someone defines their side as the light side and their opponents’ as the dark side, you’re in the presence of people who may well be capable of committing self-righteous atrocities, on whatever scale they think serves the “light”, the “good”.

Ironically (perhaps), the attitude toward fear held by the League of Shadows in Batman Begins is healthier than that of the Jedi in at least the prequels of Star Wars***.  They encourage you to embrace your fear, to become it.  They recognize its power, and try to harness it rather than flee from it in the rather ironic fear of fear that the Jedi have.

They have a lot of stupid ideas in the League, of course, including their simple-minded and illogical notions of justice.  And even their ideas about fear are not ideal, just in case you think I endorse them.

But fear, along with pain, boredom, dissatisfaction, and so on, are things that exist and persist because they are useful (at least enough to make them evolutionarily stable).  But they are only so in specific times, places, and situations.  If you have a good reason to be afraid, then you want that fear****, believe me, and you want to listen to it.  And if you feel new-onset pain in your right lower abdominal quadrant, and it doesn’t go away, you want to look into it; something life threatening may be going on.

But when such states‒pain, fear, boredom, dissatisfaction, etc.‒pull free of specific reactive causality and become self-sustaining, free-floating, bootstrap-levitated things that exist merely because they exist, then there is a problem.

I am such a problem.  And as with the majority of even slightly complex problems in (for instance) mathematics, we don’t know how to solve it (or even if there is a possible solution).

Sometimes, eventually, there’s not much to do but to wipe the chalkboard clean.

*Actually, I think their company would be better named Dukha than Meta.  Get it?

**This despite the comically self-contradictory and stupid (and thus out of character) line that Obi-Wan says in episode 3:  “Only a Sith deals in absolutes”.  Obi-Wan!  Are you listening to yourself?  Do you know what an “own goal” is?  You literally just spoke an absolute.  And, oddly enough, though the Jedi love throwing such statements around, I don’t recall any Sith character making such an “absolute” statement.

***Actually, in Episode 5, despite his long exile and his recognized failure due to his arrogance, Yoda© still says some stupid shit to Luke, especially the whole “Do or do not, there is no ‘try’” bullshit.  No, Yoda®, the “do or do not” is only determined by trying.

****To no reasonable surprise, the attitude of the 12th Doctor toward fear, or at least the one he wants to have, is much more logical, and was expressed best in series 8, episode 4 of Doctor Who:  Listen.

by

A stochastic, elastic, would-be fantastic blog post

Well, here we go again.  It’s Monday, the start of another (standard) work week, though I know that many people operate on other than a Monday through Friday schedule.

For some places of employment, this makes very good sense.  For instance, hospitals must, if they are to be of use, be open basically all day and night, every day and night, and so there must be people working in them at all hours‒because illness and injury do not know anything about arbitrary human schedules.  Indeed, many injuries and illnesses are more likely to happen when people are off work.

Other places of employment, such as restaurants and the like, get most of their business during non-work hours for other people, because people don’t typically do their office work in restaurants.  There is, of course, lunchtime business (sometimes even for meetings), and many places even see breakfast time business, but people are still not usually eating there while working, at least not when they’re on the clock (independent contractors who do distant work notwithstanding).

Of course, banks are the most traditionally nine to five places of business‒thus the traditional and somewhat disparaging reference to “banker’s hours”‒but really, that has never made much sense to me.  People who work need to go to the bank when they are not at work, if they need to go in person, but banks are open (almost solely) during other people’s working hours.

It’s almost as if banks (long before things like Facebook and Twitter) weren’t actually seeing the ordinary users of their services as their customers; they were the product, or at least, they were the source of the product.

The customers’ savings were the source of the money the banks lent out to others, charging interest for the use of other people’s money, and then as often as not (or more) charging the depositors to keep and use their money as well!  What a racket (SMH).  No wonder people don’t trust bankers.

By comparison, raw capitalism‒or at least, any approximation of free market exchange‒is generous and fair.  That’s by comparison only, mind you.  After all, the basic principle, that of providing goods and/or services in exchange for money that can be used to buy other goods and services, is quite logical.

One problem with this is that advantages in business tend to be self-reinforcing, even if the initial advantage happened randomly.  This can be good in limited amounts‒for instance, a successful business that employs many people is best when stable, so people’s lives can be relatively stable.  But past a certain point, i.e., when it becomes a monopoly, or close to it, a business can become ossified, non-reactive to customers and improvements and changing situations, and this can lead to significant inefficiencies that rob everyone (except perhaps a very limited few) of much opportunity and prosperity.

So, fully unrestrained free markets don’t lead only to good things (though they are very good at creating new wealth and products and innovations).  Like most other such natural-selection-style interactions, they can be brutal and cruel and horribly inefficient at times, and can even readily evolve to extinction.

As for the concept of property ownership (i.e., real estate), that’s a deep thing for primates and many other kinds of mammals and even other kinds of vertebrates and even non-vertebrate multicellular life forms.  The tendency to claim and mark and defend territory predates humans by eons, and makes good biological sense.  Ants claim the space of their hills, and will defend their claimed space to the death, though they did not originate it.  Likewise for bees and wasps, and likewise for baboons and gorillas and chimpanzees and naked house apes.

These are not the only examples of this in nature.  Territoriality is almost ubiquitous, at least among creatures for which it can make any sense at all.  Even plants can have a sort of territoriality.

No one keeps their territory in the long run, of course.  That’s partly because someone else always wants any useful territory.  And useless territory is rarely defended, at least for long.

Usefulness, though, is in the eye (or ear or antenna/pheromone receptor or what have you) of the beholder.  Dead trees were useless for a very long time, until finally fungi evolved to be able to break the dead wood down for resources.  And then, eventually, after many millions of years, even the wood that had died and not been broken down by fungi became coal (some of it did, anyway), which became useful in a different way for those aforementioned naked house apes.

But of course, no new coal is being made, and no new coal has been made since those fungi and other organisms finally evolved the ability to break down wood.

Ah, we’re just scratching the surface now of evolutionary economics, aren’t we?  Alas, we’re coming to the end of a reasonably long and reasonably short blog post, that comparatively narrow Venn diagram overlap.  So, I’ll draw to a close for now.  Perhaps I’ll discuss these subjects further at a later date.  Perhaps I’ll veer into other subjects.  I could make predictions, but even I cannot hope to know for sure what I will write in the future.

I hope the future for all of you‒starting immediately after you read this‒has a continuing, indefinite, “goodward” trend.

by

I have had a dream, past the wit of man to blog what dream it was.

Hello and good morning.

When I started waking up this morning, well before I started writing this post, I think I had a sort of an idea in my head about what sentence I was going to write after the “Hello and good morning” with which I always start my Thursday blog posts.  From there, I had a general notion of where I would go with the day’s writing.

It’s gone now, that whole set of ideas, which will probably not surprise you.  What with getting up, putting out food for cats, showering, dressing, all that jazz, the earlier concept has simply slipped my mind.

And, no, this that I’m writing now is not anything like what I thought I thought about in the night.  It’s good to be optimistic, up to a point‒at least, that’s the common “wisdom”‒but we must definitely try to avoid delusion.

I have, upon occasion, thought of ideas of things to write or whatever during the middle of the night.  When they strike me as important, I actually get up and write them out, usually in the note function of my phone or in an email to myself.  I try to make sure it has some form of enforced legibility, because I learned the lesson from that Seinfeld episode where Jerry woke up with a joke in his head, wrote it down on the pad he kept next to his bed, but then couldn’t read it the next day.

In my case, last night’s/this morning’s thought may well have suffered from the dream illusion of meaning and substance.  There was, as far as I can recall*, no actual content to what I thought I was going to write.  It’s possible, and even probably common, for the brain modules that indicate salience to become active during dreams, while the brain is presumably just sort of sweeping up after the day’s mess, but not in response to any object of one’s attention.

It’s rather akin to déjà vu.  Such free-floating feelings of memory or significance can happen sometimes in people with atypical forms of seizure disorders, but more commonly (though less frequently) they happen in brains without seizure disorders that just hit occasional blips of increased local activation.

This is a bit like what I suspect happens with “rogue waves”, those rare, truly gigantic swells that occur and are reported by sailors and oil rig workers.  I think that, in an ocean that’s vast and full of various waves of various amplitudes and frequencies, every now and then, local constructive interference happens to pile together in a small area and produce a wave of immense combined amplitude, ending up well toward the right end of whatever bell-like curve describes the amplitudes of ordinary ocean waves.  Then the waves separate and the rogue wave is gone**.  There is no specific cause other than just a lot of waves passing through each other in a very large medium (no pun intended).

The workings of a brain can be a large medium indeed, despite being in a rather small space (this time it was deliberate).  Sometimes the neurons just throw out a blip of higher-than-usual activation of, say, a salience module or a memory module, or even a meaning/certainty module.  It is of such stochastic regional hyperactivations that I suspect many, or at least some, religious experiences are born.

So, anyway, though I cannot remember if there was any substance to the half-dream idea for today’s blog post that occurred to me during my way-too-early awakening, let alone what such substance might have been, nevertheless it has conjured a subject for this post, as if by bootstrap levitation.

Such are the functionally unpredictable and chaotic workings of the human brain, or at least whatever kind of brain I have.  I don’t know if other people have similar experiences or not.  Maybe I’m the only one who experiences anything like all of this.

I seriously doubt that, though.  I’ve read plenty of fiction and nonfiction that deals with people talking about their thoughts, about their states of mind, their emotional experiences, and so on.  It all sounds quite similar in overall shape, though the specific details and decorations vary.  We are more alike than unalike.  Otherwise, how could you be reading and understanding my words?

Well, whatever the case as regards what I’ve written above, I hope we are unalike enough for you to have a wonderful day, preferably spending time with people you love and who love you.

TTFN

*Which, admittedly, is quite dubious, since the amnesia of sleep time intrudes at least somewhat.

**This is all just my hypothesis about the situation.  It’s possible that other factors are at play, but I’ve never heard them mentioned.

by

A pox upon those who do not learn the history of science and medicine

Well, I’m back to writing on the smartphone today, with mixed feelings.  One of these feelings is the residual soreness in my thumbs, of course, but the day-long break did seem to help a little bit.  Mind you, some of that is probably in my head, for I don’t write on my smartphone on Sundays, and I also don’t write on non-working Saturdays.  So, if resting is enough, I should feel least sore on Mondays following one of my two-day weekends.  If that is the case‒if I am least sore in those instances‒I certainly haven’t noticed.

Actually, if it isn’t the case, I haven’t noticed either, but at least there it would make sense, since there is nothing to notice.  It can be much harder to notice things that are not so than to notice things that are so.  That’s part of why people don’t give credit to vaccination, for instance:  they can’t see the sickness and death that are prevented.  There’s no It’s A Wonderful Life revelation about all the lives that have been saved and‒perhaps more important*‒all the suffering that has been prevented.

There’s a similar, lesser-known preventative effect of proton pump inhibitors (e.g., omeprazole).  These medicines (and their somewhat weaker predecessors, the H2 blockers**) have prevented untold suffering and death related to gastritis and peptic ulcer disease and esophageal cancers, all of which used to be major contributors to premature death, especially in young men (if memory serves).  So, using these medicines is not necessarily an overindulgence in avoiding transient discomfort.  They are very real and powerful preventative interventions‒though, as with all such things, they do have some long term side-effects, and these must always be weighed against the benefits of taking them.

This is one of the reasons that educating people about history is so important.  If one is not aware of just how horrifying and heartbreaking the effects of smallpox were (for instance), one might think that the smallpox vaccine***** was just a sort of convenience, not a response to a low-flying, slow-moving, global catastrophe.

I suppose it was easier for Ben Franklin to recognize that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” because there were far fewer preventable ailments and fewer avoidable disasters back in his day.  Still, he was a very smart person; he might have recognized the nature of such things even if he had lived in our more comfortable times.

It is useful, and it may be more than just useful, for people to learn how things were before the arrival of so many powerful technologies and knowledge and social and biological insights.  For 300,000 years, humans existed without (for instance) the internet, and then, starting around 30 years ago, it was here (and widely available).

But that’s a full generation of people who have never known a world without the internet, despite the fact that by default the world has no internet.  It can be immensely useful for those people to learn about what things were like pre-internet, not only so they can truly appreciate this remarkable phenomenon, but also so they can recognize some of its detriments.

Likewise for planes and cars and televisions and even books and agriculture.  What was life like before these things?  What would life be like if they disappeared?  Are their benefits worth their costs?  How can those costs be mitigated, even if they are bearable (for why not make things as net-beneficial as possible?)?

I encourage everyone, myself included, to take these notions seriously, to think about the contrafactual cases, not to accept that things simply are the way they are, because for the most part, historically, they were not that way.  Even humanity itself is a latecomer.

I don’t know how I got onto those subjects, but I guess I’m thinking of health (and particularly of gastric health) more than typically in recent days.  I still don’t feel too well, but that’s nothing unusual for me.  It’s just annoying because it’s a new, or at least atypical, discomfort.

Oh, well.  This brings us back to my point that decreasing/preventing suffering is more important than “saving lives”, since all such saved lives are merely saved for later, if you will.  Death (it seems) cannot be forever avoided, but suffering, in principle, can be eased and even sometimes prevented.  Though, sometimes, the only practical way to stop certain kinds of suffering is to hasten the inevitable other phenomenon.

In any case, I’ll draw at least one instance of your suffering to an end now, by finishing this blog post.  I hope you have a very good day, by any reasonable measure of goodness that you might choose.

*Because death is, as far as anyone can tell, completely inevitable‒it’s a matter of when, not if‒whereas suffering is variable, and boy can it vary, from person to person, from moment to moment, from culture to culture, and so on.

**No, they don’t block molecular hydrogen***, though if one thought that, one could certainly be excused.  Rather, they block the so-called type 2 histamine receptor, the one that responds to stimulus (histamine) by making the stomach secrete more acid.

***Interestingly enough, the proton pump inhibitors do block hydrogen, but it’s not molecular hydrogen, it atomic hydrogen‒or well actually, it’s ionic (cationic, specifically) hydrogen, which is a naked proton, since a hydrogen nucleus is just a proton****, and is the key effective part of essentially all acids, at least regarding their acidity.

****Sorry about all the footnotes within footnotes, but it just occurred to me to wonder what it would be like to make a sample of an acid but with all the ordinary hydrogen atoms replaced with deuterium, so-called heavy hydrogen, which has a neutron in its nucleus as well as a proton.  How would this affect the properties of such an acid?  Of course those properties are almost entirely related to the valence electron or the lack thereof, but when a positive ion of a substance is just a naked nucleus, one cannot completely dismiss the impact of that nucleus’s structure.  So, I would love to see an entirely deuteric acid being put through its paces.  An acid made entirely with tritium (one proton, two neutrons) would be interesting as well, but even in my imagination, that’s asking for a lot of the very tiny amount of tritium in the world.

*****This is the original source of the word “vaccination” since being exposed to Vaccinia (related to cowpox) provided resistance to Variola (smallpox).