Author: White Whale

Like that as a polemical phrase. What sort of status, exactly, does a Ph.D in, say, Sociology or English confer? What can we assume about their knowledge base? In my view, very little.

Brief comment: it is interesting to note that in all his voluminous writings, he never described what Communism might look like, concretely.

Here is my own version of “Communism”. Because this exists, it makes me superior in at least that respect to him. Frankly, anyone who took the time to write virtually anything remotely possible would be his superior. He discounted human agency, and hence the need for planning. That is stupid. Very stupid.

I am giving serious thought to describing my book as the pathway to “Communism”. I really do think we would all be happiest as a nation of shopkeepers. Napoleon offered that as an insult, with respect to the English, but he himself was an autocrat and butcher, leading an army of thieves.

What large multi-nationsl corporations tend to do is create competition across continents, where everyone is getting squeezed price-wise. This puts innovation into overdrive, which is good, since we get more for less, but it also tends to decrease profits, foster financial instability in some, and support on-going movement in the direction of monopolistic control, as the big fish eat the small fish. I suspect things are tighter in that regard today than most of us would suspect. It was long seemed to me that the oil industry operates as a de facto cartel. I could be wrong.

Yet, if things are produced locally and consumed locally, then competition happens locally and much more congenially. That is, at least, what happens in my imagination; and talking to old-timers, that seems to have been the case 40 years ago. You bought from local companies, and they would scrap a bit amongst themselves, but nobody was–usually–trying to drive anyone else out of business.

It’s a delicate balance. To the extent you let the government step in to prevent monopoly formation as a result of competitive success you transfer power from the private sector to the public. Yet, to the extent monopolies exist, they detract from competition.

No final, philosophically complete answer is possible. All cases have to be dealt with on their own, but I would submit the following heuristic is always helpful: concentrations of power are always bad, and diffusion of power is always good. We needed a strong Federal Government principally for national defense, and to serve as judge in disputes between the several States. Beyond that, both the letter and spirit of the law were intended to grant States the right to make their own rules.

I have said this many times, but I see no reason Minnesota could not copy Denmark, and I see no reason Texas could not copy the Wild West.

I posted the following on my Facebook today, relative to the argument we constantly see that both sides in any dispute have validity.

“Let us format the basic proposition thus: given two propositions, both should be considered as necessarily equal in quality and value. This is the argument, and I have seen it often.

Let us consider the converse: given two propositions, both should not necessarily be considered as equal in quality and value.”

Both are propositions, making opposite statements. Both cannot be universally true. If we treat the first proposition as true, it is contradicted by the second. If we treat the second one as true, it is NOT contradicted by the first.

And in point of fact, there are knowable rules which govern the world–societies, economies, political systems, the physical world–and that statement which best coincides with those rules is most correct.

Truth is that which enables us to predict the outcome of our actions, and it applies in the moral sphere as well. The “truth” of leftist economics is that they don’t care about poor people, justice, or human rights, since their policies create poverty, injustice and pervasive violations of human rights.”

That was this morning, then I got to thinking about it. Consider the foundational claim of moral relativism: that no universal moral truths exist. We can’t, for example, condemn the Arabs for their abuse of women.

Let us invert that claim: universal truths DO exist (I am being loose with “truth” here, by which I myself intend to connote an idea that consistently generates what it is trying to generate. If you want peace, then a “true” idea is one that generates peace).

Therefore: No universal moral truths exist is juxtaposed to Universal moral truths do exist. The claim that no universal moral truths exist is, itself, a moral claim. Therefore if it is valid, it contradicts itself. Only the latter formation is logically coherent. This matches, of course, common sense understandings we have, like equal justice before the law, the Golden Rule, and the like.

I have done that basic operation before, but not quite that way. Thinking, and following pathways, is a type of motion. You are travelling trails, and gradually mapping the forest. You have gone this way before, but not taken this spur; I wonder where it goes.

Most truth, in my view, is latent. It is a sort of hidden crystalline structure that, when light is shined upon it, reacts as a whole. It is not a thing. You cannot possess it. You can merely interact with it, harmoniously, or dysfunctionally.

I wrote in my journal the other day: “America, and this world, will end. It is not a question of if, but when.” Strangely, I found it comforting, like the best Hank Williams.

As I pondered it, I thought about the creed of the warrior. Death is always the end of the warrior. It may come sooner, or later, but in the end death it must be. To the extent war has any value, it is teaching this truth, and the acceptance of that truth through frequent exposure to death.

In the end we can answer for our commitment, and nothing more.

I have the Tibetan Four Dignities hanging on the four walls of my room. I won’t get into that, but on the one labelled “Outrageous” (the Garuda) I have put a four step action plan to save the world. Simplicity itself, right?

Step one is to manage my finances. If I have no money, I have no time, and no ability to do anything. That would make me sad. Extending this, though, our nation needs to manage its finances as well. Without money, it can do no good, either.

Step two is to solve the problem of moral relativism. I think I have done that, and just need to set it down in an acceptable form.

Step three is to develop a device for communicating with the dead. [roll your eyes here]. Hear me out. We have 1000’s of recordings that appear coherent, in the voice of the deceased, and relevant. The field is called Electronic Voice Phenomena. There is considerable empirical evidence that consciousness continues after biological cessation. I have yet to meet anyone who has actually studied the evidence in its entirety who could not at least conclude that there was reason to find value in it.

For most, though, to investigate something you have to have some way of believing it is possible, so I’ll say a word on that. To the extent we can determine, the material world does not “exist”, per se. It is wave patterns interacting with consciousness, and producing images that appear solid. We know, with as much certainly as you can get in science, that all matter is mostly empty. Just look at a model of an atom.

Now, if we can be hypnotized to create multiple selves–some of which only emerge at certain times, and each of which is “conscious”, per se, in that you can communicate with it, without the intercession of the primary consciousness–can we not posit that we have aspects of our consciousness that only come into play when we die? It seems certain to me that consciousness is not unitary. William James offered up the idea that the brain is a conduit for thought, and that brain lesions, and drugs and the like affect the ability of our consciousness–which is non-material, or material in a different way–to express that thought.

If we take the logic of Janet’s experiments to their conclusion, we have to accept that we are each many. The Buddha famously denied the existence of a unitary self, and this is presumably what he meant. He was simply speaking empirically.

Anyway, that’s my thought process, and the intent is not to make navel gazing speculations, but to gather concrete data. Specifically, the issue with many of the current methods is that they use chopped up speech, or radio stations between channels to create “white noise”, that spirits can then operate on more easily to communicate. This opens up the valid criticism that what is being heard is momentary content that just slips into apparent–but really random-coherence.

If one used an actual white noise machine for background sound, that objection would disappear. In particular, I have wondered if you could seal it in a box with a recorder, and still get results. This would eliminate alternative explanations, which is the point of science.

Conceivably, with a digital recorder, one could even create some sort of algorithym to notice changes in the sound profile instantly, flag it, then play it. If this worked, you could respond real time, which would create the de facto equivalent of a telephone. This was something, by the way, that Edison and many other inventors worked on, including Oliver Lodge, who has a credible claim to being the actual inventor of radio.

One thing that needs to be figured out, too, is that when the sounds appear, where is it? What frequencies? On what medium? Is their pattern in any way different from sound recordings created other ways? I don’t know if it is possible that they could be, but from what I can tell the scientific aspect of the thing is far from systematic. It mostly appears to be people who think it is cool, or people wanting to speak to departed loved ones. The thing needs to be done better.

Step four is to develop a system for biomorphic self regulation. Specifically, I believe the evidence is solid that biological systems–life–cannot be fully understood without recourse to informational fields. If you think about it, if we share, say, 50% of our DNA with a seasponge, does that not rather make it harder to explain how we become us, not easier? Clearly, we are assembled from proteins that are formed as a result of certain genetic operations. Yet, it seems to me we understand the building blocks–the physical structure–of life, but not where the plan comes from.

A building implies an architect. You can build many things from bricks, but the end result will be what you wanted. We are in a similar situation in biology. We can see what happens, and we can describe in great detail the processes, but in the same way bricks do not direct themselves, it is between difficult and impossible to see how they can both be the raw material AND the plan. Biologists don’t see this since they can describe the processes in such detail. I would include “evolution” in this, in that we can track changes over time, but I don’t think natural selection is a good, much less complete, explanation for the fossil record.

Returning to the idea, the evidence is good that the signalling system is very weak light, and that DNA acts both as a sort of construction material warehouse, and as a signalling device.

On this reading, most diseases result from imperfectly shared information. Our bodies, obviously, are in a constant state of being recreated, and when information is lost, entropy results. Cancer is basically just a black area that receives no information. Given this, it would make sense to practice refreshing the sytem properly.

I visualize a sort of box where the light you emit is measured, and some sort of feedback introduced, say with sound, so that we can develop the capacity to emit more light of the optimal frequency. Sounds crazy, I know, but my gut tells me something like that will work.

In tandem with this, or possible instead of this, we could also shine light on people, of a carefully calibrated frequency, to reinforce existing fields.

With respect to Darwinism, which I view as both philosophically pernicious and factually incorrect as an explanation of the origin of species, I would like experiments to be done in which survival situations were introduced to some species with a high reproduction rate, like flies, and the speed with which the resulting adaptation happened measured.

What we see now is scientists pointing to adaptation, and saying it proves “evolution” (which they rarely use with precision), but I think it is the contrary. We can look at how many genes are involved, and calculate all the possible random mutations, and derive a probability that that particular beneficial adapatation will arise by chance.

What I believe we will see is the adaptations constantly happening at a rate that is several orders of magnitude faster than what would be predicted by chance. In point of fact, I think such experiments would show the doctrine of speciation through random mutation coupled with random benefit to be inadequate the challenge of explaining that empirical result. This is, I believe, an experiment that can be done, and the reason I mention it here is that I believe that until we integrate the field concept BACK into biology (it was there for some time, and essentially banned in the US by the AMA) we will not make significant progress with cancer.

I want to cure cancer, you see.

Nothing grandiose about me. I may be nuts, but I’m never bored, and rarely boring.

Actually, I post this in the simple hope that maybe somebody will take one of these ideas and run with it. I don’t care who gets credit. I never have, and will submit that my influence in some areas has actually been quite substantial and largely invisible.

It is easy for aspiring Luddites like me (note where you are reading this: I’m am teaching you irony) to downplay the value of all the things we have created: our roads, cars, airplanes, factories, ships, air conditioning, etc. If the important part of life is between your ears, then what is the value of such superfluity (is that a word? Well, now it is)?

Most of us, in the developed world, grow up in comfort and safety. There are car accidents, and cancer, and some crime, but basically we know we will be fed at the end of the day, and nothing too bad is likely to happen to us.

Ensconced in this world view, we forget how valuable a trait cruelty can be in the struggle for survival. In a dog eat dog world, is it not the fiercest, meanest person who rises to the top? Now, you can’t be safe alone, normally, so you cluster, but if you look at history, is it not one story after another of one group treating another horribly?

The value of material progress is that it reduces and even eliminates the value of cruelty. I won’t say cruelty was ever NEEDED, but it is an almost invariant feature of societies that lived in anything like difficult condition. Hell, even the inhabitants of the South Pacific were often cannibals, and those conditions can scarcely be called difficult.

What our social order–based as it is on free enterprise, and self government–is the ability to get along with others. Yes, it rewards (for now) initiative and aggression, but within confined bounds.

We need to remember, too, that just 50 short years ago black people could not vote in some States, and had their own bathrooms, pools, and part of the bus. Those who broke the rules stood a decent chance of being beaten.

We have become a soft society, no doubt–we have forgotten that pain is as necessary in its own way to growth as water and air–but we do still need to point to the benefits of that softness, which is a congenital revulsion towards “mean people.” That many of the meanest people are the ones who use that slogan does not negate that fact.

I am for the moment focusing on speed. I have had over 40 voicemails for several months. I keep adding to them, so it revolves a bit, but I want to get them off. For that reason, I am confining myself to shorter, less explanatory notes to myself.

In the event that someone somewhere wants more to read while I am slowing down, you can read a bunch here. Frankly, I don’t think you exist, but who knows? You are my Snipe reader.

I will add that website in general has a lot of content.

For what it is worth, I ordered two books on money, so I can hopefully figure it out. One thought I will pass along (possibly, if I have a reader) is that as a general rule, the speed of money dictates the wealth created, where wealth is defined as the purchasing power of one unit of money. This only applies if the money supply is constant, I think.

In communism, money is eliminated, in effect, since the State directly allocates resources from Point A to Point B. This slows the speed of money, and reduces wealth. This is over and above resentments felt towards Communist regimes in general, and of course the necessary declines in productivity brought about by centralization, as described well by Hayek and others.

If you look at barter, you may go to market and not see what you want. So you don’t sell what you had. If money is an option, you can sell it, then buy what you want later. This facilitates the speedier movement of money.

These are general thoughts. As mentioned, I am going to read more.

It seems to me we all want to climb, we all want to be viewed as successes, by ourselves, and others. Yet, in a meritocracy, very few are finally “successes”. If everyone were a success, then the word would be diluted, wouldn’t it?

We need a book on how to be average. Yes, I know we’re all supposed to desire excellence in all we do, but isn’t good enough sometimes good enough? Now, I have seen pictures of some interesting wiring schemes in Mexico; that isn’t what I’m talking about.

I’m talking about rest from the relentless striving. We push and push and push. Some of us get to the top, most of us get somewhere, some of us, in the end, are forced in large measure to consider ourselves failures.

In all this, though, we need to figure out what matters. So many people want to fly away from being suburban wives and husbands, stuck in a career that is unsatisfying. We want to be LION TAMERS, until we figure out the true cost. But sometimes that is after something that was, is broken.

In my view, the relentless torrent of images we see in magazines and movies do little but torment us. Who are these people? Are they not themselves constantly trying to trade up? Are even they satisfied? Who is happy? Is it not that person who refuses to play the game, and who does their duty without complaint, while taking every opportunity that opens to express and experience happiness?

Suffice it to say, that doesn’t look–according to our normal criteria–like winning. This needs to change. Most of us are half mad with greed and lust, and don’t even know it.

So if I posit one dollar and one teacup on a table, is it not the case that when the Federal Government “prints” money–by “loaning” it to private banks at low interest rates–that two dollars are now on the table, and one of them belongs to a bank? True, not true? Cash enters the system, creates inflation, with the result that cash based buying power goes down. The same amount of goods are in existence, so logically if the banks add the money, they control the portion of the wealth that was “taken” by inflation? True, not true? It seems true, but I need to read the two books on this that I ordered, and think a bit more carefully.

Additionally, we should add that much of the lending to the Federal Government was historically done by investors in this country. The Fed adds money, it goes out, and much of it comes back to the Federal Government. We could with justice, I think, view the New Deal and the constant tinkering that followed it–especially the Great Society of Johnson that did so much to destroy Detroit–as a massive transfer of wealth from the private sector.

We must view the government as just another large corporation, that is in it for the “profit” of increased power, and more “stuff”. Look at all the buildings in Washington: do you really own them? Phrased another way: do you have the slightest direct voice in their disposition? Every building the government builds detracts from our net wealth. Every employee on the payroll of Federal, State or local government detracts from our wealth.

Now, from this it does not follow that we need no government. If we needed no government, then the Constitution would likewise not be needed. As John Madison put it, roughly: “If we were ruled by angels, there would be no need for checks; and if we were angels ourselves, no need for government.”

We need a military, border patrol, customs, and legal apparatus to preside over inter-State disputes, among other things. We need local police, firemen, judges and courts, roads, and laws protecting property rights and against fraud.

Having said this, it is both proper to ask which duties should reside with the sundry States, and which with the Federal government; and as importantly which functions should be done by government, and which left to charity and the private sector. So often, as in the so-called War on Poverty, programs that are meant to help do the job of making leftists feel good about themselves, but due to unforeseen (but scarcely unforseeable) effects, do active harm to those who were meant to benefit.

The War on Poverty, for instance, encouraged an attitude of dependency, resentment when promised help was not forthcoming, and the breakdown of the nuclear family. It is a virtual certainty that the riots in Watts and Detroit and elsewhere that did so much to form permanent black ghettoes were the result of Democrats overpromising and underdelivering, strictly for partisan political purposes. They set expectations high, which led to profound resentment and anger when the moon did not appear over their local corner, for their private disposition. This caused the flight of most of those who paid taxes, with urban blight the inevitable result.

Making a short story long, the Federal payroll is enormous. If we think of it as a corporation, it is no doubt one of the largest employers in the nation, and likely THE largest. It’s “income” continues to rise, and it continues to borrow money for future “expansion”. Problem is, every dollar they take out, is a reduction in our wealth.

China is doing the same thing, but much more aggressively. Their net tax rate is something like 66% (I’m pulling the number out of a hat, but the principle is sound), so that despite the huge amount of wealth their industries are generating, very little of it is going to workers, or poverty reduction. They are getting more money than they did 30 years ago, clearly, but the system is still corrupt. And what they are doing with that money is build more government, and loan the rest to us. If we defaulted on even a part of our debt, it would be catastrophic for them. We seem to fear them, but they have cause to fear us, too, and ask for reassurances their money is safe at every high level conference.

I’m still trying to figure this money thing out. It seems to me it facilitates chasing “goods”–understood generally–in a mutable way. Your money can be used to buy a car, a TV, a vacation, psychotherapy, healthcare, or a menagerie of dogs. All are possible.

I wonder–and as usual I am thinking out loud–what would happen if marriage certificates were hard to come by, and expensive. Would marriages be valued more?

One idea Edward de Bono submitted was: what if marriages lasted five years, and were renewable? That is an interesting idea too.