Month: March 2018

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/advertisers-dropped-fox-laura-ingraham-135210113.html

Expedia, Hulu, Nestle, Nutrish, Tripadvisor, Wayfair

I would ask all partisans of sanity to boycott all these companies immediately, and at least until they renew their contracts with Fox.

To be clear, this asshole kid WASN’T EVEN AT THE SCHOOL, on his own, later account.  He lied about it, and IMMEDIATELY used this tragedy to get himself in the limelight, pushing idiotic policies, using the dead bodies of kids–many of whom likely held him in contempt, as a self aggrandizing narcissist–as props.

If we can’t denounce that, then nothing is wrong, ever, with anything.  That makes Ingraham’s comments, too, perfectly acceptable.

And if the standard is how many voices we can get shouting in unison, then if enough of us denounce these corporate cowards, then WE ARE RIGHT.  Might makes right, right?  That is the logic on display, and increasingly the logic of everyone.

I remember a time when we aspired to the disciplined public exercise of reason based upon definable and consistent moral principles.  The memory of this time, in the hearts of Americans, seems to be fading, if it is even still present at all.

I was contemplating humor the other day.  It was actually a few weeks ago,but I can’t recall making this post. If I did, it will likely come out a bit differently in any event.

So often we feel many emotions at the same time.  You can feel sadness and happiness at the same time.  We even have a word for some iterations of this: bittersweet.

And if you contemplate that even “solid” emotions like anger are like clouds in the sky, they never manifest exactly the same way twice.

You can imagine that we have harmonic strings within us, capable of manifesting differing feelings.  You can even make that number seven, corresponding to the emotions neurologists tell us we can feel: anger, sadness, joy, fear, disgust, contempt and surprise.

All of them can coexist in constantly varying quantities and FORMS.  If you view each emotion as a waveform, all of them can coexist, playing different “notes” at varying intensity and rhythm.  This is the mathematical form.

The Complex form is the cloud, or rather clouds.  I do believe in energy fields, or rather, that we ARE an energy field, existing within an infinite energy field, clouds within THE cloud, with many subclouds existing at varying levels of complexity.

I mentioned humor, before I got distracted.  I believe what makes us laugh is the habit of an infinitely fast, socially conditioned transition between two emotions: between rage/fear, and submission.

What makes us laugh is something which offends our sense of how things should be.  It is something outrageous, ridiculous, incongruous, unexpected.  What I believe happens is that the instant we hear something utterly unexpected, we feel fear and or rage.  If we feel fear, there is instantaneous relief, as we realize there is no actual danger.  If we feel rage, it is immediately followed by the human equivalent of a dog cowering in front of a dog which is superior, or a master which has abused it. The two feelings, admixed, generate laughter.  Laughter serves the social role of allowing things to be said which are outrageous, without generating actual rage.  Outrageous, as a word, kind of makes my point for me.

Many have pointed to laughter as a social lubricant.  It allows the dissipation of anger, while protecting boundaries.

There is nothing funny about this post.  But I do hope it is useful.  Laughter is an important value.  It is a powerful means for dispelling tension. But it is not the only means.  I would say that being unable to laugh is worse than feeling the continual need to laugh, but there is a happy medium somewhere.

Loving presence, please help me be more loving and alive than I was yesterday.

So much of both Jewish and Christian doctrine rests on the idea that God is an angry father who is about to strike down anyone showing the slightest sign of disobedience.

The essence of Goodness, however, is raising up.  You are not trying to demand obedience from anyone, but rather to raise them up to your own level, which would include raising them within their own individuality.

And I believe God is good.  I also believe we are almost uniformly blind.

There are many mysteries.  The brain clearly affects behavior and perception, but perception and behavior seem clearly to be severable from the brain.  Perhaps one day how all this works will be obvious.  I continue to hope humanity, and the scientific world in particular, end this phase of global madness, and begin to focus on what really matters, rather than running about like headless chickens, devoid even of the possibility of accidental wisdom.

The nature of living perception is evolution.

I like this image of perception as a living thing, like a plant. Or a constantly changing thing, like a flame.

Perception is sometimes clear, sometimes myopic, sometimes hard, sometimes soft.

The more INTERESTING question is not ” is this person right or wrong”, but “are they awake”?

You can be right factually, in the present moment, but be referring backwards to a time long ago. How fresh are your perceptions? How long since you last doubted everything? How long since you last flirted with stupidity in pursuit of wisdom?

We are having a local brou-ha-ha–with an emphasis on ha ha–around here, about nothing, and I would like to propose the term Political Valmorification, for what amounts to the political theater of pretending to change something, while changing nothing, all while every ounce of political rhetoric on all sides–but mostly from the Left, which specializes in it–comes from a place marinated in long simmering anger, latent hostilities, and all sorts of misplaced emotions entirely inappropriate to the occasion.

If you have not seen this word, well, lemma clue you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzO78K4l4kI

I have a lot more to learn about dopamine, but the videos I watched seemed to be saying that it is a neurotransmitter in our brains which says “do more of this”.  Presumably, it is typically connected in some direct or indirect way with feeding the belly or having children.

Religious ritual happens to be one of my particular interests, and one I studied at reasonable length in college and graduate school.  Here is a definition of ritual you have likely not seen: Ritual is an act of intrinsic worthlessness from an evolutionary perspective, but which nonetheless elicits a strong dopamine response.

Take the Eucharist.  I doubt any long term readers I may have will be surprised by what I am about to say: the whole thing is bullshit.  God is neither in the host figuratively, nor literally.  God is away on business.

But any honest Catholic who goes to Mass every Sunday FEELS something in this ceremony.  They feel better, in most cases, I would think.  They in any event feel they have fulfilled an obligation, met a duty.  They have DONE SOMETHING.

But they have not done something in the sense of digging ten post holes in the backyard, doing 8 hours of accounting, made 25 prospecting calls, or seen three legal clients.  The world is not changed in any way.  There is no relic left of their having been there.  There is no hole left in the air, or in the incense.

Many commentators–myself included–have noted the religious flavor of Leftist rhetoric and idealism.  They work in this world, but never connect themselves with it concretely, emotionally.  They connect, rather, with SYMBOLS of this world.  Their God is Social Justice. Their God is the Earth.  Their God is emancipation from limiting categories, which is a prison made all the worse by their refusal to think in any other way THAN rigid categories.

And just as God does not act visibly in this world–have you ever actually seen God?–their Social Justice never actually has to land anywhere.  It is implied as the result of any work done by people calling themselves Social Justice Warriors, or Antifa, or whatever nonsense they choose to put on with their make-up that particular morning.

Here is my point: such “work” is inherently ritualistic.  Winning an election is a ritual activity.  Passing a law that has no chance of solving an actually existing problem is ritualistic.  Shouting down unbelievers is ritualistic, and serves to protect the Faith.

I remember Tony Robbins–remember him?–many years ago saying, in one of his highly derivative but still somewhat useful books: show me how someone gets their sense of importance, and I’ll tell you who they are.

Can I say: show me how someone gets their dopamine hits, and I’ll tell you who they are.  Was actual work done?  Is the world changed in any way, and is it changed in the way it was supposed to change?  Is this person living on the same planet as me, or are they wrapped in fog and mysteries only they can see or explain?

If you think about it, amorphous concepts like Social Justice exist at roughly the same level of tangibility as the Holy Spirit.

But this is the point, don’t you see?  If they spoke and thought clearly, it would be possible to falsify their Gods, and most of them–being atheists to begin with–have nothing else.

As things stand, they have a faith, a ritual activity, and a Church.  That’s all you need for a full blown religion.

I was reading through the list of Urban Renewal ideas put out by the Trump campaign: https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Plan_For_Urban_Renewal.pdf

Now, a lot of this is campaign rhetoric, and needs to be read as such.  I get that.  Consider the end of Point 5, though:

We will also encourage small-business creation by allowing social
welfare workers to convert poverty assistance into repayable but
forgive-able micro-loans.

This got me to thinking.  I have likely from time to time mentioned my fondness for the Kiva.org .  approach to poverty.  My personal view is that they should win the Nobel Prize.  There is zero doubt in my mind that in their decade or two of existence they have done more concrete good in developing nations, than all the foreign aid offered by the West to developing nations from the end of World War 2 until the advent of Kiva.

Leaving that as a controversial point I might retract if I studied more, let it suffice to say it is a good cause.

Here is the thing: Kiva exists in the United States, too.  You can look up people needing small loans to start or expand businesses here.

Here is my idea: why not focus on Kiva as a resource, build access to it exponentially through effort and funding at all levels of government, and why not set up some kind of matching program, where the local, State, or Federal governments match private funds?  It’s win/win.  


Such an idea would create self sustaining business enclaves everywhere, reward hard work, demonstrate the value of hard work and initiative, be self sustaining as a remedy–with most loans being repaid–, and operate after a time independently of any government aid at all.  Such aid can come and go, like matching grants anywhere else.

Politically, this would be great for Republicans, particularly.  The Democrats, in election after election, spend all their time telling blacks and other minorities that they should only elect Democrats because Republicans are horrible.  This is the substance of their outreach.  They don’t have ideas which work.  Obviously.  They have been saying the same shit every 2 or 4 or 6 years, at all levels of government, since 1970 or before.  That is 48 years, if we use 1970 as a benchmark.  And what has changed?  Seriously.  Look at Detroit, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Chicago, Washington D.C.  If I want to make a list of the most dangerous cities in America, all I need to do is make a list of the cities where  Democrats have been running things the longest.  Can we not agree that is suspicious at the least, and CERTAINLY not the effect of good policy, oriented sincerely around the common good, executed vigorously over the long term? Of course not.  To claim otherwise is to be an idiot, or gravy recipient.

But this policy SHOULD be embraced by Democrats, because it is a good idea. It really is.  It is likely not a panacea, but certainly a solid palliative, and honest Democrats need to admit that a little good is a little good.  And if the little good might turn into a great good–and that is certainly the case here–then they should support it.

But it seems emotionally obvious to me that they will uniformly oppose this idea, not because it is a bad idea, but because they DON’T WANT BLACKS TO SUCCEED.  As long as they can blame Republicans, and get the electorate to buy it, they want blacks as miserable as possible. 

So this idea creates a fantastic opportunity for Republicans to point to, to showcase, to highlight, to throw Klieg lights, on the horrific cynicism and hypocrisy of Democrats.  They can ask, openly: what do you have against the success of black entrepreneurs?  What do you have against poverty remediation programs which work, versus those you keep enacting, which make things worse, if they do anything at all?

If Democrats work with Republicans, great.  The goal is to fix the problem, not win elections.  And if they don’t, they they show themselves to be money-grubbing, unprincipled assholes, which in fact is what most of them are.  To be sure, many Republicans are money-grubbing assholes too, but they are in general not raiding the public treasury to do it, and they are not claiming to be anyone’s savior, other than those who just want to be left alone. 

I was talking with a friend the other day about how fragile peace is.  We were talking specifically about the Milgram Experiment.  There is apparently a NetFlix or something about a similar experiment called “Push”.  Here it is, I believe: http://www.indiewire.com/2018/02/the-push-netflix-review-ending-derren-brown-twist-1201933412/

In any event, we got to talking about how quickly everything could go to shit.  And then later, I got to thinking about why this would be.

We have imbeciles like Elon Musk and Michio Kaku dreaming of going to Mars.  Why?  Why can’t we make our civilization defining mission that of getting EVERYONE emotionally healthy at a deep level?


For the life of me, I don’t get futurists who fail to see the urgent necessity for all of us learning to know our own hearts, our own souls.  I don’t understand the stubborn failure of mainstream scientists to integrate, or try to integrate, mainstream ideas like Remote Viewing–which was funded by the CIA because it WORKED–into larger, better, more fun, more intrinsically hopeful paradigms.

Socialists think that society will work when we are all taught how to behave.  I believe society will work when we all learn who we are, how magical we are, and slowly release all the demons tormenting us.  We build a better world by building better individuals, and we build better individuals by creating and distributing the tools and resources for those individuals to do work which is intrinsically valuable, and inseparable from the pursuit of deep, meaningful happiness, and social connection and union.

None of this is the least bit complicated. 

What I think is the problem is that our culture not only allows, but in some respects encourages, people to hide from their emotions by retreating into the safe fortresses of seeming rationality and relentless work.  If you can produce new data, new ideas, in science, you are considered productive.  If you can become calmer, more insightful, more “spiritual”–however you define that–that is not so valued.

Sure, we make rich the people who can give us the “3 simple tricks to. . .”, and who write books about why it isn’t your fault, and how to love yourself, despite being a relentlessly self absorbed, self pitying loser (I could, by the way, in some respects be made to fit that category: I see that).

Everybody loves the Dalai Lama.  He says “be nice to people”, and everyone oohs and aahs.  But as I have pointed out often, in so doing he omits half of his own religion, the other half being “pursue wisdom”. And frankly, I think he gets it backwards: honest, useful compassion flows from wisdom.  I don’t think wisdom flows from compassion.  Compassion has no form, and it is far too easy to conflate it with believing nothing is worth fighting for, as so many manifestly do in our own era. This teaching is tailor made for what I call Sybaritic Leftism, and Sybaritic Leftism, in turn, flows naturally and inevitably into cruelty and radical intolerance.  You have to start with the form, then fill with the feeling.  If you start with the feeling, you flow downhill rapidly.

To return to the topic, there is no way to be optimistic about the future when we cannot set as a civilizational purpose the attainment of universal mental health, based on solid personal boundaries, continuity with history and culture, the eradication of traumatic residue, the empowerment of individuals to achieve and retain strong personal senses of agency, and the generalized capacity for deep relaxation, and spontaneous joy.

So I contacted, finally, after many decades, and after five or more years of hard work, my inner child.  It is a very serious 7-8 year old.

Traditional wisdom–which is to say, what we have been hearing from California-based psychologists for about 20-30 years–holds that all this child needs is love.

But: ask yourself: is love all ANY child needs?  Is it?  Do they not crave, and ask for, and even demand, if it is not forthcoming, structure?  Purpose?  A destiny to follow?  Do they not want to belong, are they not born to belong, to something bigger than themselves?  First the family, then the larger family, then the civilization as a whole?

Do we not all need a reason to suffer, to transform?  Do we not need a purpose to our work larger than filling our own bellies, and inseminating or being inseminated, so as to create progeny?

What my inner child needs, more than anything, is permission to grow up.  Both of my parents more or less tortured out of me all ability for authentic self actualization, for agency, for growth.  This is the deepest need I have, not love.

How can anyone give or receive authentic love when they don’t exist?  So often, what is called love is nothing more than primitive needs being met.  It is one partner playing the parent, and the other being the child.  Both say “I love you”, but one is reverting to childhood, and the other, likely, giving the other person what they did not get in childhood.

What I want is freedom, freedom from this dynamic, freedom to allow everything to begin to flow again.  I do not need or want anyone’s love right now.  Not until I have my own to give. 

I would go so far as to say that I don’t feel anyone can be authentically loving until they are already full. Love is always a process of giving, not taking.  It can be a circular, healthy, joyful process, because people who have enough can always create more.  But it is never a process of one fountain filling another, lower fountain, by emptying itself.  Not among adults, at any rate. 

It is right and proper for parents to give love to their children without expectation of reciprocity.  On balance, their very generosity will be rewarded with filial loyalty and love, if they are honest.  But even there, you cannot give and expect to receive.  You must first be full.  Far too many parents, in our own world, use their children to meet their own emotional needs.  They constrict them, bind them, in the name of “protecting” them.  They take from them, without giving. 

This, in any event, is my own story.  It does seem to be common enough, though.

I’ve been describing ADHD for some time as “growing up American.” Could we not postulate it as a learned addiction to distraction? That it is a symptom of dopamine dystegulation caused by what amounts to dysfunctional culture, as characterized by endless and pointless novelty?

Remember: addiction to novelty causes decreased capacity for abstract reasoning, decreased social connnection, and muted impulse control. This is, in my understanding, orthodox neuroscience as it exists at present.