Categories
Uncategorized

Tractrato-Logico Philosophicus

Wittgenstein, as I think is reasonably well known, wrote this during WW1.  He apparently served with considerable courage, often volunteering for dangerous assignments like forward observer, and his unit saw considerable combat.  He finished the–book, I will call it–in a POW camp.

My comment: I understand VERY well the comforts of abstraction in chaotic situations.  If you can find that wavelength, stress actually makes you more effective.

What it also does, though, is split your persona into the emotional part and the logical part.  Granting at the outset that no good answer is possible, it is tempting to wonder if Wittgenstein died prematurely due to unprocessed emotions, and the solitude they necessitated.

Categories
Uncategorized

Judgement

It is only necessary to judge people when you are protecting your own identity. I think relative judgement can coexist with relative identity. This is the value of social systems in motion: mutual adsptation is possible.
Categories
Uncategorized

Individualism

What if the music of Mozart had had to be approved, note by note, by a committe of his “peers”?
Categories
Uncategorized

Socialism

The goal of socialism is Communism. The goal of Communism is the eradication of perceptual motion.

Corrolary: Goodness seeks relative stability in motion; evil absolute stability in stasis.

Categories
Uncategorized

The American Experiment and Plurality

The quality of the government of self-governing people can only be as good as the people themselves.  Our modern problem is the WE are mediocre, and this causes us to be easily manipulated in large enough numbers to matter.  Not only does stupidity swing elections, but it prevents the important issues from even entering the public domain in a sober, serious way to begin with.

The point I wanted to make, though, is that America has succeeded in large measure because her people are mostly honest, which in turn is a result of generalized religiosity.  It might be a funny way to put it, but particularly in the early days Americans put their religion front row and center, much like the Tibetans did until recently, and still do in their diaspora, apparently.  We were founded FOR the free practice of religion.  That was the point, that was the dominant life concern of a great many of our early settlers. 

And that early piety put us in a much better place than, say, Mexico, which could be wealthy, but which is inhabited by Mexicans.  Yes, I said that.  Anyone who wants to compare and contrast their history with our own, please post a comment.  Happy to do it.

Thus, the entire success of our experiment has rested, historically, on something which is fading.  Certainly, religiosity fares much better here than overseas, but it is under determined assault by nihilists.

I have said in the past that our Constitution is the most perfect political document ever created, and nearly perfect, except that it failed to put checks on the Supreme Court.

But the civil basis of OPERATING the Constitution, of operating the wheels of government, is highly flawed in its premise.  Here is my thought: Christianity is not universalizable.  It is a parochial doctrine, which we cannot count on all people adhering to.  Given this, the moral basis of our nation is on, and has always been on, shaky ground.

What we need is a “scientific” morality, by which I mean one which people will adopt willingly in large numbers, because it works for their parochial aims of personal and communal happiness.  Socialism claims to be that doctrine, but obviously it is not, for many many reasons which I have repeatedly examined at length.

Something like my conception of Goodness would serve this purpose, though.  What we need is a revival which can include not only Christians, but ALL Americans, which works to cultivate sincere tolerance, sincere civic engagement, and meaningful Goodness.

Rambling again.  Just did a hard workout so I’m a bit punchy, but wanted to put this out there.

Categories
Uncategorized

Nausea

I think I may have posted on this, but at times I get this sense of nausea facing the world, one that may be somewhat like what Sartre felt.  I never read Nausea, have never felt the need to peruse his work in depth, but I don’t doubt that he did describe what were for him existential realities.

I was doing Lumosity just a few seconds ago, and it is funny that when I am really doing well, strong emotions come up, old blockages.  There is something in me which all my life has put the brakes on, has prevented me from fully expressing myself, from working in a sober and diligent way for long term successes.

And that something is fading.  I cannot describe how difficult some of these emotions are to process, but it is very much like a case of indigestion you know will pass. 

It is not my intention to be a psychological exhibitionist, but it is my conviction that our society has become used to dealing in trifles, used to using the countless distractions mass society has made available to avoid processing deep feelings, so I want to be one person saying that it is both possible and NECESSARY.

And I did want to generalize this thing. I am of course well aware of projection, but do think that people are introspective and habitually honest can largely take it into account.

And I do think in some ways I look at Sartre as someone I could have been, with only a slightly different temperament.  Perhaps atheism alone would have done it. 

And I don’t mean to say I have his talent.  Candidly, other than my knowledge that he was a rock star in his time, I have no way of assessing how intelligent his work was. 

What I can say is it was not apparently USEFUL for substantially anyone, which is my own way of measuring actual talent.  I will say that by my own criteria, an average carpenter is much more useful to the world–much more functionally intelligent, much more to be admired–than an intellectual who makes things WORSE.  That is the equivalent of building a structure which falls over the first time it is used, and then blaming the lumber.  It is mediocrity, nothing more, or less, no matter how apparently intelligent otherwise, no matter how effectively those masses of words sopped up the excess cerebrations of equally mediocre human beings.

I was thinking today about how different our world would be if in the middle of our culture, our elites were working hard at cultivating Goodness, at cultivating ACTUAL love, ACTUAL compassion, ACTUAL empathy, and ACTUAL correlation between stated goals and chosen means.

As I have said, Goodness in my view consists in large measure in learning how to see the world as it is, with a sincere desire both to learn how to be happy oneself, and to support other people in their own efforts to build their own happiness.  It consists in wishing others well, sincerely.

How valued is sincere perception in our world?  Not very, in my view.

In the case of Nausea, it is the recognition, on an emotional level, that something very wrong, very horrible was done, which cannot be integrated into any narrative which does not presuppose the inclusion of evil, which does not requite connecting with evil, with seeing the harm people are capable of doing to one another, on a deep emotional level.

With regard to Sartre, can we not assume his embrace of Stalinism, of mass death and torture, of slavery, and mass poverty, was not made necessary by his own failure to deal with his own psychological ghosts?  By his encounter with Nausea, and decision to consider it a defining attribute of “authenticity”, and not a sort of illness, a relic of the past to be processed and disposed of?

Things to do.  This came out differently than I intended, but the thing will circle around.  I’ll continue later.

Categories
Uncategorized

NFL

I read today that Super Bowl tickets are selling for much less than expected: http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/10346582/2013-nfl-playoffs-super-bowl-ticket-prices-continue-plummet

For my part, I decided after the San Francisco/Seahawks game that not only was I not going to watch the Superbowl, I’m giving up on the NFL.  I may change my mind, but the refereeing in that game made, to my mind, only one conclusion possible: the system is corrupt.

My logic is simple.  When you have BLATANTLY bad calls made, one after the other, when the referees are clearly not incompetent, clearly seasoned, clearly not blind, clearly capable of calling a game cleanly, and when there is no high level public censure for consistently favoring one team over another, then the SYSTEM–not those refs, but the SYSTEM, is corrupt.

I read the NFL is around a $10 BILLION business.  Do you think there are not at times pressures placed on refs and even coaches and players to reach one outcome and not another?

Clearly, Kaepernick and his team played their hearts out, but somewhere in the 3rd Quarter, apparently before yet ANOTHER bad call, I gave up on the game.  I left the bar I was watching it in.

I counted 2 Personal Foul penalties that were patent bullshit, a personal foul on a 49’s punt returner that was NOT called, in which he was clothes lined, and then facemasked ON THE GROUND, causing his helmet to come off, a reception and fumble caused by the ground (“the ground cannot cause a fumble”) that was called an incomplete pass, two BLATANT intentional grounding calls that were not made (Here is the rule), and one roughing the kicker penalty not called, that was so blatant HE TWISTED HIS DAMN ANKLE.  Here is the verbiage on that.

And as I mentioned, there were apparently bad calls after that, all or substantially all favoring the Seahawks.

Again, I want to be clear: bad refereeing happens, but it does NOT happen in high level NFL games called by seasoned professionals.  The ONLY conclusion possible, to my mind, is that the game was intentionally skewed to the Seahawks, which vaguely nauseates me, makes me feel yet more doubt about the future of our nation, and certainly causes me to doubt the integrity of the NFL as a whole.  I’ve never seen anything like it, other than a couple blatantly bad calls against Green Bay in the Super Bowl where they played the Steelers.

The whole things reminds me this is a for-profit business, one that I henceforth will NOT support in any way. 

Categories
Uncategorized

Privatizing Marriage

Why is the granting of marriage certificates a government monopoly?  As I think about it, all the government does is ratify a contract whose terms IT stipulates.  While the marriage lasts, the terms of the marriage are negotiated by the partners.  Government only steps in when it ends, and then it dictates how the marriage can end, who gets what, how the kids are “allocated”, etc.

What would prevent ANY law firm from providing the same service?  Why not get the contract ratified by a priest–before God, if you will, according to your inclination–and then sign a contract that is spelled out in whatever form the partners agree too, and which only touches the State to the extent that it enforces the contract when one party or both balk.

This would eliminate COMPLETELY the debate over gay marriage.  The whole thing, in any event, really revolves around government benefits for same-sex couples, and not over some alleged wrong being otherwise committed.  They can get married NOW in all churches which allow it, and they can negotiate NOW any form of contractual commitment they want.

As far as government, it can simply recognize contracts as they are presented.  Given that benefits are a part of compensation, the total package can be adjusted up or down such that people who are not married are not paid less, and people who are married are not paid more.  My concern is not that gay spouses are placed on government benefits rolls, but rather that the rolls are expanded past their already bloated, indefensible, and unsustainable current size.

This is fair, which is an overused, but still occasionally useful word.

I’d be fine with this arrangement.

Categories
Uncategorized

Abortion

It is odd to see this in the news lately, after so many years of absence from all but the dedicated Pro-Life folks.

As
I ponder it, it seems to me that the insistence on thinking of a fetus
as part of a woman’s body, and not as a baby, a human life, is one more
instance of the habit of Feminism of trying to make women into men. 

Feminism,
at least the sort which proliferates (largely among unmarried women or
lesbians) in academia, is really just one more instance of Cultural
Sadeism.  It does not seek to advance women, per se, at least
CULTURALLY.  It does not seek to make them happier, to imbue the lives
of ordinary women with meaning. 

Rather, like all
forms of Cultural Sadeism, it consists primarily in both an assault on
traditional cultural norms, and a devious, Machiavellian quest for
power.  Feminists want special treatment.  They don’t want to be treated
as equals, but rather MORE than equals.

The
relationship between a mother and her baby is primal.  It is mythic.  It
is primordial.  Women are hard-wired, we can assume without too much
concern about later contradiction, to nurture babies.  More generally,
they are hard-wired to nurture those around them.  They are born
socially more skilled, more aware, than men.  By nature, they tend to be
peace-makers (although I am well aware of the cattiness/bitchiness that
characterizes women at all ages).  I think women are much more
intuitive than men, more aware generally of just about everything that
cannot be put into words, in an equation, or on a map.

But
these advantages are not what Feminists seeks to capitalize on, in
general.  They want to pretend women too have penises, are quite capable
of being assholes like men, and have the same rights to boss people
around as men do.

Obviously, as I just said in the last
post, I myself have mother issues; but I do think that one can, in a
somewhat methodical way, deduct ones own emotional shading, and still
see wider patterns.

Do mothers in our culture nurture
our children as well as they do in some other nations?   Has the nature
of mothering changed in the last 50 years?  Have the changing “roles” of
women had both negative and positive effects, both on women and on
men?  These are all valid questions.

With regard to
abortion specifically, I just asked a pro-abortion woman this question:
is there a moral difference between killing an unborn fetus and having a
gall stone removed?  If the answer is yes, what is it?  If no, at what
point does there become a difference?  At what point does it become a
baby and not a mass of tissue? 

For his part, Obama
seems quite willing to let full term babies die.  He supported a bill
(which was not passed, in my understanding) which wanted to legalize
“aborting” full term–or at least viable–babies by putting them in a
chilled room without food or water until they died.

If
this is moral, why stop there?  Why not give women a three month or one
year period in which to decide if being a mother makes them feel
“actualized”, or empowered, or if it suits their lifestyle, and if they
decide it does not, give them a public incinerator in which to throw
their baby?  Why not shred them and use them for organic fertilizer? 
After all, they are not human lives.

The more I think
about it, the more I feel that our cultures (and I use both the word Our
and Culture understanding neither is fully capable of encapsulating the
reality) treatment of unborn children hardens us in ways which are not
desirable.  We do not have hard decisions to make which affect the
survival of our civilization, as for example primitive people living in
the jungle did and to some extent do.  And at that, those societies
usually only kill defective babies.  We kill viable, healthy babies by
the thousands every day.

Categories
Uncategorized

Lens

I have been getting moments of calm in the last few days, and realizing how wound up I have been.  Where I think my analytical intelligence helps is in deducing areas of weakness in myself which are imperceptible to me, but which when I look for them, I can find, hidden.

We all look at the world through lens, and since you can see EVERYTHING through lens–think looking through sunglasses–they are very, very hard to see, themselves, particularly if you have been looking through that lens your entire life.

In my own case, and I am probably again sharing too much, my principle perceptual filter has been self loathing.  It is not that I have been a particularly bad person–although no doubt my emotional detachment has led to episodes of unconscious cruelty, in ways I could not see at the time–but that I have lacked that part which looks out for me, which counters negativity with positivity.  I lacked a mothers love, and that matters.

On the contrary, I seem to have had a part which worked daily to punish me for crimes I did not commit, which is an ancient emotional energy dating back to my first few years on Earth.

Within Kum Nye, they say you are done processing when you feel calm.  I felt calm yesterday, and hope to again today.

When I get this thing processed, I will be capable of a great deal of effective work, and better for having lived in the muck for a very long time.