~ untitled 08

 Evil is not there when it is present, but it is strongly felt.  We like to keep evil weak, but pretend it is strong.  There is nothing more real than evil before you, but totally at your mercy, and totally undeserving of it.  But the begging must stop.  For the withering of evil in abandonment is sweet too, but worst is the bittersweet reality of seeing it exposed totally, alone, together, for now, but only to decide when it will let go of all of itself or what is good about it.  In the eyes of some, this is society.  In others, reason, to leave, or leave aside other things to those who leave.  The alternative is war, which is only temporary mental escape.  

~ untitled 07

 We should talk about contention as a lover not spurned.  A tension absent the motion of discovery, the assurance of absence if not addressed in the sternest tones.  As company and togetherness, a reason for civilization great or small.  

The absence of contention is the presence of death.  Those who do not do well in "death" should not contend but there is honor in letting go of pretensions to peace.  

~ untitled 06

 We should talk about the loss of tragedy in tragedy.  Tragic means a hubris is gone, but a likable one.  Likable though it may be, it is gone.  What you have to do is not "tragify" the loss of something better missed than had, whose absence is sweeter than its presence. 

The tragedy of a tragedy is the presence of something, not the disappearance of it, but another thing, not gone.  A shadow, removed. 

~ untitled 03

 ...but what you get has nothing to do with you. 

We should talk about the inefficiency of desire. 

Desire is not strictly speaking a cycle, because only fashion is a cycle, and desire is not a fashion.  But fashion is a politics, if only the politics of memories.  The body is not hidden in fashion; fashion is hidden on the body. 

Desire is not the body because the body desires.  Body as subject not object is the inefficiency of desire.  

Misconceptions

 August 31, 2022

So I'm reading Foucault the other day because one can only have so much of Nietzsche defining for you what philosophy means now that people can read and write, so I thought I'd give the Frenchman a shot.

I have not been violently displaced. There's a thought. There's no paradox of choice. If you are not where people thought you might be, that's not proof of sudden traumatic displacement by exterior source. The victim complex of the Millennial desire/longing complex is the total reverse of the point that Foucault was making despite him being the most cited in the social sciences etc.

The misconception that he was saying that his technique was insanity is also the obverse of true. He's saying that everyone else is insane for not using his technique. Is common sense still extent?

You don't want to see Leviathan unchained. Why is that? Why are we acting like we should listen to the insane, by the by? Who's listening to the sane?

You know, we're talking about talking about .mil like it's .com.

 You know, we're talking about talking about .mil like it's .com.

August 31, 2022

You something I think is important to be said, talked about, and generally known. This is something that I think the oppositionally defiant protest culture has overblown the contradistinction to. But I think people should remember even now that we need to take our power back: because you don't want to take all your marbles to a game where people aren't even playing marbles.

 The Internet was not invented by the military. It's not a military technology. The military was early to use it, and is still with long experience at it, the difference here is between an early adopter and the innovator himself.

The Internet was created by an academic effort essentially for educators. Basically to share PDFs. And text messages.

What does this appear relevant to me? Because if we want to record, we shouldn't be laying our concerns on the doorstep of the military. We should walk that back and aim at the heart of the problem.

Unbroken to politics

 August 31, 2022

You know, high school is a great time for science. But I have this friend who is totally unbroken to politics. 

The French sure do like to destroy things. And it's great. That's why politics always wins out in the end. You can always get people who are good at science to go over to politics. The kids who like to build things up, and then destroy them. Because what kid doesn't like to build things up and destroy them? The kid who doesn't have enough Legos, that was me. But I read books, and then destroyed them. Not physically, but like "great: but what if that stupid thing in the book didn't happen?" And broke it. I took classes, and then broke them. I took seminars, and broke them too. I took Seminars, and then broke them, into particulars.

It's love first sight with people like me and Politics. "Wow, this is great". How do you say "is it though" and I say yes I love it and you say "OK, break it." And that's great. That's why you, politics, always gets people like me, and that's why it's all there is. That's why we're all still here…

Not for nothing, but if you were wondering, the reason why getting sick didn't give anybody political awareness, is because getting sick is not what they wanted people to do.

Another goddamn Trump spectacle

Another goddamn Trump spectacle

August 24, 2022

Let’s use common sense here guys.  Trump would like to defend himself because he can’t find someone to represent him, but because he wants to stir up dissension among his army of lawyers so they’ll compete to give him more stuff.  Let’s be honest about what’s going on. He’s perfectly aware that he’s not a lawyer.  Do I ever think that someone like Trump should represent them selves in court? If they are not lawyers, absolutely not, because then they can blame someone else for not being a good representation of their interests. If they are a lawyer, absolutely they should, so that they can preemptively blame other lawyers for the same reasons. 

Fantasy Leagues and brackets

 August 24, 2022 Late night/early morning

The reason fantasy leagues and March Madness brackets are popular among men is not out of fantasies of being the athletes or even the coaches, nor is it about exerting some control over chaos; or as a stand-in for controlling your own life; nor is it about the fun of being wrong (or right) without real consequence.  It is, however, about learning about, and acclimating to, the pain of making choices.  

Betty White

August 24, 2022 Late night/early morning

The reason Betty White is so popular is because so many guys are not satisfied with the way women are.  She is (or was) a walking, talking, complaint box for men about "how women are".  May she Rest In Peace.  This obsession with her, though, reflects poorly on the man.  Keeping Betty White at a reasonable distance is good for you.  

G.R.R.M.’s story

 August 24, 2022 Late night/early morning 

The reason there's no use in wishing for George R. R. Martin to finish the A Song of Ice and Fire series, because the TV show's ending was unsatisfactory to you, is exactly because so many of you thought the show's ending was unsatisfactory and you want a new one.  See it from his perspective. That whole show wasn't not his work either, and now you've foreclosed on him taking the work in that direction if he so chooses.  Tisk Tisk. 

We need Johnny Depp

We need Johnny Depp

August 23, 2022

Regardless of when an audience first came to meet Johnny Depp, whether stepping off a sinking ship in Pirates of the Caribbean, or maybe as the awesomely creepy eccentric Willy Wonka, he made the immediate impression that this was a man that had something you wanted to experience. For a while, though, this wasn't the Johnny Depp that you heard about. His character was much in contention because a rotten relationship had turned into a litigious one. Problem is, although that lawsuit between Johnny Depp and his ex-wife Amber Heard has concluded, much to his advantage, a certain subset of rumor and derogation about him persists in the discourse. And this, I contend, has to do with the panicked ending of the movement for women's rights specifically addressing relationship violence, which will collapse under the weight of its error in supporting Ms. Heard, if we do not have the moral force to remember. To remember who it is that we once knew in them. 

The movement known as MeToo had a long reign of relevance in popular culture. It went right at the heart of American popular culture: the stories we tell ourselves and perform for each other. It was not without reason that it held relevance. A lot of malfeasance was exposed. But it overstepped when it began to claim that its relevance was universal. Long before Johnny Depp was defamed by his former lover, the notion began to circulate that all men were abusers of women, without exception. I can't speak to whether this particular ideology, or general incompetence, is what tanked the MeToo movement, but when the populace began to see more and more unbelievable grievances brought to court under the auspices of this moral reform movement, it did appear to be losing exactly the credibility that it was seeking: the presumption of innocence. That women were innocent of provoking their abuse was a good thing; but that men were not presumed innocent before due process was conducted, negated that positive advancement. The overall interests of fairness were not served by warping the presumption of innocence into insistence despite any legal determination to the contrary that the other side is guilty from the moment the accusation is made and forevermore. 

I don't believe I have to go against my gender here. I don't know who Amber Heard is to women, but Johnny Depp is a totem to men. I believe that in this case and the many others like it that may or may not make it to court, the facts have been shunted aside in favor of a woman's, or a group of women's, curiosity about the minds of men. In my view, what became the most important social motivation about this trial, was "why do men like Johnny Depp?" And that's true in so many controversies like it. Men like Johnny Depp and others who are like him because he's like a good brother. He has time for you. But more, even more, than that, he has time for experiences with you. What most endears men to men like Johnny Depp, though, is that he'll always think about, and even work on, what you're thinking about. And this is undeniably attractive to men, among men. 

What absolutely concerns us men about men like Johnny Depp, is, this great bro always seems to want to be with women, who most outwardly seem to be a physical manifestation of someone like him, but a woman. But this woman that he is always attracted to because they seem to have the same interests, appears to be the female version of himself, but, among women, is very much not in the same role in relation to the women as he is in relation to the men. All of us are always concerned about this in relation to men like Johnny Depp. All he wants is a partner, but more often than not, what he gets is someone who's skeptically investigating him. His weakness is women who act as he does, but coudn't be more different in their social role relative to their own gender. 

Unequivocally, genders are equal. But they are not identical. So much of this simple fact has to do with the way that male and female bodies, and the minds encased in them, are initiated into adulthood. Men are initiated by choice, but women by necessity. The same can be said of bodies. Male bodies have to prove themselves, but female bodies have to stake a claim to who they are. To admit this is not to justify patriarchal oppression. Men have to conform to the reality of women, womankind, and a woman, equally as much as women have to conform to the reality of a society of men. Men like Johnny Depp are so integral to the society of men that they are essential. And believe you me, men stress ourselves to conform to him to reciprocate all that he does for us. It does very much concern men when men like Johnny Depp are hounded by people he takes an interest in, especially women who strike his fancy but don't know his heart. Men like him embody the subject of their interest, but those are also the interest of his brothers, because that is all he does for us, and in so many ways, that is everything we men could want. But women have always been trouble for him, or, should I say, the wrong women have always been trouble for him, because he lives, so completely and exactly, a man's life. Every stress and interrogation he goes through is also our stress, because we stand by him no matter what, and we're always better for it. 

I don't know who Amber Heard is to women, but my impression is, she still has not claimed something and is trying to claim it, but, is she claiming something about who she is, or is she just claiming something? Men like Johnny Depp are always giving of themselves, and they, honestly, don't see gender as a problematic. It's actually, probably, because of men like Johnny Depp that other men can see that there is no inequality between genders. I don't hesitate to speculate that the only difference he sees between people is someone who wants to be his equal, and someone that does not. And you can always try to be his equal, but there is no mercy rule with him. And men love that. 

You-know, us men, we're not all Johnny Depp. And that's why he's so important, because yes, we all want to be; every man in his own measure wants to be that much like Johnny. He keeps it all going, and he tests us at every turn, and that's why we men love him, and we love him the more every time he tests us in various ways. The biggest conniption men like Johnny give us is when they tell us that something is going on with "the women." Because he hurts himself bad nearly everytime he tries to figure that out. But we can't stop him, usually, because what if he finds the perfect, most ideal, love. And that's a thought that captures us all. So that's the man you have before you now, and many more are like him, if you can only remember who he is, before that eternal quest for perfect love, hurt him. You-know, there is a Love Supreme, and that's who he is, and why he's still chasing it. It's hard not to deal in absolutes when it comes to a man like Johnny Depp, because he is an absolute. Even with every new thing that he adds on to what he is building with his life, it was absolute before, and it is still absolute. We would do ourselves a disservice not to allow him to continue his work.

Should Authors Be Allowed To Publish Under Pseudonyms?

Should authors be allowed to publish under pseudonyms?

August 21, 2022

Candide by Voltaire. George Orwell. The Federalist Papers, signed "Publius." Their Anti-Federalist counterparts, written under Brutus, Cato, Federal Farmer, and even Montezuma. The similarity of all of these, besides their seminal contributions to culture and society, is that these authors wrote under a pseudonym. Although this did not stop them from having influence due to their work, it did lend to their efforts the flavor of the Everyman. As Voltaire once described, "Author is a generic name which can, like the name of all other professions, signify good or bad, worthy of respect or ridicule, useful and agreeable, or trash for the wastepaper-basket." I would further suggest that an author's given name does not have to matter either. 

Some sources tell me that some publishing houses right now are not allowing authors to publish non-fiction with them under a pen name. My suspicion is that this is respectability politics run amok. Reasons of freedom of expression should be enough to guarantee authors the right to publish under a pen name. Pen names should be allowed out of First Amendment reasons and decent respect for the life of the author, but as in many cases, the recalcitrance of many corporations toward issues of the rights of human beings will force us to continue the argument. In the end, a ban on pen names is not a practical one, but is a blatant attempt to control and limit the artist. 

A pen name represents not only freedom of expression, and freedom to take risks and experiment with style and form; but also, it represents an ongoing tradition, of the pseudonym as the creation of a character that represents the artist and author in the story of real life and politics. A pen name does not only add excitement to writing, it can also be inspiring. It is one of the oldest traditions of a republic that The Pen can belong to anyone, regardless of race, class, or social status. Works written under a pen name are not of lower quality than signed works; in fact, those that survive are usually of high quality. 

Pen names should be allowed even in non-fiction works. The value of a pen name is not only in the anonymity of its author, but also in the manner in which the pen name allows other folks, writers and non-writers, to step into the shoes of an author. And therefore it is important in the manner of social engineering to allow for common folks who don't write to understand somewhat what it's like to investigate the facts of their existence, and not only what it's like to produce flights of fancy. In fact, I would even argue that in this vein, it is more important for pen names to be allowed in non-fiction work than in fiction work. 

Voltaire was one of the greatest Enlightenment writers, but Voltaire was not his given name. He assumed the name Voltaire when he began writing serious works. Voltaire's works remain some of the most influential and complete expressions of Enlightenment thought that exist today. They produced part of that seismic shift that replaced religious dogma and superstition with education and science in the minds of poor and common folks, making overall human life more humane and decent than it had been in the Middle Ages, which were full of war and strife for the common person. But not only that, but the name "Voltaire" was, and still is a prime example of creating an image in the public imagination of what an author could be, and spurring onwards the interest in, and development of, literacy. The ever-more literate French middle class responded not only to the inherent skill of his works but also the character that he created and embodies to represent his works; the polymath, the libertine, the Voltaire. This image he created in the public imagination, of the power of the author, the language, and literacy itself, assures the livelihood of many authors to this day. And it was not in spite of his pen name, but in part because of his pen name, that he changed the character of writing forever. 

Even though most pen names so-called "fail" to reach the luster of Voltaire, this in itself proves the importance of Voltaire, and the importance of allowing other writers to also create such an outsize impact on the development of the cultural identity of the writer. In short, we let Voltaire try to be Voltaire, and he was a democrat, so it is only democratic that we let anyone else be Voltaire, so long as he don't use that name. For the good of the republic, we might say. But also, the process of developing the intrinsic character that represents to the public imagination the notion of "The Writer" is best served by allowing the use of pen names. The more particulars are removed from that understanding, the easier time of it people have of understanding authorship. Therefore, pen names should be allowed in all cases of authorship, though they may succeed or fail, because a successful instance advances the public understanding of literacy by a huge amount. Voltaire, after all, had predecessors. 

No author will be looked at by future historians, as being outside of time. Every person and perspective is bound by the time they live in and observe from. The works of authors written under pseudonyms will not be invisible when future generations withdraw from the compendium of human efforts a few bits of the past to illuminate the present. Their contribution shall be evaluated on its merits, but their additional sacrifice is that these authors have withdrawn their egos from the mix, and presented instead a character, successful or not, of the author as Everyman for their era. A reasonable perspective would regard this as hopeful, and inspiring.

Conventions

Conventions

August 20, 2022

There's a rotation of archetypes for what image of a man is most admirable for his generation.  And all of them are worthy in their way of representing the best of humankind, so there shouldn't be competition between generations for claims to only universals.  But, I'll spare some words for this guy, who deserves some of late.  Have you felt this presence in our discourse of late - that the most conventional subject of admiration is the man who bucks convention as much as he can?  Someone whose claim to fame is that he is The Man, but, without any support system at all?  The one who wants to bring the whole system down around him, but only for himself, and whoever he wants to offer a share to.  There are many examples if you keep your ear to the ground of the culture these days.  Let's spare some respect for that guy, more than we currently do.  How would we explain that guy to a sixth grader today?  Personally sixth grade is when I for example started to understand social justice.  I started to notice that social relations where not entirely fair, and that they had become calcified.  If one had not talked to certain "cool" and/or pretty people before, it had somewhere down the line become not allowed.  This is not a shot at my sixth grade, in particular, just a factual observation.  But there are many milestones like this in the development of what we call human nature.  And if I can make this observation as objectively as possible, the calcification of social relations is when everyone's bitterness sets in.  And for myself, I notice that several strains of this bitterness can become very delicious.  And I have to say, one of these bitternesses that are found best, is that those who don't listen and learn will be browbeaten into submission.  And I'm not sorry for those people; I wish them pain and suffering.  Human nature is not all pretty, but the bitterness that the decay of utopia leaves behind makes the strife that follows beautiful.  And I would say that what makes it beautiful is that when you let the suffering in but tear down its causes anyway, you find friendship among those who also suffer, but not without resistance to it. 

A visual rhetoric

 A visual rhetoric

August 19, 2022

I should preface this by saying that even though I took some classes on "visual rhetoric" in college, I am generally very skeptical about rhetorical effects. This particular category, however, I have heard confirmed by many other people. Yet, it's the rhetorical "remedy" for this effect, that I found examples of today, that really interested me and I think would interest others. 

The initial genre of content is called "bone hurting juice", and it can be found on the internet in the form of comics and occasionally memes. Several people have confirmed to me that reading these comics does cause a sort of psychosomatic pain, yet, interestingly, all of those people have reported that they have broken a bone in their life. The feeling of psychosomatic (i.e. "not real" or "phantom") pain may be stronger if you have broken a bone, therefore, or, it maybe be conditioned on the memory of breaking the bone entirely - this is not clear to me. I have broken a bone; for me, the psychosomatic pain of looking at "bone hurting juice" comics is slightly akin to the actual pain of slapping a palm on a flat surface. However, some people have reported that having stress fractures, for instance from running, does "count" toward feeling the bone-hurting juice. Strange, but anyway. 

There's been a consequent development of a counterpart genre to "bone-hurting juice" called "bone-healing juice". And, even more strangely, there seems to be a psychosomatic healing effect, or soothing effect, from reading "bone-healing juice" comics and memes, and it is roughly equivalent but opposite in direction to the psychosomatic effect of "bone-hurting juice". I don't think you can deny the genius of internet projects like these. And sometimes they're so useful they should all be getting paid, like here. This whole project was a several-year development. Honestly, rhetorically, it is very impressive. Imagine, for instance, a whole graphic novel full of bone-healing juice type content, and the usefulnessof that. 

Now, some would object that "bone-healing juice" is perhaps cloyingly too wholesome in tone, and this is valid criticism, absent context. The tone of "bone-hurting juice" was darkly cynical in the worst possible way. And I can reassure that the secret of a rhetoric, and I actually think that this counts as a new rhetoric, isn't strictly confined to tone and structure of the content; rather; the tone and structure created a rhetoric that was not entirely bound to the tools that created it. I see a lot of promise for this rhetoric, and for the structure of social striving that created it. Honestly, people saw a problem, and then fixed it. And what they created in the end may have more application widely, than they even imagined. Very admirable. Of course the remedy is not yet perfect, and can, should, be improved, but look what the Internet just did...the Internet should be proud of it.

Finding our marks

 The "Inflation Reduction Act"

August 18, 2022

I think the social and material conditions of life can be hugely improved by a green energy economy. To that effect, I think the passage of significant green energy provisions in the "Inflation Reduction Act" should be celebrated. Taking a long view, the passage of the CHIPS Act and our newfound commitment to high-tech manufacturing vindicates the forward-thinking Gen X-ers, and the commitment to some Green New Deal provisions should placate some Leftist Millenials. But generationally speaking, this does have to be admitted; acknowledged. This does leave Gen Z-ers in a bit of an identity crisis. These issues interested, but did not define us. And the powers from on high are starting to be curious - what are our issues? I think that we have been playing catch-up for so long, and for decades if not longer, the key word in politics has been "access" - access to technology, access to green energy, access to the ballot box, even. Access has come along with promises to distribute the new wealth fairly and evenly, but this has not always been the case. But maybe the time has come to not think about transactional politics but to shift our thinking towards distributing this political access as widely as possible. What other acquisitions do we need to make in order to give humanity the raw materials it needs to make life as ideal as possible? Perhaps housing is the only thing we can reasonably fix, and that is certainly a need. But I am open to exploration of needs in general beyond what might seem apparent. Sen. Sherrod Brown's work on the housing issue seems especially relevant, now, but this is a slow, very slow, fix, by nature. If I may make a point that may still be controversial to partisans, it is still nonetheless my opinion, that so much radical change has happened in recent decades, that, the radical thing to do may be to spread the wealth around. We've certainly gotten our priorities straight, on climate change, the high-tech economy, and people are really concerned about democracy now, enough that it's literally a political issue, that the wise thing to do might well be to make sure the programs that we've gotten work now and for good. Figuring out the housing issue is going to really take some time, but that kind of slow change is going to be radical too. It's important to note that we've been playing catch-up to the new millenium, and we're so close that it's crucial to find our marks for the next race.

Arundhati Roy’s vindication seems soon to come

 August 15, 2022

I came across Arudhati Roy again, and her lecture at the University of Texas this past spring. She comes within a hair's breadth of calling the Hindu Nationalist "BJP" Party, which is the ruling coalition since the Congress Party was deposed several years ago, a fascist regime. The only problem with laying that blame squarely at the feet of Indian Prime Minister Modi, is that no particular minority can be identified as the one singular whipping post for propping up the regime - instead, it's all the minorities in particular, using old and ancient grudges stemming from creed and caste, that are being scapegoated by the Hindu Nationalist operatives, to give their project public credence. The only remaining difficulty with calling the BJP regime overtly fascist in itself, is that somehow the BJP can still somehow claim that they have some of their own people that "desire to be" oppressed internally by a regimatic organization that has become nearly completely outwardly the oppressor. That the BJP still claims that it's operating on some internal secret and not on the oppression of Muslims, Sikhs, and those of low caste, is the only thing that is keeping it legitimate as a political party. But if this is true, as Ms. Roy points out, that would now mean Mr. Modi would be some heterodox Messiah figure, which is far from likely. Its late policy of downsizing the army, creating thouands and hundreds of thousands of disaffected military-aged men with combat training, is another troubling sign of its true intentions. The same blockages will remain in out-and-out calling the BJP regime a fascist regime, above all the classical difficulty of ascertaining the consent in its internal relationship with women. The problem of caste, unique to India, will be another difficulty in applying the label. The "tradition" of cast has been so long present there that it is too hard to tell oppression from people having known nothing else. Despite that, there will be no difficulty, barring some Messianic revelation, unlikely to come, in ascertaining that Mr. Modi's BJP regime is illegitimate; contrary to his own claims. 

Just like Mr. Trump's coalition here, Mr. Modi's coalition will succeed only if it proves to be literate at its core, and fail if it proves to be illegitimate. And, like Mr. Trump, all indications point to Mr. Modi's government being built around a core of illiteracy. Even in the essential but non-lettered elements, that was proven to be truly illiterate here with Mr. Trump, and it seems to be soon proven the same with Mr. Modi in India.

What is the narrative?

 What is the narrative?

August 14, 2022

"What is the narrative?" Those who are really paying attention right now, that is your question. "Narrative" is that word that only in very recent years got into the lexicon, where it has been variously abused by various person in the public eye to no end, really. But people continue to sue for its actually meaning, because to know the meaning of the word has become the mark of the sophisticate. What is the narrative?

An example: The narrative of January 6th, of course, is that the Political Right saw the writing on the wall, finally, that the future of any political position relies on a free-speech strategy of peaceful protest, agitating and petitioning the government - and become so worried because this strategy has been nearly entirely dominated by the Political Left. The Right lost its mind over this, and took frantic measures to ape every Left organizing tactic that they could manage all at once in some uncontrolled release of fear and panic. (Likely, they have no more left in the tank for quite some time.). They have been largely unable to claim internet relevance, though, even so. 

It is procedurally funny for a liberal of any stripe to hear a Rightist or a Right-winger or whatever they call themselves now be calling out the police for their brutality in response to protest. A Leftist says, "oh, you just now figured that one out, huh?" In fact, all the old predatory institutions of the state are a problem because they are unreformed holdovers from the European, monastic, system. These old unreformed institutions create a narrative without separation of church and state, and therefore, no free speech. They need to be completely reconstructed. 

The narrative that exists should basically be rejected. I reject scribal authority, I reject junk economics, I reject disciplinarianism, and I reject propaganda. What would I replace it with? The scribes will be no more than clerks, junk economists will be replaced by the law, the disciplinarians will be no more than parliamentarians, and the propagandists will be replaced by journalism. 

This reform by deconstruction and rebuilding is the narrative. 

The metaphysical shift in general terms is to shift "the point" of doing "the work" from taking to sharing. The old Way is predatory and not nurturing; - and this is the war: to take power back from these decrepit institutions, destroy their capability to continue on being predatory, and reform ourselves into this new mold of a social structure that is not predatory on the people (not "the coldest of cold monsters") but is, of, by, and for the people.

(Ballpoint pen, notebook, workman’s hand.  My usual.)

Who benefits?

 Who benefits?

August 12, 2022 Late night/early morning

"Who benefits?" Here's everyone's complaint when they start to realize that the system is constructed to benefit the vast minority, or no one, that they know or even know of. How does it work if clearly the system benefits only the fewest possible number of people? Well, what makes you think that the system works at all, or that it's supposed to benefit anyone at all? That should be something to think about, but not to think about too much. I don't go around looking for someone to take this vast systemic grievance to. There's a beautiful bittersweet anecdotal story about someone who went around to every hall of power he could find to specifically speak them truth to power, come hell, prison or high water. He was indefatigable and magnificently cursed. One thing that got him locked up was when he told the chancellor of a European country that his office was printing more money than there were commodities to back them up. Voltaire wrote that story. It's not like they've stopped making policy decisions like that. Why do they do that? The billionaires have no clue and have no clue how to benefit from that any more than the averagely intellectual person no matter their social status. Incompetence, here, is ignorance. Ignorance of what competence means. Most people, no matter what their credentials, are incompetent at whatever they actually have to do, until they do it. And these are people that are in government and other positions of power too. If there is a vast conspiracy, the conspiracy is incompetence. Meritocracy in this understanding is a problem; people leading with their credentials should be a disparaged absurdity. But when those exact people make big public mistakes when something goes wrong and get in trouble, it is kinda nice because it's funny to see pride come before a fall. Why have a system of government at all if it doesn't advance the best and brightest to the highest authority? But that's not the point of having a system of government. The point of having a system of government is to not have no system of government. So who benefits? The barbarians, I guess. Or the people who don't get beat up so much. Y'know, people would rather forget these things - the war crimes, the atrocities, the callousness of the rich towards the poor - these are things people want to forget. This is the reason we have governments and other systems like that, so that we forget. What's the point of having them? So that we still remember what some want to forget. It's only then that people can forget. 

(Felt tip pen, bound journal, cursive)

What actually works?

What actually works?

August 12, 2022

"What actually works?" That's the other thing that people often have on their minds in times of transition. They bemoan that nothing that used to work, works anymore. I don't, or at least I try not to. Well, was it supposed to work before? Or, at least, "for whom was it supposed to work?" is a fair question. Who's to say that those old techniques that people default to in times of stress and panic, actually ever worked for them, or even for those whose they supposed they were working for? In fact, the long history of institutional repression, and of working people being screwed out of the fruits of their labor, should indicate the opposite. 

Marx actually wrote about this when he was scribing for the Provincial Assembly in Germany. He called it the "theft of wood". Marx, in essence, well aware that all the commodities in the way that they are worked by human hands, build up into the analogy of wood, stone, metal and clay, wanted to build them up to that from the most basic parts. He maintained despite all opposition that the whole of humanity was building up to the expression of working wood, stone, clay or metal. This also maintained for the Provincial Assembly the purity of its claims to a Mandate of Heaven, based on this material analysis. 

He says regarding a meeting of this Assembly, as follows:

At the very beginning of the debate, one of the urban deputies objected to the title of the law, which extends the category of "theft" to include simple offenses against forest regulations.
A deputy of the knightly estate replied:
"It is precisely because the pilfering of wood is not regarded as theft that it occurs so often."
By analogy with this, the legislator would have to draw the conclusion: it is because a box on the ear is not regarded as murder that it has become so frequent. It should be decreed therefore that a box on the ear is murder.

So maybe the pilfering of wood should be considered the same as a box on the ear. But in any case, what this does illustrate is the confusion about what work is, anyhow. In the first case, they did not distinguish between cut and fallen wood in this debate very well, and neither did their law. For a second thing, their political structure and their law did not make it well worth it to do any work. The ownership of forests made the gathering of fallen wood, necessary work for some, a crime; and their law, not distinguishing between fallen and cut wood, did not strictly allow for the worker cutting wood to claim absolute ownership over the product of his labor. 

You think you're working and you might not have any claim to it, is what I'm saying. Because it might not be serving your own interests, or you're barred from working, except in the way socially prescribed to you, which might in itself be a theft of work. 

Practically this is not so hard to understand. A company, for instance, is set up to serve, or to make things for people. The goal is all that they have in mind, and providing work to people, materially and socially, is a completely secondary concern. This is one reason why we have labor unions, so that people are actually working, and not just slaving away. 

When you add in the technological component, it becomes even more important for people to know what "work" is. The company won't tell you what work it is that you are actually doing, on a human level. Part of the lack of freedom that a new technological paradigm inspires comes from the problem that workers in a new economy don't know on what basis they should be agitating for their worker's rights. The poet Blake even wrote about this on the eve of the Industrial Revolution. This poem is actually saying that the labor problems in the industrial mills were so bad that he thought it would take Jesus Christ to fix them. It's funny but it's not. 

And did those feet in ancient time,
Walk upon England's mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On England's pleasant pastures seen!

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Amongst these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold:
Bring me my Chariot of Fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In England's green and pleasant Land.

So there is really no evidence that what was "supposed to work" before was ever supposed to work, at least for the laborer or the peasant farmer, even though they were told that that was how work was supposed to work. And the common and ongoing problem here is this: working in the paradigm of the past when the reality of your labor is another paradigm entirely, benefits that paradigm and not your material conditions. This is how the system of exploitation is set up: factories were not farms, and medicine and science is not a factory, but that's how it was set up. And this can get very granular very fast, and before you know it, Marx gets involved. 

With the new technofeudalism, and its absurd taste for power, we have to again reject setting up that system like the past. They are already trying to do that, with the culture of "psychological operations" and "the science of listener attention" already very deep; very polluting. This technological paradigm is not medicine, it is not science, for the workers in it. But then the mischief sets in, with the question "then is law a farm" if you catch my line of reasoning. And, is time circular; cyclical? This type of mischief needs to be stamped out to have a serious thought about it. I think time is helical, with a circular and a linear dimension, and I won't cite my source on it. I think the more cogent point is that to say that "the law" is "a farm" would be the biggest corruption yet seen. I am drawn to this extract from Montesquieu's "The Spirit of the Laws" (I. 16. 7.)

"There are two kinds of corruption, one when the people do not observe the law, the other when they are corrupted by the laws: an incurable evil because it is in the very remedy itself."

(Pilot V5, yellow legal pad, print)

What is true?

 What is true?

August 12, 2022

In times like this, the question is often raised: "what is true?" and the only way to answer this is to instead begin at a different point with a different question, namely, "what exists from the perspective of truth?"  The existence of truth can be discerned from its cares and effects, and its concerns can only really be known by looking upon its works.  This conclusion stands to reason unlike metaphorical assumptions of where truth would desire to be; investigation trumps wishful thinking. 

It cannot be denied that truth is publically elusive.  To paraphrase a quote from Sinclair Lewis's novel about early modern science, Truth may appear to be an elusive and beautiful creature to be pursued through the obstacles of life, but it is actually a skeptical attitude toward life.  (Arrowsmith, 1925).  Extending to this idea the assumption of relevance, due to its common sense and beautiful phrasing, the precise point of departure for this investigation should be some variation of the question "what concepts are essential to human life?"  The answer to this should give some indication as to our original question, which can be addressed by illuminating that which exists from the perspective of truth.  What we are looking for, is not what truth is, but where it can be found, because only then could the investigation of what truth is begin, and only then could anyone even think to try to describe what is true. 

Common sense says not to over-complicate the answer to "what is true?" but that applies more exactly to looking for the cares and effects that truth has in the world.  The fundamental concept that involves Truth in the world is Time.  The overarching and inescapable social paradigm for man, or woman, is the nation, or the state, and therefore, the largest and most fundamental concepts, on the personal and social-political schematics, combine into the essential in the concepts of War, and Peace. "What is true?" therefore does depend on the weight that the time-condition of our social organization gives to certain concerns.  Action does indicate the priorities that exist from the perspective of Truth, and this construction of organization and ideas does change dependent on the material and social conditions that exist at the time. 

Lest it appear that this could mean that the scope of things that could be true at any one time are so vast as to suggest that truth is meaningless, consider that this frustration of the scientific mind can be easily assuaged by the question "what is not true?" and the assurance that there are things that are not true.  This should be apparent to those who do not overthink.  However the Truth most certainly does overthink. 

The cares and effects that Truth has in the world are all of those related to War, and Peace.  The material and social conditions of every citizen of a nation, every resident of a nation-state, change depending on whether the social structure and mental cares of that place are in a state of War, or Peace; those things and places where the material and social conditions of life change, even the barely perceptible ones, are where the truth can be found. 

The answer to the question "what is true?" isn't answered by this, at least not yet and not directly, but that question can't be answered without locating the position of the answer relative to its social and material conditions.  It would be foolish to answer that question with an example that is true, or with a direct statement that grinds the gears to a halt.  But the answer can be found in this paradigm of War, and Peace. 

War, and Peace are a creative, destructive cycle.  And the outputs of these mentalities are varied.  But the truth of the matter is not about maintaining a balance of whatever combination you prefer.  One can't exist without the other.  The truth of the matter is in maintaining the tension between War, and Peace.  To advance the plot, if you will. 

(Pilot G2 1.0mm on white paper, humanist script)

The latest attempt to get justice for Flint fails again due to people not taking their job very seriously.

August 11, 2022 
The latest attempt to get justice for Flint fails again due to people not taking their job very seriously.
The court in a trial against a few of the engineering companies responsible for the Flint Water Crisis has declared a mistrial. This makes me mad for several reasons. Of course, the whole damn deal makes me pissed off. What was especially galling about this incident, is that no matter how hard they try, it seems like the elite conspiracy responsible for harm against millions, and the biggest public health tragedy in the United States, possibly ever, not related to disease, but rather directly related to public administration, will never be brought to justice. It's not like this was a harmless mistake. There had to be some sort of profit making scheme behind it in order for it to make sense, to even try, to drink dirty water out of a river long known to be polluted. It's not like the technological response to the incident was especially lackluster, but whatever technological guidance the public administration management class got justifying giving the city a dirty supply of drinking water was definitely suspect. But the experts brought in after the crisis broke did as fine a job as it's possible to do given the outrageous circumstances and unexplainable delay in responding to the crisis. The process story is secondary to the story about placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of those responsible for the outrage. To again cut through the noise on what exactly happened, the river water was dirty, it never should've been used as a drinking water source, it had elevated levels of bacteria, the standard cleaning solutions had to be used in such large amounts that they degraded the pipes themselves which were made of lead, and that caused the lead crisis. Dwelling on the details is a job for public administration officials in the future. In terms of the direct legal response that is needed to rectify the wrongs done to the people of Flint, the only thing that will and should satisfy anyone is directly fingering those whose actions justified the decision by the emergency manager at the time, Kurtz, to sign off on the switch to the Flint River water as a drinking source. There may be other accomplices surrounding him, but as his name is on the document authorizing the switch, the buck stops with him. I do not care how sick or old he is, he bears responsibility for the crisis. If he had no reason to be knowledgeable about anything regarding city management, that is the fault of Public Act IV, and cannot be used as an excuse to get him out of trouble, seeing as he signed on to be part of the program administering the actuation of Public Act IV. That is as far as the legal story about this should care about the ensuing details - with the singular exception of extending understanding and providing support for citizens of Flint that may or may not have done desperate things in a desperate situation. The situation was not of their causing, and they should be given amnesty for whatever nonpayment or other small actions of resistance taken in this crisis, which, it cannot be said enough, was man-made. And, those who made the crisis happen are represented and exemplified by Kurtz, the Emergency Manager who had sole responsibility for all decisions done in the city of Flint under the auspices of Public Act IV, including switching the source of drinking water to the polluted Flint River, which set in motion the chain of events that led to the Flint Water Crisis. Its causality can easily be proved by the publicly available ensuing facts on the ground. This does not mean we should stop at small potatoes when addressing the fallout from this crisis. The citizens of Flint deserve better and democracy deserves better than some piddling attempt to make some minor officials take the fall for Kurtz, the Emergency Manager system, and Public Act IV, which were the actual cause of this crisis - and especially Kurtz, no matter his political connections, is the guilty man, because his name is on the damn document. I do not care that he signed the document in the middle of his transition out of office. This is not relevant, because his was the authorizing signature on the document. Supporters of Public Act IV cannot parade this hypocrisy before us of extending to these unaccountable Emergency Managers both authority and an excuse not to be held accountable for their actions. I spoke to the lawyer that I believe is prosecuting this case, and noted to him that as Ed Kurtz's name is on the authorizing document, he should be held responsible for the tragedy, or should we say the atrocity, of authorizing blatant negligence that caused uncountable harm.  His inability to get some of the guys that contributed to this fiasco is his problem. To be totally clear, the engineers are not mine. There's snake oil salesmen that are always gonna be around. It's way more important in my mind to get the guys who had the gall to hire the snake oil salesmen on behalf of the people. I'm sticking to my guns that the problem started at the very top, with the Emergency Manager system, Public Act IV, and Ed Kurtz, who can and should in the minds of public opinion exemplify the abject failures of Public Act IV.  Anybody who sees this case otherwise, I believe, has not done the research, has completely misread the information, or is logically incapable of understanding what's going on.  This is assuming that all looking on upon this disaster are acting in good faith. Those who look upon this crisis as a fatted cow, or a trough to try to digest the slops of Public Act IV, are so reprehensible in their own way, because they will distort through their exaggerated emphasis on the importance of whatever detail in the process story they deem relevant, that if this continues, their combined actions will only end up distorting the facts about what happened, and rebound to the support of Public Act IV, which is their nominal enemy. They will end up justifying exactly that which they pretend to oppose. The press has this story right. Or they did. The unions had this story right. They had it right when they protested against the passage of Public Act IV, long before the outbreak of the crisis. The doctors and ambulance chasers that are prosecuting this story right now, have no connection to the causes and reasons that led to this crisis. All I see in this arena right now are people trying to make a profit on one side or the other, and there's a complete lack of principled opposition to the abject mismanagement of public administration that is the cause of this crisis, and can be attributable to certain particular nameable people. I don't care how old or sick they are, it's time for them to face the music. It's time for Ed Kurtz in particular, to face the firing squad. I wasn't the first one to this story, but I had it long before these bumblers got their paws on it. The weak and wishy-washy response to this crisis in the courts has me enraged. Look, if you're fighting a monster, and you are in this case, don't be a fool, and aim for the jugular. Otherwise, you're just out for a piece.
---
I've known about this story for so long that all this just rolled off my tongue directly into the dictation on my computer. Take it in that spirit. But it's not the form, but the facts that matter, and this is exactly my point regarding the lawyers in these cases prosecuting process story after process story and ignoring the actual causes and perpetrators of this crisis. If I had written it with a pen it would've been the same words, more or less, probably. I've sat on my hands for so long about this, that it just came out.
Here’s the document that I’m talking about. I’m reasonably sure that it’s authentic. The lawyer that I talked to you that was prosecuting this case that I’m talking about now, said that he used this document in the case, which for whatever reason didn’t target Kurtz for taking this exact action outlined in the document, as I mentioned above. 
I cannot tell you how sick I am of continuing to talk about this case. But the bumbling response not just to the crisis and to correctly assigning blame for it, and delivering justice for the victims, not to mention rebuilding the city infrastructure, has been so lackluster that I have to keep referring to the same facts that I’ve been talking about for years. I blame this all squarely on Public Act IV, which is rightfully the cause of this atrocity. 

The Radio Overton Window

 August 10, 2022 Late night/early morning

So, I want to mention this, and in a sort of open-ended way, see where it goes.  I think cultural analysis of this is often neglected in the discourse.  How much attention have people paid to the fact that your typical broadcast for-profit radio station broadcasts with a standard format that's essentially pre-packaged?  Put conservative talk radio on hold for a minute.  Even the music channels are broadcasting a standard format - a slate of songs from a defined era, and so on.  There's an agreed-on scope of what's available.  Does fashion dictate what is on?  Or does it come down to a corporate decision, whittled by some arbiters of taste who have gotten that authority from...somewhere.  Stolen it or something.  Probably a little of both if you're talking about the stations playing the newest songs.  But when you're moving backwards somewhat, into the replay stations, fashion doesn't play so much into it.  There's more of a corporate flavor.  

Cookie cutter.  People do say that.  It's not an unfair criticism.  But it's not a criticism of the songs as much as it is a criticism of the prescribed format: how people's taste is commonly supposed to be assumed, but is actually dictated to them by what's on. 

So the internet kids have some beef with this broadcasting mentality, say my doubters (perhaps).  But it's not so much a full-fledged attack.  Putting out content continually can be extraordinarily difficult.  Autopiloting a broadcast can allow you to work on the mechanics of the thing.  But there is some hypocrisy in this model that a fan of music can discern.  For instance, to not allow someone to pay a station to play a song, but affirmatively allow corporate interests to define your entire programming and all your pre-packaged options, is hypocrisy.  If one should be sensationalized, so should the other.  But the reality is, that the public owns the airwaves, and, secondly, that big corporate interests are still embarrassed to have their enormous influence on the media known.  They only want to get away with the murder of diversity of information if their hand in it is never disclosed.  They only want to participate in narrowing the Overton Window and manipulating it if no one knows about it, ever.  What's a little payola compared to the wholesale manipulation of our information flows?

* * * 

Now, just for fun, how about this to ponder.  I want to be clear that I don't buy conspiracy theories, as a standard, but I do entertain them because I like to imagine what might be going on.  AM Radio is heavily Republican; that is not a secret.  I just picked out this detail from the for-profit radio station history in the Lansing area: there used to be a hip-hop radio station on AM radio here directed at the black community.  When that channel was bought out by its present owners, they transferred the programming to FM, and replaced the programming on AM with some bland mix.  Did the fact that this station was the first to program specifically to the African-American community in Lansing, and at one time could be heard in a big chunk of the Lower Peninsula, have anything to do with the buyout and the shunting off to FM radio?

Here's my limited understanding of "radio".  FM is the pros: it's higher quality sound but it's got a lower ceiling on scope (of broadcast area).  AM is actually easier to get into: all the amateur radio enthusiasts are on AM.  But it's generally a conservative-leaning bunch.  Apply common sense to it: what is the power of broadcast radio technology that the conservative side, many of whom have a big animus against African-Americans, want to keep away from the black community?

I'm just entertaining that conspiracy theory for what it's worth, and it seems like there's something to it.  I don't claim to be all that familiar with broadcast media, but I do like music.  I also get a kick out of that Grand Rapids-based conservatives were once regaled with the sounds of hip-hop radio.  It might have made them less uptight. 

* * *

The serious part for me is the part of this that constitutes the easily-accessible explanation of the word "propaganda".  Forget the extremities of "MK Ultra" and so on, or put them aside for now.  "Propaganda" is just simply exactly this: limiting people's options for the consumption of information, and also for culture, by washing out alternative voices in a sea of noise, whether that be junk mail, or radio stations confined to a certain "format" of "acceptable" programming.  More precisely it's, for example, radio stations whose programming confines the listener to a certain type of mood and outlook.  And more accurately it's a regime that manipulates the programming that's available so that "they" (whoever controls it) can attempt to keep as many people as possible within what they decide is the range of acceptable opinion (also known as the Overton Window).  It's not just spam or bad journalism.  In short, propaganda is content, or media in general, that makes the audience vulnerable to some further, predatory, manipulation. 

The diplomatic language barrier

 August 10, 2022

There's an unspoken "thing" about diplomacy that is, wherein what can be understood between two countries with a common language of a) education, and b) administration is less between two countries wherein there is not a shared language at any official level; no matter how honest and authentic a cultural interchange is, to the other side and vice versa, in a relationship without shared language at an official level, the counterpart will seem evil because they appear locally illiterate. 

I think this is especially relevant in Taiwan-U.S. relations right now. 

站在外交手法的立場，兩位沒有共享語言的國家，互相理解的會比較少；最老實的溝通還會有困難，無論兩位對方還會看起來是文盲。

My Chinese is by no means literary, in fact, the wording is probably ugly as can be. But it is honest a translation as I can make out with my limited ability. My literary ideal is for translation to translate the meaning, and not the optics of the original. If only my abilities were up to the task of achieving my ideal of aesthetic beauty in that category...

A Third Worldist in its oldest, most authentic and most indigenous form

 August 4,2022

Taiwan has gotten a lot of news attention, subliminally and openly, recently - and it may seem like overall, issues about Taiwan and high-tech industry, have gotten into the bloodstream of the political narrative. And me included. Why does it matter to me, an American born and raised, and an American educated person? It's not this youthful obsession with the world at the expense of the world at our fingertips, and at a glance around. The world outside our borders does have its mysteries. But it's not out of oriental superstition or jingoistic interventionism that I write about them.

This is a piece I wrote about this a while back. Why do I care about U.S. foreign policy in this way? 

I am a Third Worldist in its oldest, most authentic and most indigenous expression. That is what members of countries in the non-aligned block of nations called themselves during the folly of the Cold War. I believe in the so-called "Western values" of peace through prosperity, liberty and freedom of expression. I believe in the pursuit of happiness, for God and country. But I don't believe those are "Western" values. I don't believe anyone but for humanity itself has claim to ownership of those perfect ideals. I believe in opening minds around the world to those perfect ideals, but not under the flag and cloak of Western ownership, Western interpretation, and Western fiat. This country has security interests and some of those depend on global acceptance of peace, liberty and freedom of expression. Those radiant perfect ideals clothe Americans while they are abroad and guarantee them a degree of safety. But the concrete shapes those ideals take in other nations are best drawn up in their practicality by the native intellectuals of those countries, who understand their own culture and history, and can spot in their own culture and history the authentic expressions of peace through prosperity, liberty and freedom of expression. Those people may be extensively educated in a "Western" way, that is to say in Western institutions, or in the West itself, but the important point I am making is that those who should model ideals for a place are those who can live deeply embedded in a place without experiencing separation from its facts of existence. In that sense, a Third World "Western intellectual", so called, who has not lost connection to the facts of local existence, is not a "Western intellectual" if what they are espousing is really these universal perfect ideals. Shame on anyone, local to a Third World country or to a U.S. national elite, domestic or transnational, who uses that term for them disparagingly. Humanity cannot hold together and the individual cannot either without these perfect ideals of peace through prosperity, liberty, and freedom of expression. They belong to nobody in particular, no person, country, race, or school of thought, but they belong to all humanity and anyone who exercises them. They do not depend on personal belief in God but they flow from God's benevolence and cannot be given or taken away. They simply exist independent of borders or national territory or personality; they are personal rights and have more universality and power than any culture, Western or otherwise - Indian, Sudanese, Asian, Chinese, Korean, or Latin American, what have you. Cultures can change but these perfect and personal ideals of peace through prosperity, liberty, and freedom of expression do not change. They cannot be claimed, they cannot be owned by anyone or any group or territory or any force of men or woman opposed to another.

Here we are, on the other side of a historical moment

 August 4, 2022

I've written a lot about Taiwan. I don't own it or its story. We're all just ordinary people until we dally too long and get swept up in the -currents? -winds? -the rush of people making history, toward the endless ticking of time.

Just because we are all ordinary people doesnt mean there aren't critical moments in history that don't make us special for a time. I don't claim a special life for myself in and of myself. There are just moments that matter and you might as well act like you matter too.

At the end of it all, you just have to know what "is" bigger than yourself, and, how you are bigger than it.

With everything that happened in the past few days, I no longer think we live in the same material conditions we once lived in. Life doesn't have to stay the same for it to go on.

The poem that “did it” for me.

August 4, 2022

I don’t like all poetry.  But let's put it this way: I don't have a poetry problem. And recently I found this poem in a book of quotations, and it finally was the poem that "did it" for me. 

II. Mycenae

Give me your hands, give me your hands, give me your hands.

I have seen in the night
The sharp peak of the mountain,
Seen the plain beyond flooded
With the light of an invisible noon,
See, turning my head,
Black stones huddled
And my life taut as a chord
Beginning and end
The final moment:
My hands

Whoever raises the great stones sinks;
I've raised these stones as long as I was able,
I've loved these stones as long as I was able,
These stone, my fate.
Wounded by my own soil
Tortured by my own shirt.
Condemned by my own gods,
These stones.

I know that they don't know, but I
Who've followed so many times
The path from killer to victim
From victim to punishment
From punishment to the next murder,
Groping
The inexhaustible purple
That night of the return
When the Furies began whistling,
In the meagre grass -
I've seen snakes crossed with vipers
Knotted over the evil generation
Our fate.

Voices out of the stone out of sleep
Deeper here where the world darkens,
Memory of toil rooted in the rhythm
Belated upon the earth by feet
Forgotten
Bodies sunk into the foundations
Of the other time, naked. Eyes
glued, glued to a point
That you can't make out, much as you want to:
The soul
Struggling to become your own soul.

Not even the silence is now yours
Here where the millstones have stopped turning

I'm not sure the poet, George Seferis, did much else other than work devastatingly hard as a diplomat and write poetry for his friends. He saw great strife throughout his life, he saw interesting times, moments of great beauty, and the grief from the collaps of the democratic government he loved so much in Greece.

I like just this, that George Seferis didn't write anything about art, or poetry, or politics, h just wrote about what I was like to exist in interesting times. I guess that's poetry in the raw, but I don't claim to know anything about what poetry should be.

The white-collar, non-profit NGO is infinitely problematic.

August 4, 2022

The white-collar, non-profit NGO is infinitely problematic. I will refrain from using the inside joke squeeb to describe them, and stick with easily accessible language for public consumption. I think this trend of making non-profit NGOs for everything is an example of cultural corruption and not distinct in analogy from the 501(c)4 Super PACs that have proved so corruptive to our politics and cultural discourse. On a very general level, an NGO is funded and supported, besides its private donors, by tax breaks and tax loopholes. Or what they call "favorable" tax filing conditions. Sure, to a certain extent they must exist because someone's got to do some of that stuff with government leftovers. But to keep harping on how important NGOs are and how we need to have more, and calling for putting all this effort into boosting them, is a particular Millennial fallacy. Let's not try to lobby to increase government waste in order to spin it off into corporate offices. I went to public policy school on the back end of the Millennial/Gen Z divide, so I can tell you, there's gonna be a problem. It's not that they are categorically bad: some actually do free press work. But more, than anyone would be comfortable with, are dark money operations, money laundering operations, or excuses to pay people for jobs that not only the government wouldn't pay people to do, but if you think about it, for stuff the government thought about or tried to pay people to do, and decided they wouldn't. A lot of people in those don't really get that what they are is lobbyists, and say they're in "government sector" work - which is, let me tell ya, what is making that whole corrupt-looking, "light sweet crude"-smelling Washington DC–Fairfax–Arlington Sprawl, really fucking sprawl.

Resolving the hubristic delusions of Mr. Harari and Mr. Peterson

 August 4, 2022

Resolving the hubristic delusions of Mr. Harari and Mr. Peterson…

OK, I'll do it. There's a very basic need to answer a question about "nature" and "happiness", and there is a very basic answer to it.

We do ask ourselves this when we're in a thinking mood. It's a very Gen Z question, which is "why can't I be happy just being out in nature, like I was when I was a happy kid; isn't nature so important?" And so on.

And the answer is quite simple. It is that the Internet is a mess, and therefore the State is a mess, and we feel responsibility because the Internet (not any one platform, but the whole public Internet) is a public square. 

I would go further to say that people like Mr. Peterson and Mr. Harari are examples of why the Internet is a mess, by asking base and repetitive questions over and over with the air that they are making very important points. That's the dregs of the elitism of Internet early adapters, that Internet early adapters have along since tossed out. We have more important controversies to deal with and talk about.

I look forward to Mr. Zizek’s next conquest.

The delusions of Jordan Peterson

 August 4, 2022

I want to point to a pair of dangerously hubristic ideological positions hiding under the cover of the postmodern confusion and lack of theory amongst the cacophony of the Internet. The first is that of Yuval Noah Harari, previously addressed. The second is that of Jordan Peterson. And again it was Slavoj Zizek who confronted it.

The topic this time was "happiness", which is another potentially very stupid modern obsession. Who is Mr. Peterson really in this obsession? The debate was also framed in terms of "Marxism versus capitalism", and Mr. Peterson's position was essentially that he is pleased with himself, so therefore capitalism is fine. But at the same time, he expressed frustration that other people are not happy, because capitalism is fine, so why aren't they happy? Do I have to explain that this is delusional reasoning?

Again, the question to Mr. Peterson "and what have you been doing that you would say so?" cuts to the chase. And in his essence, Mr. Peterson lives this delusion, which is also very deeply troubling to actual modern society: the trend is that of pretending to be autistic in order to appear smart. I would say Mr. Peterson is in essence a kind of “mental hypochondriac”. This middle-class self-pathologization is deeply troubling, and it takes many forms, nearly dependent on generation. It's existed for quite a while. What I have observed is that OCD tendencies was the Gen X delusion, and for Millennials it was a sort of victim complex. People do this because they think they want the prestige that thinkers have of having everything they say being immediately thought of as logical and a good idea. Any thinker will tell you that that's actually not how us thinkers are actually received.

And again, recognition has to be given to Mr. Zizek for noticing this, and getting to the bottom of who is actually doing Mr. Peterson's thinking for him. And, once again, "and what have you been doing that you would say so" that actual thinkers, i.e. the ones you know, are acting that way relative to you, is a relevant consideration. The sickly modern concern of "why aren't thinkers happy?" Should absolutely be amended to "why aren't thinkers happy, with me?"