I have come suddenly to realize why I love science, even though the maths is heavy going for me and the subjects often dry as hell: what sets my soul free is that words and symbols have agreed-upon meanings and the logical relationships between them are respected in discourse. This Rigidity upsets some people but it is this very thing that allows scientists to build diverse equations, with lots of complex parts, with enough accuracy and precision that the relationships will hold even when there are many subunits of argument joined together.
Trying to have a rational conversation with a postmodernist, by contrast, is like trying to knit a clock: without the ability to define component parts, there is zero chance of making the mechanism function.
And every ideologue I have ever met has been guilty of the same thing; deliberately degrading the ability of language to hold meaning. Refusing to agree on the definition of significant terms even for the purposes of one conversation. The left create wiggle room with the mechanistic/dialectic furphy, deconstructionism denies that correlation between word and meaning can exist and religious types just employ spectacularly floppy definitions that lead to defiensible logical dead-ends. Charity is the Pure Love of Christ.....mmmKay?
So hear/here is a (post)'modern koan for y'all: What is the sound of one hand slapping its own forhead in a perfect journalistic vacuum?
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Commandments for Atheists: I had a bash at some on Quora.
1.Thou shalt not write any commandments unto thee in pseudo-Elizabethan save it be thou hast an understanding of the ways in which thou must alter also the endy-thingys on thy Verbs. Don't mess with this, for I am a grammar Nazi, and did write these commandments with mine own finger (not a touch typist).
2. Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you, but only after a) Being quite sure they want you to do anything unto them, and
b) making sure that you are both into the same kinda stuff, since tastes vary. A LOT. And look out for:
c) Assuming that everyone has the same interests and likes as you is a sign that you are on the Spectrum
3. The world is real. If you are into solipsism, grow up. Assuming that you are the only sentient being in a giant simulation/dream/matrix thingy assumes the existence of an intelligence so colossal that you/the matrix thingy wrote every line of code, every strand of DNA, invented every gadget, wrote Shakespeare and Defoe, as well as every mathematical theorem ever devised. HINT: No you didn't. The second law of thermodynamics works with information too. Therefore: Be modest, believe that the world is real and therefore people, nature and living creatures exist and can suffer, just like you.
4. Observation is the way to learn about the universe. The scientific method helps condense that into actionable principles. It pretty much rocks.
5. Intent is only "a thing" to social animals like primates and dogs. Your dog will forgive you if you step on it accidentally and then make it clear you didn't mean it. The atmosphere is not a pack animal, and does not give a toss about how you feel about it. Nor do endangered species. For non-human, non-canine entities, primate morality is irrelevant. Talk to the biosphere in the language it understands, by not polluting the shit out of it/their habitat. They won't thank you. cos they're not that smart, but you are.
6. If you have an opportunity to do good at little cost to yourself, DO IT. The line of real morality starts at the 0-sum. If an action takes more from the world than it gives the Taker, we call that Evil. Like stealing a tradesman's tools to buy a reefer. EVIL. Like raping someone: 5 minutes of creepy fun that leaves the victim with a lot of emotional shit to deal with, that may take years. EVIL. If you really want to give on a zero sum basis, that's your call, but what we need to look for is ways to make things better that return more than they cost. Small investments in people can change the world.
7. Work. Real self esteem is not given by others, it happens when you feel like you are on your own journey and succeeding. If you've had a tough start, set modest goals and keep trying.
8. Try not to think in terms of sunk costs or lost opportunities. Neither count for shit. Future focused decision making is the only way to go.
9. We are creatures that evolved to live in small groups, and this is still our defining vice. Try not to be tribal and exclude people for silly reasons.
10. Use reason and kindness together as a kind of 2-part putty. It works for me
2. Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you, but only after a) Being quite sure they want you to do anything unto them, and
b) making sure that you are both into the same kinda stuff, since tastes vary. A LOT. And look out for:
c) Assuming that everyone has the same interests and likes as you is a sign that you are on the Spectrum
3. The world is real. If you are into solipsism, grow up. Assuming that you are the only sentient being in a giant simulation/dream/matrix thingy assumes the existence of an intelligence so colossal that you/the matrix thingy wrote every line of code, every strand of DNA, invented every gadget, wrote Shakespeare and Defoe, as well as every mathematical theorem ever devised. HINT: No you didn't. The second law of thermodynamics works with information too. Therefore: Be modest, believe that the world is real and therefore people, nature and living creatures exist and can suffer, just like you.
4. Observation is the way to learn about the universe. The scientific method helps condense that into actionable principles. It pretty much rocks.
5. Intent is only "a thing" to social animals like primates and dogs. Your dog will forgive you if you step on it accidentally and then make it clear you didn't mean it. The atmosphere is not a pack animal, and does not give a toss about how you feel about it. Nor do endangered species. For non-human, non-canine entities, primate morality is irrelevant. Talk to the biosphere in the language it understands, by not polluting the shit out of it/their habitat. They won't thank you. cos they're not that smart, but you are.
6. If you have an opportunity to do good at little cost to yourself, DO IT. The line of real morality starts at the 0-sum. If an action takes more from the world than it gives the Taker, we call that Evil. Like stealing a tradesman's tools to buy a reefer. EVIL. Like raping someone: 5 minutes of creepy fun that leaves the victim with a lot of emotional shit to deal with, that may take years. EVIL. If you really want to give on a zero sum basis, that's your call, but what we need to look for is ways to make things better that return more than they cost. Small investments in people can change the world.
7. Work. Real self esteem is not given by others, it happens when you feel like you are on your own journey and succeeding. If you've had a tough start, set modest goals and keep trying.
8. Try not to think in terms of sunk costs or lost opportunities. Neither count for shit. Future focused decision making is the only way to go.
9. We are creatures that evolved to live in small groups, and this is still our defining vice. Try not to be tribal and exclude people for silly reasons.
10. Use reason and kindness together as a kind of 2-part putty. It works for me
Sunday, September 21, 2014
The Eco Spartan is Dead, and will not be missed.
When I say The Eco Spartan, what I mean the heroic ideal of the Green Movement.
S/he is seldom painted in plain relief, but if you immerse yourself in Green literature long enough, the Ideal, the Vanishing Point from which the construction lines must radiate becomes clear. The invisible point that lends an appearance of depth to the perspective of that worldview, is most definitely a Person.
(from http://communities.ptc.com/blogs/hello_cad/)
Someone who uses little, contributes much, recycles everything, eats vegan and reads recycled counterculture books in the perpetual twilight of a low-energy globe; adopts needy non-European children instead of bearing her own, spends his/her free time advocating for those less fortunate, works with people for governments or NGO's, and is a leader, too, somehow.
S/he advocates for Peace, without taking sides. S/he plants things. S/he is the friend of the downtrodden.
But this ideal is not a Platonic Ideal, a phantasm of qualia that define the Perfect example of its type; no, this is a Vanishing Point, a righteous immolation of the Self around which the great wheel of an Ideology turns!
I think it's time to call Bullshit.
No human can actually do this, and the dissonance of real life is clear if you look at his/her transaction record.
Lots of short haul air travel, producing a greater CO2 footprint than the average. Nearly as much household energy use as the Average Bastard. Suspect vegan foods like Chia that impact poor communities.
Biodiesel, then No Biodiesel, then Biodiesel again. Unclear commitment to Renewable energy. Ambiguous position on Nuclear energy. Ignorance of Thorium.
Ignorance of agriculture in practice. Ignorance of animal welfare in practice.
Advocacy for Refugees from the Middle East, then advocacy against the Ritual Slaughter of animals.
Anti-Israel, but silent on Syria. Pro-headscarf, but unwilling to unpack the ideology that goes with.
No-one ought to feel bad for being done with this ideal. It is a recipe for discontent.
We do need to reduce CO2, it would seem.
So lets just DO that.
Solarize your house, and your hot water. Then stop fucking worrying about it. Really. Leave your damn lights on.
It's now OK.
Size your solar to your Air-con. Take the name plate rating on your AC, then add 100%. You will be right. It will cost less than a fancy watch.
Get an electric car, then stop worrying about fucking buses. Life is too goddamn short for that shit. A basic Prius is not that dear, and you can get plug in packs for them.
If we are going to fix our environmental issues, it is going to be with Science, not by Grasping the Social Levers.
I bloody guarantee it.
S/he is seldom painted in plain relief, but if you immerse yourself in Green literature long enough, the Ideal, the Vanishing Point from which the construction lines must radiate becomes clear. The invisible point that lends an appearance of depth to the perspective of that worldview, is most definitely a Person.
(from http://communities.ptc.com/blogs/hello_cad/)
Someone who uses little, contributes much, recycles everything, eats vegan and reads recycled counterculture books in the perpetual twilight of a low-energy globe; adopts needy non-European children instead of bearing her own, spends his/her free time advocating for those less fortunate, works with people for governments or NGO's, and is a leader, too, somehow.
S/he advocates for Peace, without taking sides. S/he plants things. S/he is the friend of the downtrodden.
But this ideal is not a Platonic Ideal, a phantasm of qualia that define the Perfect example of its type; no, this is a Vanishing Point, a righteous immolation of the Self around which the great wheel of an Ideology turns!
I think it's time to call Bullshit.
No human can actually do this, and the dissonance of real life is clear if you look at his/her transaction record.
Lots of short haul air travel, producing a greater CO2 footprint than the average. Nearly as much household energy use as the Average Bastard. Suspect vegan foods like Chia that impact poor communities.
Biodiesel, then No Biodiesel, then Biodiesel again. Unclear commitment to Renewable energy. Ambiguous position on Nuclear energy. Ignorance of Thorium.
Ignorance of agriculture in practice. Ignorance of animal welfare in practice.
Advocacy for Refugees from the Middle East, then advocacy against the Ritual Slaughter of animals.
Anti-Israel, but silent on Syria. Pro-headscarf, but unwilling to unpack the ideology that goes with.
No-one ought to feel bad for being done with this ideal. It is a recipe for discontent.
We do need to reduce CO2, it would seem.
So lets just DO that.
Solarize your house, and your hot water. Then stop fucking worrying about it. Really. Leave your damn lights on.
It's now OK.
Size your solar to your Air-con. Take the name plate rating on your AC, then add 100%. You will be right. It will cost less than a fancy watch.
Get an electric car, then stop worrying about fucking buses. Life is too goddamn short for that shit. A basic Prius is not that dear, and you can get plug in packs for them.
If we are going to fix our environmental issues, it is going to be with Science, not by Grasping the Social Levers.
I bloody guarantee it.
Freedom Is Phlogiston
I have been thinking about a line from John Ralston Saul's splendid little book, The Doubters Companion. It goes something like:
"Freedom is an empty space, that needs to be re-occupied each day."
This struck me as quite insightful. At first it led me to think about hippies in Guy Fawkes masks loitering in a financial district, but on deeper reflection it made more sense: Freedom, as a Thing, does not exist of itself; you cannot fetch a pound of it, any more than you can obtain a sack of Vacuum, or darkness, or cold. We all know what these things are, we all need them to survive, but in actual fact these values are really just the absence of their supposed opposite.
Vacuum is a space with less pressure than its surroundings, darkness is a condition of less light, cold is the absence of heat energy. And Freedom, I would assert, is a space that is somewhat reduced in political power.
The little bubble of personal autonomy, we have asserted as our right in long and tedious conflicts with kings, presidents, priests, parents and vagabonds; we have asserted that there exists a social space from which we will not be moved, without a damned good reason.
I think that from this perspective, it becomes clear that Freedom is in fact like Phlogiston. It was invoked to balance an equation; the mass suggested is correct, but the value is itself on the wrong side of the equality, with it's sign reversed.
When we say freedom we either mean the political autonomy that is a manifestation of Power, or we mean the limitation on political power placed there by the collective might of the polity as a whole to keep locally concentrated power from seeping into the spaces that we have assigned the powerless individual: the small void in the power block afforded every citizen by way of right.
It becomes clear that from this perspective certain kinds of rights cannot exist, since it is impossible to negate a negative by subtraction. A good example is the Rights of the Child from the UN, which includes lots of fine ideas, but under a false premise. Children have a right to be Loved, it asserts; but if Rights are themselves a negation of power, it is impossible to create Love by prohibiting Not-Loving. It simply fails.
Rights must therefore be underwritten by positive obligations, which will inevitably negate other Rights. And if it is not possible to assign a binding positive obligation to underwrite a Right, it is easy to demonstrate that that right does not exist.
This perspective further calls into question the legitimacy of violent protest; put simply, if the essence of freedom is the restraint of power, it a intolerable to exploit the space afforded by freedom to attack that power, rather than seeking to restrain it by lawful means.
A guard dog must frequently be chained up during business hours to prevent legitimate customers getting chewed on, but it is intolerable to allow the dog so restrained to be kicked. And if the dog meets the kicker in the hours of darkness, it is almost inevitable that the reaction will be unpleasant.
I would assert, therefore, that unless the power is absolutely evil. seeking to annihilate a guiltless group who are not at arms against it. that there is no excuse for violent protest. I simply do not believe that it is justified. The obligation of every member of a democracy is to speak reasonably, as loud as is needed to be heard. If violence is first categorically and absolutely disavowed, then shouting is not an act of violence.
We need to make a rational noise, in defense of Democratic values, that will be heard. And restore the contention of Ideas, and not of people, races, parties.
"Freedom is an empty space, that needs to be re-occupied each day."
This struck me as quite insightful. At first it led me to think about hippies in Guy Fawkes masks loitering in a financial district, but on deeper reflection it made more sense: Freedom, as a Thing, does not exist of itself; you cannot fetch a pound of it, any more than you can obtain a sack of Vacuum, or darkness, or cold. We all know what these things are, we all need them to survive, but in actual fact these values are really just the absence of their supposed opposite.
Vacuum is a space with less pressure than its surroundings, darkness is a condition of less light, cold is the absence of heat energy. And Freedom, I would assert, is a space that is somewhat reduced in political power.
The little bubble of personal autonomy, we have asserted as our right in long and tedious conflicts with kings, presidents, priests, parents and vagabonds; we have asserted that there exists a social space from which we will not be moved, without a damned good reason.
I think that from this perspective, it becomes clear that Freedom is in fact like Phlogiston. It was invoked to balance an equation; the mass suggested is correct, but the value is itself on the wrong side of the equality, with it's sign reversed.
When we say freedom we either mean the political autonomy that is a manifestation of Power, or we mean the limitation on political power placed there by the collective might of the polity as a whole to keep locally concentrated power from seeping into the spaces that we have assigned the powerless individual: the small void in the power block afforded every citizen by way of right.
It becomes clear that from this perspective certain kinds of rights cannot exist, since it is impossible to negate a negative by subtraction. A good example is the Rights of the Child from the UN, which includes lots of fine ideas, but under a false premise. Children have a right to be Loved, it asserts; but if Rights are themselves a negation of power, it is impossible to create Love by prohibiting Not-Loving. It simply fails.
Rights must therefore be underwritten by positive obligations, which will inevitably negate other Rights. And if it is not possible to assign a binding positive obligation to underwrite a Right, it is easy to demonstrate that that right does not exist.
This perspective further calls into question the legitimacy of violent protest; put simply, if the essence of freedom is the restraint of power, it a intolerable to exploit the space afforded by freedom to attack that power, rather than seeking to restrain it by lawful means.
A guard dog must frequently be chained up during business hours to prevent legitimate customers getting chewed on, but it is intolerable to allow the dog so restrained to be kicked. And if the dog meets the kicker in the hours of darkness, it is almost inevitable that the reaction will be unpleasant.
I would assert, therefore, that unless the power is absolutely evil. seeking to annihilate a guiltless group who are not at arms against it. that there is no excuse for violent protest. I simply do not believe that it is justified. The obligation of every member of a democracy is to speak reasonably, as loud as is needed to be heard. If violence is first categorically and absolutely disavowed, then shouting is not an act of violence.
We need to make a rational noise, in defense of Democratic values, that will be heard. And restore the contention of Ideas, and not of people, races, parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
