Hume on Edward II and Notes

As I began my project of brushing up on history, I thought I would begin with the time of the printing press and move forward from there.  I came across Hume's History of England and thought that it seemed like as good of a place to start as any.  The book is split into chapters based on who was the reigning monarch a the time.  With each king I started on, I saw that there was some necessary information to pick on from the reign before -- Henry VII needed to be understood in terms of Richard III, etc -- so I worked backward, scanning the first few paragraphs, until I got to Edward II.  And though I could have been interested in how his father's reign seemed to work out well, it was much more fun to start with a disaster. 

Edward II was a weak king who angered his nobles by placing all of his attention in a series of "favorites."  We are too far back to make any real pronouncement as to whether these were homosexual relationships or closer to what we'd call in the contemporary vernacular "bromances," but in any case the rule the nobles revolted, and his queen, Isabella, succeeded in deposing him and installed his son Edward III as the King with her and one of her own "favorites" (whom it is reported she lived with for a while away from the King) as the regents. 

The way Hume writes makes some things clear about the texture of society in a hereditary monarchy. A particularly interesting bit after the queen had succeeded at usurping her husband: 

But it was impossible that the people, however corrupted by the barbarity of the times, still further inflamed by faction, could forever remain insensible to the voice of nature. Here a wife had first deserted, next invaded, and then dethroned her husband; had made her minor son an instrument in this unnatural treatment of his father; had, by lying pretences, seduced the nation into a rebellion against their sovereign had pushed them into violence and cruelties that had dishonored them: all those circumstances were so odious in themselves, and formed such a complicated scene of guilt, that the least reflection sufficed to open men’s eyes, and make them detest this flagrant infringement of every public and private duty. The suspicions which soon arose of Isabella’s criminal commerce with Mortimer, the proofs which daily broke out of this part of her guilt, increased the general abhorrence against her; and her hypocrisy, in publicly bewailing with tears the king’s unhappy fate was not able to deceive even the most stupid and most prejudiced of her adherents.

Let's give extra attention to that first sentence: 

But it was impossible that the people, however corrupted by the barbarity of the times, still further inflamed by faction, could forever remain insensible to the voice of nature. 

There is so much going on in this one sentence that is worth discussing.  The first is a term worth challenging; when Hume says "the people"  either is making a real mistake in glossing over the reality -- which is entirely possible for the greatest of minds -- or he means something far different than we do by "the people."  The events he is writing about here occurred in the late 1320s.  Again, no printing press.  So, in this context, public opinion is a very small network of people in proportion to the general populace.  But notice how disorderly.  This small band of feudal elites is "inflamed by faction" and as we move through the story of this era, it is clear to see how close to anarchy they can let society move.  So contra the neo-reactionaries, it is not the forms of monarchy that are most important in preventing disorder, but rule of law and the strength of the state.

The story goes on: 

The suspicions which soon arose of Isabella’s criminal commerce with Mortimer, the proofs which daily broke out of this part of her guilt, increased the general abhorrence against her; and her hypocrisy, in publicly bewailing with tears the king’s unhappy fate, was not able to deceive even the most stupid and most prejudiced of her adherents. In proportion as the queen became the object of public hatred the dethroned monarch, who had been the victim of her crimes and her ambition, was regarded with pity, with friendship, with veneration: and men became sensible, that all his misconduct, which faction had so much exaggerated, had been owing to the unavoidable weakness, not to any voluntary depravity, of his character.

After describing the events of a monarch's reign, Hume's book then takes a step back and talks about the character of the monarch as well as what sees as the bigger lessons.  Of Edward II: 

It is not easy to imagine a man more innocent and inoffensive than the unhappy king whose tragical death we have related; nor a prince less fitted for governing that fierce and turbulent people subjected to his authority. He was obliged to devolve on others the weight of government, which he had neither ability nor inclination to bear: the same indolence and want of penetration led him to make choice of ministers and favorites who were not always the best qualified for the trust committed to them: the seditious grandees, pleased with his weakness, yet complaining of it, under pretence of attacking his ministers, insulted his person and invaded his authority: and the impatient populace, mistaking the source of their grievances, threw all the blame upon the king, and increased the public disorders by their faction and violence. It was in vain to look for protection from the laws, whose voice, always feeble in those times, was not heard amidst the din of arms—what could not defend the king, was less able to give shelter to any of the people: the whole machine of government was torn in pieces with fury and violence; and men, instead of regretting the manners of their age, and the form of their constitution, which required the most steady and most skilful hand to conduct them, imputed all errors to the person who had the misfortune to be intrusted with the reins of empire.

On the mistaken belief that only tyrants could expect instability: 

But though such mistakes are natural and almost unavoidable while the events are recent, it is a shameful delusion in modern historians, to imagine that all the ancient princes who were unfortunate in their government, were also tyrannical in their conduct; and that the seditions of the people always proceeded from some invasion of their privileges by the monarch. Even a great and a good king was not in that age secure against faction and rebellion, as appears in the case of Henry II.; but a great king had the best chance, as we learn from the history of the same period, for quelling and subduing them. Compare the reigns and characters of Edward I. and II. The father made several violent attempts against the liberties of the people: his barons opposed him: he was obliged, at least found it prudent, to submit: but as they dreaded his valor and abilities, they were content with reasonable satisfaction, and pushed no farther their advantages against him. The facility and weakness of the son, not his violence, threw every thing into confusion: the laws and government were overturned: an attempt to reinstate them was an unpardonable crime: and no atonement but the deposition and tragical death of the king himself could give those barons contentment. It is easy to see, that a constitution which depended so much on the personal character of the prince, must necessarily, in many of its parts, be a government of will, not of laws. But always to throw, without distinction, the blame of all disorders upon the sovereign would introduce a fatal error in politics, and serve as a perpetual apology for treason and rebellion: as if the turbulence of the great, and madness of the people, were not, equally with the tyranny of princes, evils incident to human society, and no less carefully to be guarded against in every well-regulated constitution.

Since Hume writes of "the turbulence of the great" and "madness of the people" as separate items, he would not fully agree with my note above.  Still, as this is history from the time of a scarcity of records, and nothing existing from the lower orders, both Hume and I are making an inference as to "the people" and how much they influenced during this time.  In any case, it is clear that the turbulence of "the great" is real problem of Edward II's reign.  

Oligarchy is hardly a panacea.  

Round Up #33

Aphorisms/Shorts
===

"[Nietzsche] has all the psychological penetration of the great novelists who were his contemporaries, minus the characters (his loneliness was so intense he didn't even have them for company)."  Geoff Dyer.

“There are three stages of scientific discovery: first people deny it is true; then they deny it is important; finally they credit the wrong person."  Alexander Von Humboldt

"Nothing is more permanent than a temporary solution."  -- attribution is contested.  Some claim Milton Friedman.  Some a Russian proverb. 

Sure, so many good lines in Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock," but here is one that is vastly under-appreciated: 

Streets that follow like a tedious argument/ Of insidious intent

"Ignorance is bliss.  But bliss is boring." Coded message in the show Gravity Falls.

"Where the study of history might seek to discover, explain and understand, possibly to facilitate judgment, our current moment demands decision first, study later (if at all)." William Davies.

"Beauty has been stolen from the people and sold back to them under the concept of luxury."  Kanye West

“To try to write love is to confront the muck of language; that region of hysteria where language is both too much and too little…” Roland Barthes

Links and Research
===

Great piece on Nietzsche's views of education and how his critiques hold up today.

Now that is an interesting town.

Besançon is the historical capital of watchmaking in France. This has led it to become a center for innovative companies in the fields of microtechnology, micromechanics, and biomedical engineering. . . 

The greenest city in France,[5] it enjoys a quality of life recognized in Europe. Thanks to its rich historical and cultural heritage and its unique architecture, Besançon has been labeled a "Town of Art and History" since 1986 and its fortifications due to Vauban has been listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site since 2008.

Cool blog: The Impractical Cogitator. 

Fun.

And, yes. 

I dig craftsmanship with hand tools.  I'll even tolerate the douchie patrons of the work, if it means that powerful play goes on. 

Samo Burja: not only a better collapse theorist than me, but a better on the other hand optimist, and even scholar of China during the Warring States period. 

It makes perfect sense that "desultory" is used less and less in the language over time.   

Ian Welsh gives some nuggets from an absolute "wow" book.  Here's a humdinger: 

We have been propagandized to view testosterone as related to violence.

Nope.

Oh, it can be. But what testosterone appears to actually be related to is status seeking. If violence and bullying is what a society rewards with status, then yup, testosterone is about violence.

But if hugging and caring for people will get you more status, suddenly high-T individuals are the biggest huggers and carers around. . . And here’s the thing, in hunter-gatherer bands (note the word bands), the high status individuals are caring, wise and slow to anger. The high status caring men also spread their genes around plenty.

In researching how vinegar could disinfect compared to bleach, I came across this gem of an article.  What left me quite bemused was the how defensive the article was, written by someone who had clearly been assaulted and damaged by internet culture.  It makes me chuckle when I think about it.  

Reflecting on Having Written Aphorisms

The great aphorist Nicolás Gómez Dávila -- who liked to go by Don Colacho -- once wrote the following about his work

The reader will not find aphorisms in these pages.
My brief sentences are the dots of color in a pointillist painting.

That is an interesting way to look at aphorism, and I think it holds true for what I have gathered, organized by subject, and shared over these last few weeks.  By working through what I have written, I noticed themes developing.  And for better or worse, the pointilist painting made from these quotes is a good snap shot of my philosophy spanning what (I sure hope) was the darkest time in my life.  

Looking back over my work I see some patterns that reoccur.  One is my fascination with beauty and in particular how it is in tension with what is interesting, so much so in our times that they are often enemies.  Another is looking at the truest part of zeitgeist (in non-election years): people whining about spoilers.  The spoilers thing was and is about living the era of content overload as well as narcissism.  Quotes about these points, along with grappling with the wasteland that is American culture in general, show up in more than one section as I believe different spins support different themes.  

If my plans have any control over the matter, which is a big if, I will be winding down my aphorism habit. In the future, if a short saying comes to me, I'll write it down in a journal and try to find a place to work it to a longer piece further down the line.  After all, it is frustrating that aphorisms have been an art form I have spent this much time with [1]. They subtly push the reader away by forcing them to do all the work in building the context.  An aphorism is a punchline without a set up -- or a set up that is . . .  all of the world, and everything is just too much.  The aphorism demands to be read deeply.  And this is almost inexcusable in a world of content glut -- even if you think your ideas are important, there is an endless supply of content about very least similar ideas that is much easier to consume. 

When I think of the times my mind was changed in big, important ways it is always some long form work.  Also, I don't think incidentally, these works were often read late at night.  It is like how infomercials work [2].  An endless supply of more is more persuasive than even the highest quality piece.

A great, long winded work can have an aphorism in it, that is true, but that is a punchline delivered with the correct set up, or perhaps as a nice piece put at the top of a section.  Like how another Don Colacho quote is coming right up. 

II) 

Writing is the only way to distance oneself from the century in which it was one’s lot to be born.

Don Colacho again.

I have noticed in the aphorists of the modern era a certain love of older books, meaning ones before the invention of the printing press.  This makes sense because those older books reflect a sense of scarcity of text.  Paper was once rare and expensive, to say nothing of the labor costs involved in having someone copy a book by hand.  Thus, one thing you wanted in a book was something you could read over and over, and so aphorisms did well in this environment.  Going even further back, oral traditions relied on a set of sayings, and often the leaders of the community judged cases before them based weighing the implications of different sayings.

To love what is old is to be exposed to the art of aphorism.  It is easy enough to see how that would rub off on a person.  I don't really think the causation runs the other way in most cases other than my own -- and it is an insult if it did.  I wrote aphorisms in the past because my attention span was so poorly developed.  I think the greats of the art form are classicists.

===

I leave you with a list of better aphorists than I.

===

Marcus Aurelius

Steve Solomon 

Nietzche

Nassim Taleb (read The Bed of Procrustes, then prefer other early work.  Ignore his social media behavior.)

Don Colacho, oh, ¡por supuesto!

===

[1]   But it is an art.  It has stitched my time together in a meaningful way, and has given something for people who loved me to enjoy after I am gone.  Something of where I was is preserved in those sayings, especially when they are put together in pointillism.  

[2] To think that because of the growth of streaming and cord cutting the number of people who know what an infomercial is will only shrink during my lifetime. . . How odd to feel nostalgic for the infomercial.

Aphorisms, Filtered and Organized #4

I have gathered my best aphorisms I have written over the years-- and some by others.  Fitting them into themes has revealed some patterns in my thought that I wouldn't have seen if they weren't put together.  Realize that nearly all of these sayings were written at different times.

The first theme this week is "Meaning Via Agape," where I talk the way we socially construct meaning, especially if we are to live our best lives.  Next I talk about "Finance and Frugality," which are the vital tools necessary to free oneself from the darker forces mentioned in previous installments. Lastly, I finish with "Art and Literature."  Very pleasant pass-times indeed.

==
Meaning Via Agape
==

I had to live through the deconstruction of simple, unhurried, sacred beauty and all I got were these lousy interesting times.

"It's the thought that counts" is an expression that was almost certainly created within the context of a family, and it only seems to work in that context.  The fact that so many people today spend so little time or attention in the domestic sphere makes the saying seem to ring totally false.

Learning how to set up boundaries with those you help is altruism's better part.

It is not enough to leave t.v. (and anti-social media).  You must have t.v. (and anti-social media) leave you.

”Now that we can do anything, we must do less.” Ruben Anderson

An important difference between a cult and a religion is that a religion works to make other generations both possible and successful in the wider world.

There is enough beauty and wonder to go around.  There cannot be enough results.

Reason operates on the Faith that it has all the information.  (Faith often reasons that it doesn't).

==
Finance and Frugality.
==

One of my biggest financial tips: don’t pay the seem-like-a-normal-person tax.

The revolution will be upcycled . . . and then modular.  Or it won't be much of revolution, now will it?

Inside of consumerism, "sufficient luxury" is an oxymoron.  Outside of consumerism, you can live a meaningful life.

I never get V.I.P. treatment.  But a solid majority of the time I get minimally acceptable treatment.  Globally speaking, this makes me extremely fortunate.

Possible rule to blunt consumerism: after you have secured food, shelter, heating/cooling, only buy things that you will do at least three hours of work with.

Identity is deeper to people than happiness.  Consumerism exploits this by sandblasting our organic, healthy identities, so we are left struggling to try to fashion them on our own.   We try to buy them, which is good for profits in the short-run, but is a source of system-threatening internal contradictions in the long run.

My advocacy of frugality is based on personal freedom and the quality of life, not signaling.  The help to the environment is a bonus.

==
Art and Literature
==

If “show me, don’t tell me” was always correct writing advice, then Shakespeare would never have had asides. And Hamlet would have never said “to be, or not to be;" he just would have done. . . or not.

The literati: by pretending to have read everything, they ended up not reading anything. And now they don't even pretend to read.

As Hume lifted Kant from his dogmatic slumbers, Captain Beefheart lifted me from my slumbers of normality. And so far, the results have been lasting.

"History is an art, like the other sciences" Veronica Wedgood.

If living around beautiful old works is so edifying, if walkable towns so important, if there is a certain ineffable dolce vita to all things Italian, why did they invent fascism?

If the spoilers alone were enough to ruin something you were going to watch, then it wasn't worth watching.

In these debauched times, the ability to read an unassigned book is potent signal of the tenderness, openness, and meta-cognition that is necessary (but not sufficient) to understand anything important.

To put a positive spin on the last quote, the test wouldn't work so well if our times weren't so debauched.

If you can see through G.K. Chesterton's work to know where he is engaging in sophistry and where he is being brilliant, then you are well on your way to fruitful explorations of the world.

Aphorisms, Filtered and Organized #3

I have gathered my best aphorisms I have written over the years-- and some by others.  Fitting them into themes has revealed some patterns in my thought that I wouldn't have seen if they weren't put together.  Realize that nearly all of these sayings were written at different times.

The topics this week are "Culture," "These Damn Kids," and "Living Meaningfully." I know I stated last week that this would get to some solutions, but I must admit that the first two sections continue with our problems first.  Such is the price of choosing to read the writings of a pessimist.

==
Culture
==

The American Ideal is someone who looks extremely fit, but who works constantly at a job where they sit (a seat of power, as it were).

At what point do you start adapting to a new reality, instead of just fashionably whining?  I'm asking for a country I know of.

". . . in narcissism believing something is preferable to doing something because the former is about you and the latter is about everyone else." from The Last Psychiatrist

I'm sick of hating narcissists.  When you do that in America, you almost run out of people.

People care so little about the truth, that any time anyone but those of the most demonstrably heroic bents says they are pursuing it, you should immediately start looking for what their real motivation is.

It would seem most successful entrepreneurs are people who don't think the rules apply to them and then in fact that assumption turns out to be right long enough to build enough capital to either eventually comply with or change the rules.

I've never met someone who appreciated, or even kept, a participation trophy.  Kids don't ask for them.  Kids aren't in charge of the situation. They're not for the kids.  They're for the parents, you idiots.

The Trump victory was white people's OJ verdict.

Americans are trained to show their taste by complaining, especially about what they lack.  If you say something is good enough to an standard American, prepare for an intense argument.

Privilege is too often confused for competence, even when you adjust for the fact that competence over the long run can lead to privileges.

. . .even IF I grant (for arguments sake) that competence is necessary for privilege in modern society, it is not sufficient.

I hate to break it to you, but you can't syllogism your way to a better society.  Especially if you're not willing to start with some ethical premises against narcissism or being self-centered.

The short run is the only run Americans care about anymore.

 ". . . I suspect that this is a badly run prison world, like on Hogan's Heroes . . ." Ran Prieur

I actually think there are many business books that are well-researched and have important things to offer, however in the interest of truth they should open with this disclaimer: "the vast majority organizations will not be able to get through the incentive-traps of their own office politics to correctly do any of this, but . . . "

America: worry about everything while making sure you don't care about anything.

The way the ideas of Buddhism spread through the West was basically self-help for affluent people.

"Why bother explaining if the audience always sees it as a starting point for a win-lose debate rather than an opportunity to learn?" Jacob Lund Fisker.

==
These Damn Kids
==

Nihilism isn't quite the panacea you kids seem to think it is.

Kids love to see themselves.  They are such narcissists.  But, then, they should want to see themselves.  That is the illusion that makes life, along with it identity and the powerful play, even possible.

The way nature shows defiance is beautiful: it "defies expectations." The defiance also seems to give boundless energy.  But when some human-type-person who is obsessed with hierarchy shows defiance, is there anything more ugly? Is there anything more sapping of everyone's energy?

We have a generation that nearly universally self-reports mental illnesses and then turns around and uses the fact that some guy, somewhere, went off on avocado toast to insulate themselves from all criticism.

"Of course there is still hope. . . because I'm special.  I'll figure out a way for the powerful to listen to me.  . . . They'll be ashamed of themselves, just like my other servants who clean up my messes."

"Even the class in the Dead Poet's Society was in rows." My wife.


==
Living Meaningfully
==

A reminder: "If you want to live a memorable life, you have to be the kind of person who remembers to remember. " -- Joshua Foer

The real challenge of awareness isn't changing who you are ranting about, but to change how you live.

The dao is real.  In fact, the dao is realer than we are, and that's our real problem in explaining it.

I think it is reasonable to spend most of time thinking about what will, with over 99% certainty be what happens in your life.  If you follow the news, on the other hand, you are spending your time thinking about people and experiences that are less than 1% extremes, whether mental illness, violent tendencies, wealth, looks or luck. It's an absolute waste of time that sneaks up on you and confuses your perspective on the one life you (with over 99% certainty) are to live.

Competition is good for the brain.  Domination is terrible for the brain, let alone the soul.

In these times, I think it is more important to find what is beautiful than to think about what is important.

Many of those with an avid interest in collapse don't seem to understand that there is more to life than whatever ends up killing you.

"Live and love sincerely and vividly. Abstractions don't precede embodiment, they follow it."  Nathan Spears

I believe in giving away a lot of value. But more importantly, I believe in filtering out a lot of non-value.

We are all historians. We are all crafters of space. We are all psychologists.  We are all nutritionist.  We are all currency traders.  Doing any or all of these 100% according to the defaults around us is still a decision, often a very bad one.

(Realized after a beautiful walk. . .) I have a theory that depression, or at least melancholy, primes us for feelings of euphoria.

We can be very precise only about things that have almost no meaning.

"Anxiety is paying interest on pain, but if you catch it in time, you only have to pay the principal." Ran Prieur

"The only thing worse than having a crisis is not having a crisis." Lou Kemp from Samsdat.  Slightly tweak that to:

The only thing worse than having a crisis is never having a crisis. . .   And I just realized that is close to "If you don't make mistakes, you're not working on hard enough problems. And that's a big mistake."  --Frank Wilczek.

“I want to fit in” inevitably means “ I want to be a stereotype.”

I’m certainly not a genius, I just lean into being a world-class eccentric.

"The function of propaganda is not to tell us what to think but to sink us deeper in what we already thoughtlessly believe"  Ran Prieur.

I love bad decisions; I could watch them all day.

What if happiness meant being the kind of person who overreacts to seeing spoilers?

Being a relatively smart person hasn't yielded too many benefits in my life, but here is one: I have the cognitive skills and the memory to keep track of when people are thoughtful and careful with language to some people and not to others.  This tells me the real story of their soul.

Aphorisms, Filtered and Organized #2

I have gathered my best aphorisms I have written over the years along with a few from others.  Fitting them into themes has revealed some patterns in my thought that I wouldn't have seen if they weren't put together.  Realize that nearly all of these sayings were written at different times.

These week's selection flow from progress to tradition to a wider look at American politics.  After that, there are a few odd ideas that will serve as an intermission when this these quotes are a section of my book.  The picture these quotes paint is pretty dark.  Look for some rays of hope the next two weeks.

==
The Cult of Progress and The Techno-Future
==

The trans-humanist plan: to transcend the meat-space.  What's their back-up plan?  To do it better.

If you met my 83 year-old Grandma you wouldn't be saying 100 is the new 80. Rather, the new selection bias is the old selection bias.

(Note/update: none of my grandparents lived past 85).

You probably need AI to enforce rules against AI.

I am disgusted with the 21st century. It puts the worst of humanity in your face at all times. I try to spend as little time as possible in it.

Detroit is already here; it's just not evenly distributed yet.

When our country puts kids in cages, it invokes images of the holocaust, a horrible past.  When we use killer robots in the sky to kill kids, it is part of the future, a disruptive future.  No wonder progressives can accept the latter.

Conjecture: if drone technology hits the point that the state and property are incontestable then the incentive for bullshit jobs will go away.  As dangerous as it is for the 99%, that might need to be the order it needs to happen.

Space travel isn't going to be colonization.  It is going to be white flight.

"Unable to achieve what it desires, 'progress' christens what it achieves desire."  -- Don Colacho.  This is great an explanation for neo-mania.

You are overhead for the technosphere.  Prepare to be more human or prepare to be liquidated. Actually, prepare for both.

AI will have a much easier time mastering clickbait headlines and tweets than long-form essays, to any level of human intelligence.  Perhaps it already has, and we're just not going to be told.

(Related). There won't ever be a need for AI to master the long-form essay.  The blood of the immature can always be stirred short-form (ergo keep it all short form AND keep them all immature!).  Furthermore, the retirement-center bots will be able to make do with small-talk.

"The only true and effective 'operator's manual for spaceship earth' is not a book that any human will ever write; it is hundreds of thousands of local cultures."  Wendell Berry.

My current understanding is that solar power is good tactically, but poor strategically.

Isn't that what Padmé said?:
"So this is how liberty dies . . . with robots everywhere."  *Glares at a droid.*

The real curse of living in interesting times is watching people try to win iteration after iteration of a negative sum game.

==
American "Tradition"
==

"Even our age may seem great when the worst of us are forgotten" Will Durant

I would consider defending the American Way of Life after World War II, but there isn't one.

Why has virtually all conservatism become a project in personal vanity?  It's the logic of profit that surrounds our culture.  It's impossible for nearly anyone to imagine investing in something that might cost them more than they receive.  And the conservatives feel their best return on investment is to set back and proclaim.

Only artificial things can get as clean as most conservatives want.

. .  Corollary: this is especially true of histories.

"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire."  Gustav Mahler

You know what?  Let's forget about the abstraction of "America."  Let's make the conversation at family meals great again.

When the American project is over, those with a conservative temperament (low openness, high disgust at disorder) will simply find another story for why the then-dominate groups deserve more.

"It's so much easier to blame the grownups than to be one." Ursula LeGuin

"Fear is seldom wise and never kind." Ibid.

Most of the developed world has worked to make the lives of families better.  In the U.S. we marketed "family values" and then called it a day.

Traditionalism in America has nothing to do with tradition.

==
American Politics
==

My fellow Americans love a good story, love a good image, but will neglect the supporting realities . . . till the end.

You are not asked daily to participate in democracy. You choose to freak out about things you can't control. This is not the same thing, and you need to learn the difference.  However, you do make daily decisions about consumption and production.  We should think about those more.

The argument that it was better to build a school than a prison might have been true once.  But now, in order to pay for the care of the richest generation in human history, we will soon have money for neither.

"The apparency: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. The actuality: If you even think there's a solution, you're part of the problem." Steve Solomon

While a Matrix metaphor might work for the masses, it is better to think of the elites in the U.S. as lotus eaters.  They are too doped up on greed to make any moves.  Alas, they've also locked the doors to the cockpit and are the only ones who can steer.

These Americans trading liberty for convenience don't realize that if they keep it up they'll soon have neither.  (Thanks to Benny Franklin for this).

The real cruelty of America to its young is not that it is denying them the American Dream.  It is denying them the Human Dream of starting a family that they can keep healthy and free from deprivation.  This is unsustainable.  If it is the first unsustainable thing to pop, then that will be for the good.  If it is toward the last, there will be no American society.

Is it really that difficult to understand that a tax cut when the budget isn't balanced is simply free money for rich people?

Liberals prefer to be liberal with other people's money, and conservatives prefer to be conservative with other people's morals. . .  Oh, I'm now an old man, fighting last generation's war. Now right-wingers also prefer to be right-wing with other people's money and leftists prefer to signal leftism about other people's morals.

When neither side engages in good faith, any instance of being correct is purely coincidental.

When the political class has shown a complete, stark, sociopathic disregard for 80 percent of the population -- what is another 19 (or 19.9) percent?

"Liberty is not the fruit of order alone; it is the fruit of mutual concessions between order and disorder." Don Colacho.  I despair of this ever being widely (enough) understood.

Sorry, friends, the Left is a Granfallon.  My real Karass is those who get to the root of things (radical, I know).  Prep and survive, but not like a Prepper or Survivalist.

It's sad to see how many Americans think they have nothing to lose.  What is more sad is how wrong they are. 

Rank and file Republican voters think everything is a conspiracy, and then vote in such a way as to conspiracies happen.  As of recently, Democrats do it too, but with different conspiracies.

I have not lost the ability to dream; I have lost the ability to pretend that other people will follow any of my dreams.

" . . . the real difficulty of democracy is not that voters are unworthy, but that their vote is generally the least worthy thing about them."  C.K. Chesterton

==
Miscellaneous Ideas -- an Intermission
==

Self driving cars could be called auto-automobiles.  I'd also accept them being called "autobots."

I propose that we have 73 Five-Day Weeks (73*5 = 365).  We could call the leap year day "Leap Day" and then all of our days of the week would line up every year.

Probably the best idea, as measured by possible utility to the human race, I've had in months.  But, alas, oh alack! -- such it is the nature of ideas that they need fertile ground to grow.  I will never get this idea out the general public to adopt:  Get rid of the free throws in basketball; instead, every second foul place the player in a penalty box for 1 minute of game play.

You fail to get warmth from 100% of fires you don’t start.

Aphorisms, Filtered and Organized #1

I have gathered my best aphorisms I have written over the years-- and some by others.  Fitting them into themes has revealed some patterns in my thought that I wouldn't have seen if they weren't put together.  

 The three themes for this week are "On Interest," "On the Internet" and "Humility/ Model Recalibration."  I was not aware just how much I had thought about the internet, but see the first two sections as statements of the problem and the third section as working toward solutions.

==
On Interest
==

Interesting is easier to hack than beautiful.  Hence, prioritize the beautiful over the interesting . . . especially in interesting times.

More important than being interested is working on good projects.  With a project in focus interesting things come to you and find a more harmonious, joyful place in your life.

"Why is the truth usually not just un- but anti-interesting?" David Foster Wallace.

Interesting: you have to watch for the danger of anti-social media most when it is truly interesting.

==
On the Internet
==

The old internet was the greatest tool for life's conventional warfare.  Internet 2.0 -- or whatever marketing label you want to give it -- is guerrilla warfare against the human psyche.

How sad it must be to live on such a poor information diet, and with so little self control, that you think it is the job of other people to prevent you from seeing spoilers.

Life is so much more interesting when you are learning new things.  Contrast this with Silicon Valley's internet, where you are told that what you are going to like is exactly like something you have enjoyed before.  

(Note.  I am to understand the titans of the Valley don't fall for this trap, and don't let their children use their products, but that is deeply instructive. . . in more ways than one).

I'm bringing "web surfing" back.  Most people don't surf anymore; they are herded.

I know modernity's whole shtick is efficiency.  But always ask "efficient at what?."  Anti-social media does not efficiently give you information; rather, it efficiently kills time.

Why less anti-social media? Simple: more living, less arguing.

It is odd how the incentives of anti-social media have turned the pragmatists into absolutists about their pragmatism. If really pragmatists, then time to start building a coalition. If instead you are just signaling for likes, then by all means, continue. . .

We just accept at the level of truism that the internet contains "the sum total of all information," but if this is true why do most of the best blogs consistently import knowledge from books into the internet?

Anti-social media platforms which allow only upvotes are the ultimate fool's paradise.

"We used to have to talk to other humans if we wanted to join a cult." comment on a Reddit thread by user named 77096.

Complaining on the internet for an hour is easier than spending that same hour working on a problem. The benefits of the complaining are immediate and almost guaranteed. This reinforces complaining over doing. Now, repeat that across our species over billions, if not trillions, of total hours . . .

Anyone who thinks their best thinking happens on Twitter, misunderstands both the medium of Twitter, as well as thought.

In the age of the printing press,  anonymity was a way to avoid the hectoring of the outside world and achieve authenticity.  In the internet age, anonymity is a way to join in the hectoring and with it the pan-societal effort to make sure no can be authentic anywhere.

Netflix: because you watched a documentary based on research and facts, you'd probably love to watch ten documentaries of nothing but conspiracy theory.

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by Twitter.

What I really mean:
I have seen the worst souls of my generation destroyed by Twitter.  . . Well, damaged further.

==
Humility/ Model Recalibration
==

I'm only interested in listening to people who listen to other people.

We live in a society that thinks it has no time for politeness markers, but then wonders why everyone is angry at each other.

I'm not sure of much, but someone as sure as you is probably wrong.

They say they have no Faith, but then talk like True Believers about every opinion they state.  I know what they really worship.

As productive as it can be to ask "why are things bad," it is often more worthwhile to ponder "why aren't things much, much worse already?"

Be very suspicious of any take-down that assumes each and every thing someone else states is always wrong.  You are not witnessing truth-finding, but rather branding.

Contempt brain is stupid brain.

Of all the lessons to teach a Harvard or Oxford grad, the hardest seems to be a non sequitur.  Particularly about where one went to college.

To be on record saying there is nothing worthwhile in world literature is to admit to being too ignorant or too stupid to pattern-match whole classes of human knowledge.

I can be convinced that gambling for amusement is immoral, but the ability to make a bet needs to be on the table as a tool to deal with blowhards.

The only thing we have to fear is confidence itself.

Back up of my father's obiturary

 I'm surprised I haven't made a copy of it before.  Maybe it just hurt too much before now. 

===

Max Alan Huddleston was born July 11, 1957 to Virginia and Max Leroy Huddleston in Norman, Oklahoma. To avoid confusion with his father, he went by Alan or "Al."

Alan was dedicated to his family and his neighborhood, with a special gift for making children laugh. He worked a wide variety of jobs, including running several small businesses, managing restaurants, working in apartments, and working briefly as a professional magician. Though often shy in crowds, he was always a character at work who found ways to make jokes and brighten people's day.

He is survived by his wife Alison, his mother, his brother Ray and wife Connie, as well as his son Keith and wife Beth. He was preceded in death last year by his father.

Memorial services are scheduled for 2:00 p.m., Friday, August 28, 2015, at the Primrose Funeral Home Chapel, with Chaplain Harry Smith officiating.

If desired, memorial donations may be made to the Cancer Research Institute.

Round Up #32

Aphorisms/Shorts
===

If you can see through G.K. Chesterton's work to know where he is engaging in sophistry, and where he is being brilliant, then you are well on your way to fruitful explorations of the world.

"To know solves only subordinate problems, but learning protects against tedium." Don Colacho.  Now that's a manifesto, right there.

 "Hemmed in by language and horizons of time and space, reading is always a stylising of past reality."  John Keane

Anton Chekhov wrote in a letter:  "I have peasant blood flowing in my veins, and I’m not the one to be impressed with peasant virtues . . . Tolstoy’s moral philosophy has ceased to move me . . . Prudence and justice tell me there is more love for mankind in electricity and steam than in chastity and abstention from meat.”

If glass were invented today, it would be hailed as this amazing technology that could be 3D printed using . . . sand itself!  What a disruptive technology!  Let's get some start ups going, and bid up their price to earnings somewhere between 800 and infinity (which would be the case if they had no earnings -- because who needs earnings when you are dIsRupTIve !?!) 

Links/research
===

I've been getting into mechanical toys again.  This has lead me to the marvelous Paul Spooner -- one, and two videos.  How is this for an artistic statement? 

As well as all the cars, clocks and other machines that make our lives efficient and comfortable, there are quite a lot of machines that have no practical use at all. Machines that are the antithesis of practicality, made by artists who have no interest in efficiency or comfort. They often make machines that express their anger about the dehumanising mechanisation of war, policing, bureaucracy or about the increasing distance between people who seem always to be on the phone but seldom talking to those next to them.

My machines are even more useless than those because I’m not even angry, having led an easy life in a beautiful country doing pretty much as I please all day. I make machines about things I find funny or absurd, hoping that others will feel the same. Even if I am a little annoyed when I start making something, the feeling has usually worn off by the time I’ve finished.

Video compiling David Lynch arguing that habits and routines free him to be creative. 

From the book Range by David Epstein

The main conclusion of work that took years of studying scientists and engineers, all of whom were regarded by peers as true technical experts, was that those who did not make a creative contribution to their field lacked aesthetic interests outside their narrow area (33)

I found the Intelligence Squared YouTube channel.  Seems good to give content to listen to while I do chores.

I don't know if this is a rabbit hole I want to go down, but there are claims to co-ops handled the last global financial crisis better than traditional for-profit companies.

. . . Lead to list of worker cooperatives, which lead to this line, which I found amusing "Red Emma's Bookstore Coffeehouse is a radical infoshop . . ."  (It's worth saying that when it comes to anarchist stuff I am such a MOP.  It's not my thing, but I find it interesting to look at).

Discussion on Discussion on Dualism

 An astute reader emailed in response to Discussion on Non-Dualism and wrote 

My general impression is that "non-dualism" can tend to make a fetish of dualism, rather than leaving it behind. 

This was my reply: 

==

Dualism certainly should be left behind rather than rebelled against.  It's not even a great term for what it is describing.  I just use it sometimes because it is the best index to other thinkers who have written on the subject.  (So, as much as I knock labels, I have to admit they are useful -- necessary -- for finding more of what you are looking for). 

Instead of dualism and its Two, I like to think of the spots where separations of all types break down (seep into one another?).  My favorite piece where I show the dance of not being separated is Van Gogh Flow, although I don't mind my little diddy about my cat either.   If the formulation didn't get bogged down in political overtones that I don't want, I would adopt the label "non-separatism."  But that's really not going to work.  

Keep in mind it was "filthy jeeper" who was the monist.  If I am a monist, I am certainly not the fun type with woo-woo rays -- just materiality all the way down, with emergent properties playing the role of making it appear something else is going on.  

But to me, every time I look at what works in the art of living, it seems clear that you have to live in the emergent and let the substrate be what it is.  Maybe poke at the substrate every now and then for amusement, but it is not really Truer (other than holding in more cases globally speaking), and it is certainly not more useful.

A Theology of Compassion

This started its life here on Reddit.  Lightly edited.  The beginning of the thread is backed-up here.

===

I'm monist, in a sense - it's the cosmic background radiation of my practice, but while I'm here in this flesh bundle, there's really no reason to think much about it. I can thoroughly explore that kind of oneness after I'm dead.

Oh, I really like that. I think that a defense of compassion follows from that as a premise.

I) From the Mountaintop

==

Up at the tip-top of the great tall mountain of spirit it is cold, icy. There is an austere beauty of pure pattern, harmony, purest flow. As you said, we can contemplate that forever when we are dead, if that death means a transport to that place. Hinduism and Buddhism posits there are many more impediments to breaking the cycle of rebirth, while mainline Christianity and Islam are more committed to selves that stay separate forever and get their final, total judgement from Sky God.

To switch conceptualizations. Alan Watts expressed the pantheist concept in The Book by talking about two types of games: 1) hide-and-go-seek and 2) cards. As to hide-and-go-seek, basically, the One consciousness shattered itself into pieces to make for games. And once you fully realize (I mean fully realize) you the One. . . you win!  But card games are another matter. If you think about it, virtually every card game is about putting the cards back in order. To make it a game worth playing, however, the cards have to be first disordered. And for the sake of variety, they have to re-disordered each round of play. Ergo, no disorder, no game.

In a sense that would make our lives unreal, and from the very top of the mountain nothing would matter -- even nuclear blasts, the Holocaust, eco-cide).  It was all just a game.

But while you are in the middle of a game, why wouldn't you play?

II) A Western Detour

==

I rather like Watt's explanation, but the West approaches it all completely differently. Imperfection, rather than the heart of a game, is either the source of sin or a sin in itself. This is seen in the Platonic ideal of forms and the garbling of them that is our world. The implication is that our plane is filth. Further down the line, Gnosticism holds that evil forces created this plane.

I hereby present another heterodox idea (I'm not claiming I'm the first person to come up with it, just that I don't know of having ever heard it before): perhaps the forces of creation and consciousness aren't even the same. It's only when sufficiently complex enough brains come along processing sufficiently complex patterns that consciousness comes to possess the being.

But the mainline Western faith is that this life is a test for a prize. And as we moved through modernity, the more the test questions narrowed to in-group signaling and virtually nothing else. Absent that very last turn, the Western detour is not a bad way to defend compassion -- the Authoritarian God said have compassion, and that's that.

Failing that, the argument could be that we are so low compared to the divine that we are equal -- only Grace can give us any relief from our unworthiness.

This equality under God concept is highly underrated, and without it Liberalism has a very difficult time defending itself.

III) to the Daodejing, book 1

==

While the daodejing famously starts by starts by showing how labels don't work (thus Good is perceived pre-verbally, if not pre-cognitively ), I think the next passage profound enough to change a life:

Truly, "rid of desire, one can perceive the Wondrous." With desire, one can perceive only outcomes.

I don't find the Daodejing prescriptive as much as descriptive. But what it is describing here is of the utmost importance. The human body/brain apparatus is very prone to cogitate on social standing. When this happens, it crowds out all other virtues. Only by silencing that monkey brain, even if for a bit, do you get to wonder.

Why the hell is wonder important? Well, for one thing it is the source of every creation that is not hyper-specialized and derivative. That's not to say you can't make some really good weapons that way, but even if all you care about is weapons, the better ones will eventually be made as a by-product of someone's wonder. Wonder is the golden goose.

Wonder has another attribute -- it is inexhaustible, self-generating. There is always enough to go around. Every artist and creator, both through the text of their work and through their life gives extra texture to reality that can be explored while doing virtually no harm to rest of the world. To a greater extent, each segment of land is itself layered through with beauty on level after level. (And even the ugly spots are worth a gander -- they teach us to perceive time). Fractal. Reflective. Patterns ever widening, deepening. . .  Whoa.

In "outcome world" this very inexhaustibly is a weakness -- if you have unlimited supply, you can't be paid by any level of demand, you see -- but once you let a crack of wonder in to the eye of the beholder, the argument in its favor is apparent. Which makes it sad that there are people who intuit this weakness in hierarchy and thus do whatever they can to thwart the forces of dao.

I recently saw an old post where Ran Prieur quoted Cynthia Ozick:

Heaven is for those who have already been there.

I cannot teach the pre-cognitive bliss of the dao. I can only connect to experiences of people who have experienced it, and explain why it is worth defending. I would also go here to this understanding to try to make the case for all lives having worth.

Hilariously, I am told that Ayn Rand made an argument like this: one of her super-men wanted to kill someone because, you know, a lesser being was in the way, but then he noticed this lesser being had a clean shirt. This showed that the lesser being at least had ability to value something. So no, no right to kill. (Probably Atlas Shrugged -- but I'm not tracking it down).

This is a Kantian, weak sauce version of the argument; rather, the compassionate mode of being does tend to stick better when it comes from a spiritual experience.

IV) to the Gita

==

The Gita is really easy to mis-read. I think it is second to Nietzsche in terms of the most dangerously mis-read work of all time  [Update: I have no idea how the Bible didn't come to mind when I wrote that sentence.  I leave the sentence as an exercise in humility].  In The Gita, a warrior has realized the truth of hide-and-go-seek and that none . . . of this . . . matters. An avatar of God (actually, I think it's an avatar of an avatar -- but even this gets interpreted in a lot of ways) comes to our warrior with the gist of "Oh, so you think that by doing nothing, you're going to be blameless?" And proceeds to build arguments against non-action and to argue that action which, if performed without attachment and desire, is just as holy. Wikipedia says of this theology

right work done well is a form of prayer

This forms basically all of my understanding of dharma. (It should be pointed out that I am more of a breadth than depth person, so I could be missing a lot).

It is because we are still in the middle of a game that values appear to us. I do believe there is some connection here to your "right relationship" concept. Pulling a quote for the OP blog post

Understanding the self as a locus of consciousness in a matrix of relationship, one no longer searches for an enemy as the key to understanding every problem, but looks instead for imbalances in relationships.

Enemies/scapegoats are for the "results only" crowd. When things are going well, they will worship the winners under the current paradigm. When things are going badly, their instinct is to find a comfort ritual grounded in that very hierarchy they love. I find it to be an ugly way to play the existence game and one that does little to maximize the high score for everyone.  But, then, I'm not an asshole.

V) I guess that's an essay.

==

I would also be very interested to read your thoughts in essay form, for what it's worth!

Oh, I think this is it. I spent all morning on this and will count it as a one of my long pieces for the week. With your permission, I would like to reprint your side of the discussion on my blog as well, and eventually in the custom-print book I one day plan on paying to have made so I can give out as presents. I have a few friends that will enjoy it. To family I see giving the gift going like this: "Oh, you wanted something store bought. . . Too bad! I made it myself!" as it then sits on their shelf, unread forever.

Discussion on Non-Dualism

This started on Reddit, as a response to a piece of mine on non-dualism.  There is a bit of back and forth.

===
filthyjeeper:

Non dualism is taught in a lot of the mystery schools of the ancient Mediterranean, while dualism traditionally provided the face of mass, public religion. I've been reading some philosophy of the pre-columbian Mexica, which is openly monist - similar to dao, you have teotl, which is the only thing actually in existence - and there's a lot of this there. There is no metaphysical impetus for compassion in that school of thought though, just wisdom, and poise enough to keep upright while walking "on the slippery earth". To Mexica (ie Aztec) philosophers, the only eternal things were movement and transformation, so even compassion was a contextual moving target.

===

Me:

Hmm. In fact, that is a really deep hmm. That's going to take a lot to digest, so please understand anything I write here is very tentative, a real thinking aloud. What may seem like an argument against it is me trying to interact with the idea. I am profoundly interested and frankly moved by it. (I may one day request a bibliography.)

My first thought is that this reminds me of a thrust of the Gita, which is to criticize an addiction to stillness. I think being embedded in a reality gives us dharmas, and the more important thing is to quiet our desires in the practice (not concern ourselves with the fruit of action, but make the action itself as meditation). And for us in times of peace, it seems to me our dharma is compassion.

Or at least it was for my profession of teacher. But that seems backwards. I choose to teach because I wanted to nurture, and like most veteran nurturers I noticed that empathy burns you out, but compassion is sustainable. With that said, I have good reason (in the form this article) to believe that works fine as a professional nurturer, but may very well be a disaster to try as a parent. Different contexts. Different dharamas. I will try to write a long form essay to be more clear what I mean one day.

It's also possible I'm just stuck in Judeo-Christian baggage. I recently read the Illiad because for the first time I had a good enough reason -- I wanted to see that version of the divine to compare it to same claims I had read about how some roots of Christian universalism are in Judaism. . . . I think that's about right. Judaism presents a god who will keep his end of bargains. The Illiad does not. Somehow our Western sense of logos flows from one tradition (probably nothing in the Illiad itself, but I'm giving credit) and equality under the law flows from the other.

Coming back full circle. There are other paths to compassion than this universalism. And I think anyone who clears away enough desire does so little harm that they might as well have compassion. (I may have rambled myself into my main theses regarding what you presented about the Aztecs) But I think I've simply dug in to the point you're making

the only eternal things were movement and transformation, so even compassion was a contextual moving target.

Dharma is a contextual moving target. I'm just glorifying it -- which I don't regret. This also seems to be why daoism is the philosophy of the valley, not of the mountain top. To paraphrase Prisig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: The top of the mountain is the highest bit, but virtually nothing lives there. Yes, the top defines the sides, but life is on the sides.

===
filthyjeeper:

First off, this is a mighty interesting dialogue, and I am humbled by your public fiddling with it. Secondly, my knowledge of eastern thought is limited - I know broad strokes, but the most of my meager familiarity is through Zen. So I may have a different (or underdeveloped) understanding of concepts like dharma. But I'm going to try to keep up.

Contemporary polytheisms (not necessarily paganism, as it's a much broader theological umbrella) have a term that might mirror this idea: right relationship. Whether you're practicing a revival of the ancient Kemetic religion, reconstructing Anglo-Saxon heathenry, Rodnovery, Hellenismos via the Orphic mystery cult, etc., they all have it. And I think you have something in common with most of us in that, we unapologetically glorify it too!

So I'm not sure if you're mired in baggage, exactly. But I think there are a lot of modern conceptions of "good" and "right action" that may be a Christly hangover, may be convergent evolution, may be a mix of both. I've read John Gray, though, so I'm inclined to believe that our modern flavor of thanatophobia definitely has its roots in world-denying doctrines, which tend to be blamed exclusively on Christianity, but is also probably more likely a combination of Christ + scientism. I'm a 4th generation Christian Scientist as well (ex-, thank goodness), so I know this fear of death and illness intimately.

Where gods are concerned, I think there's definitely a kind of sandboxing effect, but I think this happens in Christianity (Abrahamic religions?) as well, just differently. If you ask YHWH to get you a shiny new Ferrari in exchange for more praise and piety, the odds are against you. That kind of specificity doesn't really work. You'll shoot your eye out, kid! For Christians, right relationship is sort of a one-way street, though, and I think that's the difference: you're an ambassador for god, stuck in a foreign embassy until you get to come home, and that's mostly it. For the polytheistic worldview, you're more an ambassador for humans in the presence of gods. It's a very messy relational type of interaction, but right relationship is good etiquette, table manners. It's primarily a social thing, where all the worlds are your neighbors and pissing them off is just a plain bad idea.

I'm part of a group of monists who've been discussing the concept of enlightenment recently, and it made me think of this. I'm monist, in a sense - it's the cosmic background radiation of my practice, but while I'm here in this flesh bundle, there's really no reason to think much about it. I can thoroughly explore that kind of oneness after I'm dead. And this is where the Zen comes in, because I firmly believe "enlightenment" is a process rather than a destination, because there's no straight lines. So in this way, to come back full circle too, right relationship is the culmination of deliberate actions that keep the void - nihilism, one of the few true evils - at bay.

This is also my roundabout way of saying that yes, it is possible to live in a society that skins people alive in sacrifice to a god (of rebirth and renewal, mind), and also be in possession of a fierce desire to live in compassion and right relationship.

I would also be very interested to read your thoughts in essay form, for what it's worth!