/ Journal /
“film.do”: pk 12/16: why theater & movies are better than tv: 1 of n) because the screen is bigger (larger than life, as A said). Skipping over greater technical and artistic control over the visual definition, etc., audio, etc., I’ll go to saying that 2 of n) is that you see it in a group, a large group. why seeing a movie in NY is best: theater is a social experience; tv is a private social experience. More people, broader, more diversely based. (Not just numbers) More cosmopolitan. A person goes to a local theater and may well know several others not in his party. A regular NY movie goer probably goes solo but may knew a few in the audience, a professional may know dozens at an opening, and of course, there’s the feeling that you know the famous that you might recognize, but greatly they’re others. Different values, dif responses. Also better quality choice. DeJong (already known to me) and Birth of a Nation.
You’re talking as though zeroes and infinite numbers behaved like finite numbers, ones and twos and twenty-sevens. They don’t. The same name-number-shouldn’t even be used by people who make such a mistake. Not only are you wrong in this particular; you are demonstrating that you are capable only of wrongness in these matters.
Contemporary history is a cliff hanger. We live in what is perhaps the most interesting of times. We’re right on the edge. Maybe we’ll fall off. I doubt if we’ll stay right on the edge; or back off. Maybe we’ll fly.
Difference between introducing penis to girl & to girl’s vagina
Evil: not contributing to man’s preeminent (idea) of his place in things (at the heart, bottom, crux, apex, ubiquity of things if soandso were really a saint, you wouldn’t like him you wouldn’t respect him. you’d persecute and kill him all over again. The worshipers visit; but the god doesn’t.
Attracting the male & keeping him attracted is the responsibility of the female; staying attracted without attraction is not the responsibility of the male.
It’s stupid to be brave if you have no skill to back it up.
The soloist isn’t following the conductor; the soloist is weaving with the conductor, using the conductor as a ground. Look at Miles.
The value of the prohibition or taboo doesn’t depend on the “reasons” given for it. Hey, let’s all Fuqua each other. Jimmy and Susie are having good time. Yeah, but Susie has syphilis and Jimmy’s about to get aids too.
THE TRAVELING NOVEL I write driving down the highway at 70 mph, typing away in my spare moments … If only bad news could be given straight, clearly, and unequivocally. If you cannot imagine time in at least fractions of geological or at least evolutionary spans, you are almost certain to misunderstand what follows. If you believe the journalists’ cliché that those spans are unimaginable, then read no further.
It’s the male’s responsibility to encourage; it’s the female’s responsibility to know when to accept.
Sainthood: a semantic literalness as well as a “realistic” ego?
The world can only afford to have princesses if it has slave girls. Many slave girls.
THE BOOK: On the Taboo Against Knowing How You Think
Straight up? or max. average annual sunlight?
We admire the dreamers of the past whose dreams have become the ordinary reality of today. Where we know their names we idolize them. Myth doesn’t have to be unfactual. But the dreamers of today (and to varying extents, we all are) are persecuted and despised, ignored. Their dreams are circumvented by the momentum of habit. But change, some degree of change, varying degrees of change, is constant. Some of their dreams become the ordinary reality of the future. No individual controls the course. If a dreamer dreams, “sees the future,” and that dreams becomes the future, that dreamer didn’t actually see the future; he saw a future possibility. But neither is the accuracy of his vision an accident. Classical causality is a poor model of what happened.
The end of the Cretaceous Period like the end of King Lear: some good has been preserved, but God, what loss! What seeming waste. But what opportunity for evolution!! “Their ancient glittering eyes are gay.”
Banks: the temporary necessity of dealing with the occupying enemy.
5 May 87: What was I just thinking, thanks to Dick Francis, who, upon my beginning to read my second novel of his, seems to be even better and smarter than I had though while admiring the first, and thinking as usual of nests of logical levels, it occurs to me that writing about national intrigue is perfectly all right. Group behavior, a higher level of abstraction than individual behavior. Though we individual organisms are conglomerations of organisms, and even our individual cells are coops and communes (and we’re not close to knowing what’s what on the extensional or atomic [the “material”] level), so groups-communities, religions, corporations, nations, are groups of groups of groups. Why not look into ITT and see what’s going on. Look how much you’re enjoying Shaka, and approving of his aims and methods. What is this stupid Christian hangover, still withdrawing from what you don’t believe in because you once didn’t approve of it or find it to be moral. It’s evolution in action, by God, and you’re remained ignorant of it right into middle age: not only poor but ignorant and inexperienced. Shaka’s consolidation of power seems easy to admire and understand because the tv gives us a chance to see him explaining it (a military technique or two, not his trans-tribal sense) to his soldiers and because it seems relatively innocent-spears, asegai, and hide shields-not to mention virile/virtuous, this combat within sight of your enemy. But it’s too what King Geo had been doing with different (higher level or at least more powerful) technique and a global sense. When Shaka’s guy talks about the whole world, they don’t know what it means in the same sense that George, or at least his court and parliament and middle class, does. So why not look into what IBM is up to. And Wall Street skirmishes and embargoes and such and understand a little bit what even flatearthers seems to take for granted. Laissez faire is so true: all these people thinking they’re serving their own individual (ha!) ends while the statistical pattern looks better than a Busby Berkeley scene.
Damn, why don’t w-processing cursors ever go to the same place: on top of last letter, just following last letter, or beginning the assumed next word. On a type writer you automatically put it where you want it. Oh, well one gets accustomed …
Justice. There can be no ideal justice without limiting the context in which it would be ideal. For Caesar or for Christ? For the society as it is, or for the society which would be an improvement (for some). Always and only for some.
6 May: I really like this angle of information idea. Angel go “up”, devils go “down”, we go stage left or stage right, or a room is revealed stage rear. And of course all happens over a span from t1 to tn, but we usually take the dimension of time for granted.
How about analyzing a newspaper as nothing but ads for layered nests of convention. From local high school athlete through Macy’s to Shriners, local community, state, fed, etc. to nation, church, cultural group, cultural or economic alliance, etc. There must be a mathematical model for this.
8 May: spiritual new age, like 2,000 yrs., time for new religions, time when old conspicuously don’t fit, though of course they’re around, and stay around. Just the same, the Sanhedrin is on the way down; the papacy on the way up. It may be centuries before it will be apparently good advice in a mother to say -be a bishop, rather than to say -be kosher as hell, and work toward Sanhedrin. Well, look at today: No doubt there are these tendencies in al times but some times it’s an open running sore, an eruption of something else growing; mold, fungus, viruses, disease, health, the new genius mutant. Eg, Ghost Busters: a Sumerian goddess as a punk rocker. Like the climax of Star Wars (Jeddi), sci-fi goes low-tech, Ghost B goes backwards, so all would recognize, commit anachronism, so all will laugh, but choose DIFFERENT God!, spiritual as hell by Hollywood standards. Likewise, end of Tin Men. Old taboos revived as potent in Raiders of the Lost Ark and IJ Temple of Doom. But not as potent to preserve as the new Americans are to destroy (Nazis too) IJ and 3rd R are rivals in sacrilege, though haha he’s an anthropologist. Anyway there’s this rash of spirituality. When I was a kid, a Doris Day movie would end with the girl’s somehow having coordinated the loss of her virginity with the ringing of Church bells. That’s not spiritual in any growing sense; that’s preserving convention. Sure it’s spiritual, but not a new religion (or old guise new), it’s reproduction tied to economic organization and the female’s struggle to protect her offspring’s future as well as her own by mitigating the indiscriminate urge of the male. Anyway, whether I’m being clear or not, here I come upon the following sentence in Dick Francis: (TR p 165) “Not to believe what one believes one should believe is a spiritual torment as old as doctrine …”! & just before “The wrong man for the regime, I thought, but striving to live honorably within its framework.”!
Re: Alan Watts’ remarks about the Xian God being an indoor God: so too, so much. Andean Cocoa paste ritual smoking. Junkies assembling or alone, indoors or at least an alley way. Line snorting. Myron’s remark about skiing. All activity become internal, semantic, chemical, and indoors.
PLAY: play in the young is universal throughout our (genus?) family of mammals (and we could measure within and beyond). It combines joi de vivre with important practice for adult skills-combat, courting, stalking, role playing. Play in an adult is rare and more precious. It is perhaps practice for evolution. (Remember Byron’s jeu d’esprit.)
LEGEND king of goblins or whatever he is says to hero, what is light without darkness? we are knit eternally; we are brothers. play of seasons.
What have I done? says Lily. I’ll make it right. We meant no wrong. We did it for love. Do you think you can upset the order of the universe and not pay for it? Jack says to unicorn, Forgive me. I meant no wrong. The kids keep saying such stuff. cf Adam&Eve & original sin. Evolution and mind. Story more profound if interpreted as mind of species making choices of unknown consequences or accompanying unlooked for side and after effects. Pandora’s Box. Minotor, cloven hoofed, son of darkness says, We are brothers eternal. Last shot, after he looks like he’s been swept away into the elsewhere cosmos, is of him, green eyes and looking meaner than before.
Title for book: “Myth and Evolution” We are a complex species. Mostly day creatures, having begun as night creatures. Evolutionary struggle going on within us. The struggles we see in life between and among species competing for niches of survival-who can best exploit the furze bush? from spring through autumn? from dawn till noon? We also internalize what goes on about us: day turning with night; the roll of seasons. We should learn about the dreams and nightmares of dogs, owls, and marmosets as well as our own. Could we stretch our studies to include anything meaningful about the dreams of wasps? Of sea anemones? Of amoebae?
Reading the programming instruction to Qa and remembering my hatred of jargon, makes me think that I’ve long felt as I do about specialized languages because I had the Aristotelian assumption that any intelligent person ought to be able to figure things out without special instruction. The assumption is lovably Greek and we should be very grateful to it, but I am beginning more and more to see that it is false. The fault is not with the deluded kid, however, the fault is with the adult who doesn’t explain that his use is specialized, who doesn’t distinguish between what is natural, culturally transparent, and only learnable. The greatest part always remained unlearned. By the teacher too. Humility is appropriate. Humility all the way down the line.
A huge moral dilemma in our culture, or should I call it a vast moral null set?, is our failure or inability to see alternatives to the moral default values we were born with (by born with, I mean from the cradle, not genetic or not necessarily genetic). As proper Xians, we think that the alternative to our credulity is evil: if I lost my faith, I’d become a killer, get syphilis and rob banks; he’s a foreigner, and not a Xian, so he must be a syphilitic, bank-robbing killer. We are unable to see how alien cultures are capable of “good” behavior; “good” actions.
We have difficulty understanding the epistemology of science. We tend to think that science is a alternate certainty, but on merely manmade and all the more full of vanity and retribution-look at the destruction (political, economic, and inertial uses of science supported technology, not science), we’re finally seeing it, just like the doom sayers said, but of course we don’t have to pay the price for our forebears or our former selves, we’ll go back to church and become more obnoxious. Seeing thought (or evolution) more accurately than is typical for a stoneage mentality is not “natural”, it’s not in our genes and its not in our education. It wasn’t in my “science” education until long after graduation and graduate school liberal arts, I resumed for pleasure one of the natural literatures of my just pre-pubescent childhood; science and science fiction. The essays of Isaac Asimov from decades of genre pulp publication. Coordinated with the publication of Bateson and soon followed by the tv publication of Carl Sagen’s piece. Anyway, seeing science as a system of theories, surviving or adapting (being revised, refined) or being cast aside and replaced, a method of search toward the infinitely receding goal and having one to one correspondence between your map (theory, thought, perception) and the territory (reality, the extensional plus a whole history of the intensional, layer on layer, interwoven, mostly misperception, pathology, the universe). Cybernetics is a new way of seeing, planning, understanding and approaching control of “things”. It is not natural, it was hard to discover it, Darwin missed it, we all missed it until WWII when Norbert Wiener no longer missed it, and since, most of the rest of us have still missed it.
Now we have Kurt Godel’s equation (?) (who can understand it? those of us with no real mathematical training?) which with Gregory Bateson’s help and Hofsadter’s help I understand to say that contradiction is necessarily present in all human utterances. Acedia is our first response if such a thought is even heard even as so much as a rumor. Why bother? Give me five minutes and a drink and I’ll soon forget what you’ve said. Then we can go on chattering like monkeys at the seaside, and go back to church, or talk like we do.
We can’t see that an alternative morality to the one we assume without effort is possibly moral let alone superior, more moral, one Jesus would have leapt for. We can’t see that a careful, a cybernetic uncertainty, a system itself including bases in faith, can lead to powerful “truths” (one of which is that THE TRUTH is a pathological delusion, though one with some socio-political potency). We look down on other species as a network of creatures serving us, or a network of tributaries leading to us, but we don’t see ourselves as leading anywhere, to other better (or maybe simpler) creatures, maybe non-creatures, cyborgs, computers and robots who would be beloved of God. Maybe we are the end creature and there are to be no more creatures; our purpose is to scourge the universe for some other purpose that we are congenitally incapable of understanding. The Bible was right again, life is a sojourn, Earth is not our home but our trial, etc.
We go limp if the idea of perfection or finality is denied us. We should love our process of refinement, glory that it is infinite, glory that each result will seem final and perfect to our inside the system blindnesses. Spaceship Earth is on a long journey, we know not where. The goal and the means are one. The goal comes to include the means. Butterflies don’t stop being beautiful because they’re not THE butterfly. Neither will we. This blindness or ours is temporary. Or we are temporary. Both for sure. “We” here meaning creature. The search part, that may be immortal. The soul, see the Bible was right again. Maybe, but we got it wrong anyway.
GOLF: Marty Chorne says $18 per shaft. New set $245 for 8
irons; + $30.63 ea. additional, 3.50 shipping, 1.50
handling; call it $35 ea.
MATH ?s: Number base: any coherence whether to start with zero or one?
One to one correspondence
Infinity and grammar. Infinite number contradicts usual sense of noun (but then an infinite number isn’t your usual noun. cf other non-extensional abstractions.
Should be sliding scale between extensional and intensional
proof of finite or infinite?
Find if there is a mathematical model of nesting of logical levels. Apropos idea for analysis of newspaper as nothing but ads: for ways of life, as well as for goods and services. Remember McL’s point about ads, they’re to explain why you have things as well as prompts to buy.
phr. civilization may be an addiction from which we should cure ourselves. e.g.. European exploitation of the New World was semantically insane. No understanding of gold or economics. So we got there sooner. So we got there unhealthily. We’ve never given the stone age cultures time to catch up. Neither have we given ourselves time to catch up to or to see their virtues. We have no history for them other than anthropology; only politically motivated, remotivated, and revised and revisionized forms of mythology.
Further thoughts on confusion between stone age epistemologies and science: just because you learn that all men are fallible doesn’t mean that there’s no basis for trusting Einstein over the Three Stooges.
Time travel is unidirectional for the extensional and also of limited duration. x to the x “years ” for the universe, x heartbeats for the mammal. Not so for the intensional, or at least x can be a much greater quantity. Can time also run backwards for the intensional? Not can we be our own father, genetically. It seems not. But can we be our own fathers memetically? Could our ideas of the future be our God of the past? It’s easy for any of us to “think we’re God” or at least “think we’re Christ-like”. Yet doesn’t every story of a Christ or a Mahatma have an element where he thinks he’s “human” or “knows” he’s a “sinner” or “ordinary” (or nearly). Lawrence, Ghandi: I
know I’m not ordinary, but … Isn’t it the same logical
Bruce Lee movie: wonderful display of Chinese/Japanese racism. also line “our teaching was the greatest boxing teacher of all time …” Oriental student learns a little western culture, hears that Beethoven was the greatest composer of all time … Most ignore. Odd student !believes! it! Odd western youth hears about Cheng Man Ch’ing: and !believes it! Oh sure, we’re right ahem objectively. Our Olympic records may (hypothetically) ahem objectively be faster than Achilles (whose times we don’t know, and it wasn’t that kind of a race). But are any greater runners. What does it mean, until narrowly defined? Was Achilles automatically greater than Carl Lewis. Sure, if you’re a Greek racist. And what if
you’re not a racist? the question is objectively …
Wonderful thing, except for Bruce Lee, the japs one on one in a group do beat up the Chinese. Yet it’s the teacher who’s supposed to be the greatest. Oh no, new line “if you were with us …” Untestable referent. Now some things can objectively be compared. Arnold Shwartzeneger can truly be the greatest body builder of all time, because the time is current and can be understood there are no unknown comparisons. He won more titles (however subjectively) it’s an objective fact, etc. Now, for slow motion movement, he’s my favorite hero for visual purposes. But for fast motion, Bruce Lee is incomparable. You want a compromise between power and speed, Chuck N is pretty good, but he’ll never look as pretty as either. To put it all together, mostly the spiritual dimension which he is capable of but it’s Kurasawa’s being Shakespeare that brings it out: nothing beats Mifune.
DEFINITION: Korzybski says that dates should be added to words for semantic clarity, e.g. “science1933.” (Of course specifics can also and too easily be used to obfuscate. Meaning reducing tags, like “secret formula X12” in a commercial product.) I’ve been saying that Kaluza-Klein coordinates should be included when taking about location (does KK include time as a coordinate?). It’s already fading away, but a few minutes ago I was thinking of other analogous ways to sort meaning. And what I meant by “projection” was coming back. Damn. Some type of consensus lies behind the viability of any authority: the judge knows more than we do (yes, but does he know more about it than I do?); the priest has been trained by the guy who walked to the man who was trained by the guy who somewhere in the mists of time saw Jesus resurrected; I never saw Jesus resurrected, so he must be right; righter than us for sure; the President knows … etc. So, once again, what about when they don’t, when you can pinpoint what they’re overlooking or mistaking, or could if they would take you seriously enough to listen, and listen hard because it’s not easy to get the correction right, especially when you’re inventing the necessary language as you go along. Inventing new uses for old words where they may not catch the change, alienating hearers by using new words for new meanings-they don’t want new meanings-it was hard enough to gain even a nodding acquaintance with the old ones-fumbling because though you’ve been articulating things to yourself, you now have a different audience. An audience, for god’s sake, that takes a whole different personality. Well, who ever said that evolution was easy? Or inevitable for the individual gene or meme? Just inevitable. Not for any particular course, however. just inevitable.
On Burt R’s desecration of Stick. Buy a diamond field and use it to make paste rocks. Chucky, ugh. Nestor almost as bad. No one shapes destiny can be such a pussy about his own imminent death. Those who carry on the status quo can be fearful and ignorant of what they’re up against, but not the builders, even of great corruption. the egregious scene with the movie producer further reminds me: I think perhaps people can’t perceive white collar crime for the same reason that the africans couldn’t keep the white men prisoners: being in charge wasn’t within their perceptual framework. Also, (ordinary) movie watching is passive
morality. We’re trained to respond disapprovingly to bullies, foreign invaders, rapists… whatever has a common denominator going back as far as the school yard. White collar crime, presidential crime, treason in high office, takes a little independence to perceive. These thieves are inventing their theft so it’s invisible to most. We’re also knee jerk trustful. We also expect a little benevolent larceny from those witch doctors we’ve placed where they’ll make the sun rise and protect us from
the evil outside: communists, martians, etc. Of course we wouldn’t be caught in a tax fraud. I’ve never seen original business deals that weren’t tax frauds. Since the taxes themselves are frauds, it seldom bothers. The dealers are in mode, or me being lucky, or me getting my just deserts: advantage over my fellows.
Die for one’s country? a few years ago, when nationalism was an ascendant meme, I would have chosen that among reasons for sacrifice. Now I would tend more toward the opposite; die that my country be transcended. Taking the machine code out of Easy Script, I see how much I’ve been a slave to my slave.
Agreement would be easily found that most people are not familiar with the math of probability and statistics, though everyone knows about polls and Neilson reports. It would be easy to find agreement that such theories should be better understood. You’d get it from me, for sure. But how about the counter idea that the ordinary person who fancies he knows a little math, a little statistics, etc. and who of course also has common sense, needs to learn (should be silenced until he proves that he knows) that all the statistics and probability, all the theory in the world will tell him nothing about the behavior of any particular macroscopic individual or particular event. Just when you’re sure it’s got to be seven, it has just as good a chance of being snake eyes as ever. Just when you’re sure it’s going to be straight party line, it comes out revolutionary.
TV’s entertainment so much like the newspaper’s news; Deathwish interrupted by American Airline, Something special in the air, attractive people looking warmly at family group photos and then flying to see someone or vacationing, a lot of hugging. Chas. Bronson boating with his wife and then those clumsy mug-rape-whatever. Like Vietnam followed by a sale at Macy’s. The world views are only superficially similar. The moods don’t belong in the same cosmos. Daughter wakes up screaming. Couldn’t it be that there’s something wrong with her semantic universe, her world view that she should be so fragile. Do we really want to continue to fantasize Pollyanna’s if it ain’t so?
The scientific no exception rule would help society evolve in leaps if we would let it. e.g., the law. It’s easily observed that an extreme case of negligence resulting in injury can get a good atty. working on commission if it’s also clear and the negligent party has money or property. We all know from our daily lives that life is full of uncompensated injuries. Or compensation is dealt out to others, not the guilty party; wives, children, the next guy walking down the street, an employee. This one lost lamb business is rhetoric only; god claims it but we would be worse than lying.
DEFINITION: context: branches (roots) in the unconscious too. How deep do we want to define? how deep can we define? What’s hard wired like breathing in the conscious, like most mammals, in unconscious for cetaceans.
Cosmology is the all important subject once you realize that all our basic thinking models are derived from some assumption. Ditto theology. Ditto espistemology. Whether we spend more than two minutes in a life time thinking about them or not, they’re there and they’re basic. (People have done their two minutes thinking, don’t want to make it three, especially if means maybe having to revise anything. Though we do after extreme crises. we do. we do.)
The cosmos as computer. Each event is/was/willbe itself interrelated in flux with every other interconnected,ing,able event. No map is/canbe the territory, never one mile equals one mile, never the same mile. What model we have in events in our consciousnesses is of the greatest importance for our own sakes in our ability to plan intelligently; that model is of no importance whatever concerning the truth of the matter. [Matter. What word would be adequate? Matter here is laughable.] So, is god a map or a territory? How about judgment. what statement is most true/least false about judgment day? 1) God is neither the map nor the territory; we, our essence, actions (virtues and sins) and their stage, and that stage’s stage(s,s,s,s,.) are the territory, what we say here,then,when is the map. What god makes of it is the revised map. 2) I/we won’t have to say anything; god already knows,knew,will know my sins, etc. There is no lying. 3) God won’t have to know anything; we’ll all confess. we’ll confess to more than we ever knew because suddenly we will understand, we’ll know what we did. After such knowledge, what forgiveness? We’re guilty. pray for mercy. we’re innocent. pray for mercy. 4) I don’t have to know nothing; I got a good mouthpiece. Clarence Darrow couldda took lessons from’im.
Evolution: what are we protecting? Our genes? our memes? some combination? Our genes cause they know best? Our genes, so that maybe our memes can have another chance? can be reinvented. somebody else will carry on the memes; I care about the genes. visa versa. What were those people doing in Elani (title? greek revolution on Prism?)? What were they preserving? Her choice was her genes whether we take her quite at her word or not. How about the judge, the local leader? How about the false witnesses? What were they suffering for? sacraficing for?
How local the newspapers of other places are is obvious to anyone who travels; what is not obvious is the local bias of the newspaper of the capital-unless one travels in time as well. Not disputing that the London Times and the New York Times are less local than the Radnor neighborhood paper, just that the Englishman in India or the American businessman in Hong Kong will tend to see them as still ahead of his horizon of interest rather than behind it. Anyone can see occasional biases in the news, but the pervasiveness of the pattern remains invisible. deliberately? Are we all like the villages of Elani? so cowardly that we can’t correct a distortion even when we see that it’s ruining us? the junky to his junk, the civilized man to his need for collusion in a lie to protect privilege. A slovenly map. Hey, it’s them we’re lying about, not you; our agreement is for your advantage. Yeah, but this time it’s Jesus we’re slandering, that time Eleni, next time my own family, next time me. Remember the reporter at Colby, he outright lied about the gathering, and those gathered tried to reason with him, they respected him, they thought he had made an honest mistake. Let’s say that most of the mistakes are unconscious. They reverberate back and forth between the newsmakers and the image makers, the movie men, the ad men. And you thought you could only be a hero by obeying orders, the ad says. Do those around me really think that? Do they really believe that my generation assumed that? Or do they see it’s a lie and are they remaining silent? It’s an ad, it’s unimportant. We reserve our strength for arguing endlessly about George Washington’s teeth or his lies. Then there last Sunday’s: activism has changed; its no longer just college students. Remember the news’ bold misrepresentation just after the UN Plaza march: “some students wore academic garb” as all the grayhairs with doctorates who were for the second time in their lives trying to show it. But having put it on was an obfuscation too: trust me, I’m more educated than you. Not, look at the map, look at the territory, see, they don’t match.
People in my experience ardently defend themselves against these points as though you had slandered them as the journalist, them as the ad man, them as the Washington politician. That same person might smile in recognition of the joke if they hear a quote from Will Rogers, or laugh if they hear Bob Hope say it on tv, or what’shisface Russell playing the piano. They’ll agree if you make them about Pravda. Bob Hope and the president too are making them about Pravda. if you make them about Bob Hope and the president, then it can only be that somehow you’ve got it backwards, you’ve seen through your own lies and swallowed Pravda’s. My god, if he’s seen through Xianity he must be one of those fool heathens. They could see perfectly clearly that you’re not, they have to unfocus their eyes from you in order to switch in some other false map; we can only deal comfortably with false maps. Suddenly, plato’s damned cave image flashes. I find it useful here too. Is the territory itself like the sun? no one can look at it? I am here (as always and unavoidably) only speaking English). It can’t be no one if I’m tring to except myself. if I’ve already excepted Jesus, Eleni, Will Rogers. I would also except Bob Hope from onceuponatime, maybe even now for all I know. or Plato excepted Socrates (yet I hardly except either of them; only recognize the impact of their image which is here again impacting on me, and recognize it from a time before science which has finally, recently, made the beginnings of some sense from it. In fact, I am not excepting myself from it, I’m trying to point it out as common to all of us as far as I can tell. I wouldn’t have recognized Lonfyt Yemip either. (and I’ll have been dead sixty years by then.)
Hey, let’s blame the victims of malpractice for the impossibility of health care, the high cost of the false thing, etc.
24 May 87: Even with the Toshiba I don’t always get a chance to jot a note before the ideas fades away. It’s because the ideas that I want to write down are those that I’m semi-dreaming before I’m fully on my feet. Driving on automatic pilot is similar. Often, when I do jot a note and happen to look at it again (never so often as now that I’ve been transferring files and condensing electronically) I realize that it’s a duplicate thought. The one I just lost I’m fairly sure wasn’t: an example, not an example of irony, but of a usage of a word meaning the opposite of its usual meaning. And not just, Hey man, that’s bad!
Well, while on the subject, how do lexicographers define the threshold of sensitivity of significant difference in meaning? Eg, meaning is determined by statistics of usage. Any of us have a gut gestalt for these statistics: everybody knows … nobody says … Yet we dismiss garbles, malapropisms, mispronunciations, misspellings in the written language, etc. There is a whole difference of energy level between phonetic and phonemic.
Magnum Force last night, I’m thinking, we’re so sure of easy distinction between the good guys and the bad guys in cheap movies. Here is a cheap movie pointing it up. The cops are the bad guys and Clint makes a “mistake” and shoots one of the “good” guys past the badge and uniform. They’re just billboards. When they raid the gangsters, the gangsters say that big guy’s no cop. He’s not wearing a uniform, that’s no a cop gun. Right. It’s Clint Eastwood, good guy: rewriter of the constitution, exterminating angel, blue collar conservative, author of law and justice, good guy. So how come we know so surely that all the other posters which pop up on the combat range are also good guys. They’re unshaved, they had noncop guns. How do we know that they’re not Clint Eastwood’s spiritual clones? not Serpico? I think the point of much entertainment is to get us used to the quick elimination of the cheaply defined unproved enemy.
zero in the macroscopic world seems to mean too few for us to notice: “a perfect vacuum”; “electrons are identical”: (we know of no examples of indentity in the macroscopic world; we merely assume it in the microscopic or sub-atomic.
PUT INTO STORY @ (heaven & hell): individual organisms in our species are constantly bumping into themselves as reflected off the default perceptions of others (or have the opportunity to notice if they’re alert to it, or not notice if they’re shielded themselves. [use in Heaven]? A goes up to B full of confidence that he’s bristling with x,y,z and finds himself noticed not at all for x,y,z but only for m,n,o: he’s a n-; she’s a dingbat; stupid kid. [Bowdlerizing K., 2016 08 03 Offensive terms go dosido in fashion.]
We constantly see ourselves being misperceived, seeing the other person’s default assumptions (all n-s are stupid), (all women are dingbats), (all kids are ignorant, inexperienced, stupid or something and I ain’t their teacher). If the default assumptions agrees with our vanity, we don’t mind (woman’s assumption that a man can fix things), man’s assumption that a woman is amenable until proven otherwise), etc.
“Corruption started in the Marquesas when a white man wanted to pay for what was heretofore given for nothing.” Cousteau quotes.
Universities are hothouses for hybrid ideas. Incubate a musician in twelve hours a day of say nothing but Chopin, force the “rest of his education” into whatever hours remain, and it is actually possible to generate a contemporary who doesn’t know his own culture. Neither can he know the culture they are culturing him in; only a few of its memes are actually alive. KN Cameron was a toadstool Victorian (not, mind you, a romantic- -it wasn’t just the ideas of the romantics (all three or six of them) that the Victorian idealists so admired (all three or six hundred of them), it was the fact that (at that time) there had been no paying career in having them.
My lifelong sin, for which I pay endlessly seems to center around my attitude toward gambling; as a kid at the local weekend carnival, being chased by the carny: first he tried to get me to play, to have a free try, to see how easy it would be to swing the ball of the string and knock down the pin. All I wanted was to look, to see what was different between the free try and the one one would gamble on and lose, all the time presuming that if you lost enough money, they’d probably let you win one and give you some cheap doll. He chased me, threatening my life and looking like I meant it. My poor companion had wanted to gamble and I prevented him, now we’re both running for our lives. The carny didn’t chase us far; he had to get back to the scam. It had to have been a scam or wouldn’t we have been permitted to observe? We weren’t welcome because we had tried to have perspective on events. No free look, only a free try which could only be had by stepping forward and giving up your perspective. Then, as an adult in Reno, looking at the crap table, hey, come on? what are you waiting for? then the deep scowl, the signal to the gestapo, the “only suckers welcome here” treatment. A casino or carnival is an extreme example, but the symptom reveals itself throughout the system. We only allow those committed to our errors. We’ll allow a few controllable exceptions, and even admire and reward them occasionally, but they have to work for the status quo at some level. The govt buys free universities and then controls them. The exceptions are ignored, but then the few exceptions are usually squirming around trying to conform. The few private colleges. They may not be controlled by the government, but they are willingly controlled by conservative forces (I’m not complaining, only pointing it out): the rule is, you can say anything you want in class or even out as long as you demonstrate by your whole life that you don’t mean it. Maybe that’s why the media so determinedly misrepresented the protests of the action in Vietnam days; lookout the professors are about to try to be effectual, to encroach on our realm, our business, the business of being practical, being men, king of the jungle that rules civilization.
definition of left, cf Turing test. All those in a certain class of experience understand what it means without any necessity (or possibility?) of objectivity. cybernetic? undefined term accepted? do we (must we?) accept the undefinable? find a lexicographer and discuss Bateson’s point about left. what’s the self-referencing part? north?
THOUGHT: thought as a process of model making. We want the model to correspond to what is facetiously called “reality.”
Must a dimension always be left out of a depiction? How about location? haha
If Alexander had lived: too much responsibility too young? How designed for the long haul? How any of us? What would history have been like if Julius had ruled a little longer? or had he shot his wad completely? beginning to make too many mistakes. What can be the evolutionary (rest lost somehow?)
Tonight, Boston could beat Detroit and qualify to play LA for the NBA championship. Edmonton could win the Stanley Cup tonight by beating Philadelphia. So an ad comes on the tube, Wagner Der Meistersinger is the music, it’s a little bronze multiple of a basketball player. It isn’t very good and it doesn’t look like anybody I recognize … oh no, close up of the jersey, it says 76ers, it’s got to be a sculpture of Dr J! aw-riite. To me, it’s a piece of crap. I recall how the keystoning works for kv quick ads: the ratio between cost and price. They didn’t bother to commission a work of art to make a work of art to sell. How much of what some of us would give our lives for would look the same to someone who knows the medium better than we can.
We all compete to show “good taste,” but, for most, if someone from what is regarded as an aristocracy is around, most want to hide in the closet. Meanwhile, no actual aristocracy is fixed, but is itself either leading the change (if they’re in power) or becoming increasingly cautious (if they’re figureheads) so be careful what aristocracy you’re talking about. Oi donngiv a shidubout daqueen; arrrahow, look it’s Mick Jagger. Oi cannn’ be seen in these shoes. College kids will argue like crazy about theology. Say they’re catholic, say a priest walks into the room. Suddenly they’re all quiet, all cautious, all deprecatory. Say priests are arguing and the pope walks in …
Ditto jews or rabbis or any other distinct culture of generation within a culture. Suddenly some famous rabbi who wrote the kabal walks in. Ok, so it’s all the rabbis of the kabal, and they’re all disputing in whatever is their style of vigor. And Abraham walks in … Now they’re all deferential. Some old sheep herder is sullenly stinking up the background. It’s the patriarch’s father. He says, when asked … “Abraham? that schvantz?”
One reason sport is great is that in all the cultures that I can see, it’s among the most relatively uncorrupted forms of competition. You don’t have to let the prince win. You can prevent the Saxons from playing, your can rape their women under the stands, but among those allowed on the field, it’s relatively fair. Cheating is pushed to the borders. Whether a foul is regarded as flagrant. [What the referees get away with without even their own consciences noticing. Sure there’ll always be pivotal situations that can shift an outcome; the ump missed the call, sure they expelled both players from the game, but remember who started it. (It’s generally impossible to tell except mythically who ever started anything, except where there’s some arbitrary distinction. So and so invented basketball, but how in the essentials that we’re talking about does basketball differ from hockey, soccer, polo, lacrosse, etc.]
Meantime, one team isn’t forced to wear weights. or run shackled, or have an eye put out in order to get on the field. While that is exactly what is required to compete in all other endeavors controlled by the culture. Import duties while spouting conservative economics, etc. It’s perfectly well understood in poker that you can’t get into the game without having the ante to gamble. Well, what’s also necessary in say this culture, is you have to be lobotomized in how your field interfaces with others in order to have academic freedom of speech in your own (ah, um) specialty (er, ha). Then you can say anything you want.
6.id: june idea file 1987
law of linguistic uncertainty: think how elastic the meanings are in: the church should never be involved in politics (esp. from an Anglican). I’m a republican (or democrat) for ideological reasons. I act on principle. protecting American lives.
Shared belief system. We elect presidents to be smart but not too smart: we want them to share our belief system. The most important aspects being of course unconscious. If they’re scientists, they’re aliens. They might not be nationalists, might not be human chauvinists. or not earth chauvinists. They might actually be impartial, god forbid. That would mean they wouldn’t prefer us, while mouthing some rhetoric of justice or freedom or individuality or law and order or protecting american interests or keeping our commitments (breaking others necessarily). etc. There, typically, I have gone off illustrating with examples from the end of the spectrum opposite what I had started thinking. Ok, there are disadvantages from a progressive point of view. But how reliable are progressives? Conservatism has its survival value, and where it’s the wrong default value (inevitably always at some point), it’s exactly the trigger that evolution will need to turn the leaf. And now I’, going on in the other direction, still without having said what I was thinking. Kings, Presidents, Paul Newman … represent us not only in what we’re aware us, but we hope (unthinking) in all the billions of years of whatever went before. Who knows how many flopovers, reversals of polarity, have to be kept balanced.
One look at Marlon Brando in The Wild One and it’s all there, all the layers, all the contradictions. He doesn’t have to make sense, he’s our king. What, you’d let yourself be led by that mealy mouthed sheriff? Not a chance. Just look at the genes those features represent. Human, all the way down. Primate, all the way down. Mammalian, all the way down. The reptiles, amphibians, water creatures, space borne bacteria, all the way down.
These paragraphs more than usually out of chronology. Go back to insert something that seemed to fit when you started, and, sure it’s related, but another day’s approach.
He who wants success should be sure to share (to at least appear to share) the belief systems of his peers, those he is, will be, or hopes to be dealing with while at the same time not antagonizing those (non-peers, or soon to be non-peers, or hoped to be non-peers) around him. It must be quite a trick if you want to be a first class theoretical physicist and head a committee for the government. Oppenheimer must have been schizo.
The Model. The Day the Universe Changed. Wordsworth to Heizenberg. We co-author the universe by our beliefs. Our perceptions are a map, not the territory. But there is a cybernetic feedback interchange. We cannot endlessly get away with bad maps. We can believe the moon is made of green cheese. We can go to the moon (under that belief system? really?) But can we mine the moon, return, and sell the rocks to a cheese shop? [“I can call spirits from the vasty deep.”] Perhaps, if the cheese shop is just as eidetically governed as the sponsors of the enterprise. How smart is it? What survival value to persist in a delusion? Surely reality creation should be a co-authorship between the image making/processing, way up on the intensional scale, organism and his group and the extensional basis for the collaboration. [or is the intensional the basis for the extensional? the god(s) of the future pulling the whole thing up by its bootstraps?]
story title: By the Bootstraps
domino economics: tit for tat but not necessarily to the titter. The sins of the fathers … but their fathers were sinners [“but they were fucked up in their turn/ By fools in old style hats and coats”], what does sin mean in that context, a context (like so many things) in which there is no discernible beginning (and no discernible end)? Chicken and egg. In the beginning … of what? of our story! certainly not of the universe (unless universe becomes the elastic clause). Usual alternate of each is responsible (even of what is done to one, a la Illich) is reactionary madness. Whole system can’t be a good map of reality. Still, one can to a degree take responsibility for one’s own immediate environment. That’s all one can do. It may turn out to be pivotal, the seed that germinates and becomes Abraham, but that is little in one’s own control. Wouldn’t it though, for once, be nice to steal, not from the thieves, because that’s all of us, but from, and only from, those particular thieves who stole from you? Reality doesn’t seem to permit it.
what survival value in being so much better in tune with the territory that one is quite incompatible with the intensional territory of the group, even of the counter groups? None except as future possibility with very little chance in the present. Won’t participate in an established pecking order, won’t participate in establishing one, even to one’s own, especially to one’s own, advantage. Academia like a fraternity. You’re pledged, then hazed, then you can do to hazing to the pledges.
Isn’t it silly, the conservatism of the law. A jury of our peers after we of the US (the band of brothers against the father, the parricides?) have disposed of such distinctions. In formal practice, that is, not at all, in day to day behavior. With exceptions. The President has to be impeached, not indicted. There’s an empty safeguard, since we won’t do it. It would be a judgment against us.
There would be a good article: why we elected Bozo to the White House. What we saw in Nixon. Why … Shakespeare’s history plays & some of the tragedies. It’s easily understandable (once you’re on the subject of regicide) why R III would kill all around him to have fortune have his turn come up. We can see Macbeth etc. then fighting for their issue (after Lady M would pluck their toothless etc.). How about the knight’s willingness to die for an heir not even so closely his cousin? Some kinship is recognized. Back to Paul Newman and Marlon Brando. You look at Vanna White’s ass … she doesn’t have to say anything for you to want to die so that she can breed. I’d die in a second for Bucky Fuller or G Bateson. Or Paul Newman, even in so egregious a script as Hombre. Oh, God, how sanctimonious. R. Baker’s solemnity as opposed to seriousness. Anyway, once we’ve chosen God to our local rain god, we’ll suffer greatly before we are willing to be shown to have been wrong. And again, evolution keep’s clearing the ground. Just not as fast or as easily as the progressives might wish. Me too.
context, relevance, within the same story; man, in his capacity of having an imagination, a mind that can sort and compare patterns, fill in and infer, is a reality making animal. The possibilities are infinite and perhaps infinite exponentially. [But people don’t like to have their horizon extended too much at one time and will not thank the generously imaginative. Why does academia want the horizon to narrow?]
No matter how fine a point you put on something, it’s still a blunt instrument beneath another threshold. Relativity. (Mammalian too). Visa versa, above another threshold, the bluntest of instruments will pierce the densest something like gossamer.
Celebration of constitution should include a disclaimer of the pursuit of happiness and a simple introduction to cybernetics. (you can’t come at it directly or by wanting it as an effect of a cause.) and a demonstration of technological counter-rev a la Fuller-McBurke.
The judge and the criminal (saint or sinner) are embodying minimally two different sets of epistemologies. (The sets overlap but are not similar.)
“according to my perception” is implicit in statements, including the most truthfully intended. The map/territory distinction will be admitted as “obvious” by just about anyone, whose thinking, nevertheless, routinely doesn’t make that distinction. No doubt there are nests within nests of “according to” my, our, the authorities’, science’s, the church’s, my father’s, etc’s. It seems, according to my experience, my default assumptions, the metaphysics of our society, the common assumptions of the group (again nests within nests), etc. Of course, if all talked so humbly, no one would have time, patience, or confidence to listen to us. No, the strong stance of rhetoric is best in ordinary messages. I have studied the facts impartially and state unequivocally that …
Information/difference: why was my church so hostile to my attraction to pantheism? They were perhaps instinctively protecting their hard fought distinction between the sacred and the profane. Buddhism, yichh.. you can’t have everything holy. You can’t because I can’t. I can only get off on duality. One god, yes, well three actually, but we’ve left extreme monism far behind us; therefore so must you.
one reason map improvement is difficult, and personal and social evolution slow (though vastly quicker than biological evolution) is that our current maps are pre-programmed, largely by the culture. Like in QA, the report function won’t wrap onto the next line. You’ve got the rewrite the whole program. Or take alternate paths. Who has the time? Except John the Baptist?
Semantic Dictionary: identical to = having a number of sub-sets of aspects shared in common with
By the Hair of the Comet: AA thought she didn’t understand what she was being taught in school and was thought not to understand what she was being taught in school: well, she didn’t. Her fellow students didn’t either. And neither did her teachers. They were just getting through the material. She had a different and more serious conception of understanding. Tired of never understanding, she had decided to try to understand at least one thing, before letting her attention move on. Years later, she still didn’t but had invented the x, published her first monograph on the subject at age 20, and now at age 4x, was still in pursuit of understanding that one thing, though now she allowed other subjects to occupy her mind, many other subjects.
Use or refer to all Bateson’s glossary.
Jargon: English at odds with large scale logical sorting. Therefore, noun clusters. Wrong order. Etc. Just realized it in wanting to write the adjective before the noun. But the adjective is a sub-category and follows in the way we outline. Fiction; sub Mystery; sub Detective; sub English; sub Ngaio Marsh, Dick Francis, Agatha Christie. etc.
English Mystery Fiction: what appeals? Civilization and its Discontents. All these mousy, inhibited people taking a looksee at what if. What if I were a murderer. First of all everybody would be quite concerned. And yes, I would be acceptable in that the fiction shows me that the doctor could have done it, the nurse could have done it, the PM could have done it. Lady soandso could have done it. But it’s always theft or murder, isn’t it. No incest. No cannibalism. Sexual deviancy. Well, that’s there for show. Political deviancy. And of course, everyone’s suspicions carefully reflect the reflexes of the culture. But it’s really cosmopolitan in that those reflexes are usually wrong. Why mystery fiction is relatively sophisticated compared to melodrama.
Then compare say American cowboy movies of my boyhood, and more so, my father’s, to say The Maltese Falcon. Civilization and its Discontents: everybody’s crooked, not what they seem. But the crooks too have their default programs; they assume Spade can be bought. And so perhaps can he be, but not in the sloppy, slapdash way they assume. He’s no cheapie to con.
Realism/Nominalism. Good/Evil. Orthodox/Revolutionary. Intensional/Extensional. Shakespeare’s sonnets and Steven King. ‘Salem’s Lot, e.g. One reason the devil seems believable and even attractive is that the semantics of the perfection of God is flawed, and unspokenly perhaps, we all know it. We’ll parade paroxysms of orthodoxy and conventionality by day, but at night we want to read about horror, murder, inept government, corruption, a weak or ineffectual god (an absentee landlord) whose enemy (and corrector) is coming in person. In any case, ‘s’s Lot is very very good at the awfulness of the damned and their power is seem attractive (and that it’s a sham). Remember smelling that doped hash for the first time: Instant reaction! Jesus, what awful poison, metallic glisch. Then immediately … oh, but wait … what’s that attractive smell? Toutsweet, the poison smell is gone, forgotten. But the matrix vocabulary still has to be god’s, good’s, light’s. You’d think that the extensional would be the default voice, but no-we know no extensional objects independently of their categories. see p 240.
Freud’s onion (conscious/unconscious): Sagan’s cutting the pie in half and in half (I am reminded by King’s magic slate where the black stuff underneath retains an impression of what’s erased.): cascade of mirror images: easy, macroscopic implication is that they go to infinity … Well, after years of arguing that they don’t, I know see an argument that they might. You cut down to the space within the atom or, far more likely, the space between the atoms. In any case, you’ve supposedly cut down to space, the vacuum, stray particles. The infinite points each infinite in potential positions. Why that pregnant emptiness does hold all possible patterns. Even if you actually catch an electron, what’s it doing. What spinning and jumping around all over the place and back and forth in time too apparently. First, there’s an emptiness, redolent with potential presences, which spell out all possibilities of structure and behavior. Then, there’s a presence, a virtuality, which … well, what’s it doing? Gee, it seems to be doing everything possible … So why shouldn’t even an electron, or even an empty space be seen as potentially more cherry pie, or more onion, the next germ, the pattern which will reproduce, the growing kernel, the inner mantle, the reflection still reflecting inward beneath and between the smallest wave patterns we can measure or detect. There it goes, on into invisibility with all the speed it had a moment ago. It slipped beneath the threshold of our perception.
phr.? syn? Linguistic example of a word coming to mean its opposite in a particular instance? Do you know what’s ‘handiest ‘about the concept of God? it’s infinitely receding. like a black box.
Reading ‘Salem’s Lot makes me think that the concepts of god and devil, good and evil, at war, with one side dark, the other light, etc., one seemingly ascendant, the other eventually, ultimately ascendant make metaphoric sense in a way that does jibe with evolution. Think of Einstein’s remark on the handedness of molecules: “they won the war.”
What people call language is a transform, a series, actually, of transforms that we can’t follow all the way because we don’t know enough about the mind. Language is not on the page: symbols of one or two transforms of itself are on the page. Language is not in the voice, the mouth, the teeth and tongue, the larynx and throat, the glottis, nor is it in the air between speaker and hearer. Language is in the mind. Communication is in a set of minds. One individual may contain a set of minds.
Cosmology, as I keep saying, is one of the basic subjects. As a connoisseur of cosmology, and one who tries to keep up to date, at least by reading digests by the likes of Pagels, Asimov, Sagan, Hoyle, Calder, Ferris, etc., I find myself suddenly dissatisfied with what strikes me as a passivity, a passivity which I liken to a sense of predestination. The cosmos is evolving. The direction, the result(s), the resultant vectors of probabilities … are not set. We are involved. It’s not merely a pre-scripted, company directed, rigidly edited movie which we helplessly watch. I don’t mean that we or anyone is in control in the sense that Napoleon, Hitler, Johnson or Nixon wanted to control the world. That’s not a possibility of the system. But cybernetics, evolution, … we don’t know what our effects are … and it’s not any direct Aristotelian cause and effect link … But we’re not zero. Furthermore, by we I don’t have any specific group in mind. Not just humans, for example. Just we. Any group. We are not zero.
Ah, cybernetics. I think of pool. In particular, straight pool. When there’s no direct shot, you play safe. Very safe if you can. The safeties can go back and forth for many exchanges before anything opens up. That’s the game at every bit as much its best as a run of seventy balls. What’s happening? Nothing is happening, you hope; unless it’s the other guy who made it happen. An opening for you, that is.
That static aspect to all the cosmology I can think of (among the most recent and best of the recent), as I said, reminds me of predestination … and also of the conventional, still 19th-century attitude toward and conception of entropy. Entropy: the transforming of patters recognized by us as useful to us into other patterns not so recognized.
Landowners, all scarce property owners, should pay “rent” to those who can’t own it by virtue of the proprietorship of the owner. That need not be incompatible with capitalism or that aspect of capitalism in which it is believed that profit should redound to the hard working and to the inventive (not to mention lucky) and that hardship should be the lot of the shirker. The tax need not impoverish the owner nor enrich the non-owners. No benefit of the tax need go to those who had equal opportunity and wherewithal to acquire the property and did not do so.
Those Norman knights who stayed on the French shore of the Channel have no right to the spoils of England. But why shouldn’t English royalty have to share some pittance of their conquest who weren’t even born within close to a millennium of the occasion? And the Saxons should be compensated for their loss, just as they should in turn have to compensate the dispossessed Celts. Claims more ancient against the Celts should also be honored.
A negative tax could be paid to those who keep the property pristine and healthy for other generations. If the poor gobble land into blight, then hooray for the baron who shoots poachers. The rich whose grand piano sits idle while poor musicians vie for instruments should pay a tax to ease the lack of the musicians, not those who would also set it sit idle, or worse who would play it badly. But most important, the agriculturist should compensate the migrating tribe which can’t invent agriculture because the best land has been taken. Alternately, the two tribes could form a alliance, allowing the migrants to share the farming (or the farmers to give up their sedentary, monopolistic ways. Those who need lumber should compensate those who need forests. The alternatives already familiar to us such as exterminating the forest dwellers or herding them into reservations, concentration camps, or defaulting them into slums or ghettos.
Design, architecture. Nature has everything for our needs, indeed, what would have been the point of designing us for any other? Extinction follows when the need is no longer right. As it should be of course. Idle sentimentality to think one side of the equation should remain constant while the other changes (total value); bad math. I am camping and my back is being savaged. Humans are evolved (and phenotypically developed in my and most cases) to reach, to extend. I’m camping in my “new” trailer and everything is put away, tucked away, down and under. Bending, reaching, twisting. So to outside storage, car storage. And the new computer too, easy to move but every time, a dozen pounds hauled up and out from a twisted, cantilevered spine. I’m held away from the table by the permanently bolted seats; from the bed by the steel tire wells, from the indoor table by the storage seats, by the end support. So too in the car, the awkwardness of my 30×40 portfolios in the car. Every day, getting and assembling the five different components of the C64 and then unassembling them, all twisted and bent over the picnic table. Then turn the same table to a kitchen, first to a stove, then to a sink and drain, then clean up, and back to a desk and mini-publishing table, always physically held away from the work when standing so that I can have the convenience of being seated at it while “working.” It’s marvelous for a lark, but day after day, the design is counter to mine. I go on only to appreciate the design of nature compared to the design of our refuges from it. Everything is somewhere to hand in nature if the hand is stretched and the body moved. Shelter, safety, food, danger. Our homes bring small quantities closer to hand. You need more you go out, back into the stochastic (or here, group organized, the group being all of life and all of the cosmos). Larger quantities by going out into the cities or by choosing a shelter in the midst of one. Now the cities are all but continuous and multilinked. We have to go further afield for danger. Soon (meaning if things keep up and in this direction), we’ll have to leave the earth altogether for it. Evolution will take care of extreme problems. Beneficially to our species if we evolve with it and use our individual, group and Group minds to do it gracefully (but to do it anyway). Not easy since our default programs foster the one kind of change and resist the other. So, dying off and letting other biota or our own cyborgs fit better would be fine, and to object, mere sentimentality.
Enzymes and vitamins fitting together: quarks and quark, eight-fold symmetry, atom and atom, molecules and molecule, macro-molecule and macro-molecule, ion and ion, left and left, left and right, ascorbic acid and scurvy victim, nubile girl and erect penis, look how we fit, timing of the day-owl and robin share space by not sharing time,
Marriage bonding: princess seems cold because there are few macro-shapes to fit her; common girls seem easy because there are so many. Young frozen stalk is jealous of young breeders. Their ideas stimulate him too, he’ll think himself retarded: his time will come (or he’s doomed), then he’ll flourish and the earlier breeders are fat, broken alcoholic and poverty stricken.
College chem. One thing I didn’t like about chem. lab, was being surrounded by these thick glassed, graceless nerds. I saw no fit between this knowledge and my soul. Thirty years later, I read the SAME AUTHOR and the fit is perfect. Meantime, he did the work and I didn’t know what it was about. I was looking for early gratification.
Girls: chew, snap “only one thing on his mind, ya know?” chew snap. and every male will feel, she’s got me. guilty. mea culpa. Meantime, what he doesn’t realize is that though it’s 90% true of him, it’s 99% true of her! Sometimes he thinks of justice or stereo-isomers. She only thinks of what fits; but then, she’s got to think too of what fits for her baby while he looks for game and dragons.