tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48546196551255123582024-02-06T21:33:51.772-08:00LitmocracyAbout me: I'm doing my best to be peaceful, non-violent, and humble as I seek epiphanies and try to help others find them too. I identify with my kids and everyone that my life will affect into the future, so I take a long term view of things. Religion and taxes are avoidable evils. Spirituality, freedom, individual sovereignty, and voluntary cooperation will eventually replace them - maybe in my lifetime if you help.Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.comBlogger218125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-15883969900129929392024-01-12T13:53:00.001-08:002024-01-12T13:53:12.933-08:00Letters of Support<div dir="ltr">You may know someone who is facing criminal charges and possibly prison time, and feel a strong desire to write a letter of support for that person. This happens to be a very useful activity and so I have been thinking of how one might approach such a task. I spoke with my lawyer about it and have incorporated some of his suggestions into the following list.<div><br></div><div>I am presenting a list of topics in the hope that one of them appeals to you more strongly than the others because that will have a strong positive effect on the strength of your letter and how well it influences those who read it to align with love instead of fear, restitution instead of retribution, healing instead of vengeance, and a freer world rather than a more controlled one.</div><div><br></div><div>What effect did the person in question have on you? Was it positive or negative? It might be confronting, but even if it was negative, it may have improved your life or the lives of others. Your readers are interested in improving the lives of everyone, or at least that is an assumption we should make, and a perception they strongly desire that we hold. If your letter aligns with this global improvement idea, it will bring even the most horrible and authoritarian government people at least a little closer to that ideal.</div><div><br></div><div>Is this person currently having a positive effect on your life? Do you feel that you need them for something? What about the future? Do you see their role in your life in the future as becoming stronger or weaker, and for a positive or a negative outcome?</div><div><br></div><div>Will keeping this person away from the public provide the public with some kind of benefit? Will it take away some kind of benefit? Supposing it does both add and remove benefits, what is the net effect?</div><div><br></div><div>How do you imagine the close connection between this person and the prison staff that will inevitably develop if he or she is imprisoned will affect the prison staff? How will it affect this person? What will be this person's effect on the other prisoners and their effect on this person?</div><div><br></div><div>What do you perceive is the level of honesty, kindness, generosity, knowledge, inspiration, and creativity of this person? Do you imagine those levels will go up or down because of imprisonment? How will this punishment help this person become a better version of themselves?</div><div><br></div><div><div>Do you imagine those levels will go up or down because of leniency? How will leniency help this person become a better version of themselves?</div><div><br></div></div><div>Do you have examples of things this person has done that you believe they will not be able to do if they are imprisoned? Are these things that will be missed or will people be happy that they have ceased?</div><div><br></div><div>What do we create and what do we destroy when we put this person in prison and what is the nature of those things?</div><div><br></div><div>How will the outcome of this person's case affect your perception of the justice system, the government, and the people running those institutions? Will it depend on how the outcome is produced or simply on the outcome itself? Are you open to having your views of this person and/or the government and the people running it altered by these proceedings? How should they go to maintain an ever-improving world?</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you for pondering!</div></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-30479222328443625082023-11-22T14:44:00.001-08:002023-11-23T18:17:51.097-08:00Molly and Her Freedom<div dir="ltr">There is a cat who has grown closer to my heart than any cat before. Her name is Molly. She is an indoor cat, but she loves to go outside. Fortunately, she is tolerant of my desire to have her inside most of the time. I once forgot to let her back in when I was going to bed and woke up in the morning thinking about why she hadn't visited me all night. She often sits on my chest or lies next to me while I sleep, and she wasn't there and hadn't been.<div><br /></div><div>I went out and looked around, searched the neighbor's yards, and even went and rang their doorbells. No one answered. I couldn't find her. I don't like to worry. What's so is so, and if that includes her demise, so be it. I went on my daily walk hoping she may have followed that path because of some kind of mystical connection between us. I imagined the worst, and I imagined the best, hoping for the latter the whole time.</div><div><br /></div><div>We lost another cat in the last year, named Lala. She was very old and dearly loved by everyone in the household, including several other cats. She's buried in our backyard. She was suffering a little and I did my best to comfort her, half hoping that she would be comforted in my arms until her last moment. I had stuff to do and so left her resting and wrapped up. She had passed by the time I returned, I believe having hung on in my presence, despite the suffering, just because she loved me as much as I loved her, passing soon after I left her to end in peace.</div><div><br /></div><div>On the day after I had left Molly out all night, I had stuff to do and couldn't think of what more I could do to find her, so I went and did what I needed. Kim texted me that a neighbor had brought her back to the house, and that I should be more careful. Molly is now far more interested in being outside, and I accommodate her, probably more than Kim prefers. The joy she feels being outside rubs off on me so it's very difficult for me to deny her.</div><div><br /></div><div>Cats suck at cooperation. Compassion, comprehension, and cooperation cure, combat, and counteract coercion. Cats seem to be good at compassion and comprehension, but certainly not cooperation. I'm trying to teach Molly. When I want to come back inside, or I feel she has been out long enough, I do my best to coax her to come back into the house. She has come back in willingly, but only twice. Once, it was cold and dark and she had been out long enough for her own desire and asked to come back in. The other time, I wanted to come back in and she came to the door and went in before me. Baby steps!</div><div><br /></div><div>This will be posted on <a href="http://diamondvalleycompanions.com">diamondvalleycompanions.com</a> if the owner likes it enough.</div></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-48325694485890812802023-05-14T09:35:00.001-07:002023-06-04T07:36:29.337-07:00On how politics causes problems<div>There is a disconnect in my mind relative to "the controllers" and all of politics. Despite the apparent lack of morals and good sense among those who legislate, they have become less physically destructive. You may notice that most of the damage done by foolish legislation and all other forms of political control comes into existence at a very local level. The people on the bottom of the government (teachers and police) create most of it just by "doing their job" and it isn't all that much damage. FEAR is the thing that keeps most people down, and their efforts (legislation, media manipulation) are intended to maintain the fear, because it has become (and will continue to become) harder and harder to actually damage people for our defiance. That is the natural course. The disconnect is that we are afraid of being reprimanded and represented as "bad people" for ignoring stupid rules because "we are a nation ruled by laws" as the story goes. It seems to me we are a species ruled by conscience, but we ignore it too much, just as school taught us to. School teaches that as along as you obey, you are a good person. It doesn't explicitly say "obey US," but that is what the activity there shows their instruction to mean. Obedience is fine, but only obedience to that which is a justified ruler, and there is only one thing that fits the role once you come of age: your conscience. When our species learns that fear of reprimand and reputational damage from defiance of law is a potent source of evil, politics won't matter any more. Let's stop blaming politicians for telling us what to do when we do it and then suffer. It's our job to consider their demands before yielding to them, and to ignore them when that is the better course.<br /></div><div>🔥</div><br /> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-39786400379416732172023-04-22T15:57:00.001-07:002023-04-24T17:05:06.256-07:00Classifying Authority<div dir="ltr"><div class="body markup" dir="auto"><p>I see authority as two-faced. It can be good and it can be evil. It is possible for a good person to use evil authority to do good, and that is a wonderful thing except for the effect of encouraging evil authority to persist. It should not, and whatever good the good person accomplishes with it is tainted with that encouragement. I suppose that makes me a purist and I'll have to keep thinking about it. I want to describe what it is, for me, that divides good authority from evil authority.</p><p>I imagine that as humanity developed language and discovered that it is often useful both to those who express it and to those who receive it. This is mainly because language gives us the ability to explain things, and some of us figure things out. Isn't it nice that someone who figured something out is able to create language that helps you figure it out too? Now I can drill down to the difference...</p><p><span>"You </span><em>must not</em><span> ..." is something that authority says, whether it's good or evil. It is the nature of authority to tell us that we </span><em>must not</em><span> ..., or sometimes that we </span><em>must</em><span> ... . We wanted a good word to describe those whose declarations turned out to be helpful, and that, in my mind, is where the word "authority" was invented, probably starting out as something like "author", someone who knows enough to write down helpful information. Authorities figure stuff out and then help us navigate reality. I love that!</span></p><p>Sometimes, we question authority, and this is perfectly natural, normal, and helpful. In fact, I think we don't do it enough. There's a reason we don't do it enough though: that too much of the evil side of authority has been at work. The main difference is the answer to the question every child knows to ask: why? Good authority explains how the universe might hurt you if you ignore the claim. Evil authority may attempt to put it in the same terms, but what makes it evil is that the authority itself, or some agent of the authority, will hurt you, not the universe.</p><p><span>Sometimes, we ignore the demand or claim of an authority that tells us we </span><em>must</em><span> … or </span><em>must not …</em><span>, discover that the authority was mistaken about that claim, and if we are brave enough (</span><strong>which shouldn't be a requirement!</strong><span>) we will let them know. A good authority will analyze this and get back to us, kindly, appreciatively, and either thank us for helping them become a better authority, or point out some risk we took, perhaps without knowing we took it, or both.</span></p><p><span>A bad authority does not want to change their working model of reality to reflect your evidence that they were wrong , and so instead of thanking you or offering more explanation, they find a way to make it seem like you were wrong, not </span><em>logically</em><span> wrong, but </span><em>morally</em><span> wrong, for “defying” them. Rather than bending their model of reality to fit the reality you show them, they try to bend you to fit the model they have. They drift from an accurate understanding of reality because </span><em>we respect them too much</em><span> to identify their errors. </span><strong>We should ignore them until they improve their behavior.</strong></p><p>Every authority can be classified using two questions. The answers to these two questions are nearly always correlated:</p><ol><li><p>What causes my suffering if I ignore the claim that I must or must not do a thing?</p></li><li><p>What does the authority say should change if I point out that I ignore its claim that I must or must not do the thing, but suffered none of the predicted consequences?</p></li></ol><p>I mean the honest answers, not necessarily the answers that evil authorities give. If they know they are evil, they will likely lie or mislead you if you rely on them for the answers to these questions. Even if they don’t know they are using evil authority, they might lie because they don’t comprehend the full chain of causation for their own behavior and they might think it's helpful to distract you from the truth when they see that it is actually the authority or system that creates the authority that will hurt you when you ignore the claim.</p><p><span>The correlation, once you discover the honest answers is: answer 1 being </span><em>the authority or the system that created it</em><span> goes with answer 2 being that </span><em>you</em><span> should be the one to change, and </span><em>any other answer</em><span> to question 1 goes with the answer that </span><em>the authority or its expression of the claim</em><span> should change.</span></p><p><span>I posted this on <a href="https://dscotese.substack.com/p/classifying-authority">my Substack</a> too, which I think is better than blogger.</span></p></div></div>Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-89607567276395364312023-04-08T16:27:00.001-07:002023-05-09T18:55:03.034-07:00To Young Jobseekers<div dir="ltr">You will be asked to fill out forms that may not apply to you. For example, The W-9 form, Part II says "Under penalties of perjury, I certify that... I am a U.S. citizen or other U.S. person (defined below)". The definition below says "you are considered a U.S. person if you are: An individual who is a U.S. citizen or U.S. resident alien... ." This probably makes you think that if you live in one of the fifty states, you are being honest when you fill out this form. But let's look at the relevant law.</div><div dir="ltr"><br /></div><div dir="ltr">What is the relevant law? They <i>might </i>tell you, but you can double check my assumption that it's Title 26 of the US Code by examining the references to law in <a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw9.pdf" target="_blank">the instructions</a>. I found "or any individual retirement plan as defined in section 7701(a)(37)" on page 4 of Form W-9 (Rev. 10-2018). Sure enough <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701">26 USC 7701(a)(37)</a> defines "individual retirement plan".</div><div dir="ltr"><br />26 U.S. Code § 7701(a)(9) says "The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia." Sounds good, right? But check this out:<br />26 U.S. Code § 7701(a)(10) says "The term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title."<br /><br />You'll notice that both of these definitions use "include" (or "includes"), so lets add a third one:<br />26 U.S. Code § 7701(c) says "The terms "includes" and "including" when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined."<br /><br />"Otherwise" isn't defined, so we can take it to mean "What you have when you remove this part," like it means everywhere and always (except in laws, if there are any, where "otherwise" is given a custom definition). So if we do that to 7701(a)(9) & (10), we get these:<br /><br />"The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia [and does not exclude other things within this definition]."<br /><br />"The term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title, [and does not exclude other things within this definition]."<br /><br />These are both inane, I know, because there aren't any other things within those definitions! It was written that way to get you to make the mistake of ignoring the definitions. If we ignore the definitions, we would assume that a "US Person" is a resident or citizen of any of the fifty states. But the definitions in the law don't list them or describe them in any way. I think this is because that would be unconstitutional.<br /><br />Huh??<br /><br />If citizens and residents of the fifty states were bound by this internal revenue law, the income tax would be unconstitutional because it would then be a direct unapportioned tax; the income tax revenue from each state is not proportional to that state's population. Such a direct tax is forbidden in two places in the constitution (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, and Article 1, Section 2). The Sixteenth Amendment didn't repeal the text in either of those places, but rather reversed an earlier Supreme Court decision. The sixteenth amendment allowed a tax on income generated by property without apportionment even if that property was personally owned.<br /><div><br /></div><div>I know that law tends to be well constructed so that it is understandable, so I did some searching at https://www.law.cornell.edu/ to better understand the issues discussed above. Here's what I found:</div><div><br /></div><div><div>In Chapter 113C of 18 USC, Part 1 (<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340">18 USC 2340</a>), "United States" includes the "several states of the United States."</div><div><br /></div><div>In ALL of 26 USC, according to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701">26 USC 7701</a>, "United States", when used in a geographical sense, means "the District of Columbia". It includes "the States," but "State" must be construed to mean "the District of Columbia" where it is the only way "to carry out provisions of this title". Two things to note here are: 1) The definition of "United States" in title 26 does not use the term "several states" and 2) Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the US Constitution forbids the provisions of title 26 from applying if "United States" includes the several states since, the tax is on "wages" which are defined as paid to an "employee" which "includes an officer, employee, or public official of the United States", and if that included people working for any of the "several states," it would be a direct tax.</div><div><br /></div><div>In chapter 44, "The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone)." In <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921">18 USC 921(a)(2)</a> "The several states" is missing again. This chapter is about firearms.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331">18 USC 2331</a> uses the phrase "of the United States or of any State," suggesting that the same extra text ("or of any State") would be included where necessary for the law to be clear, because "United States" (as we saw before) does not include the several states.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1015">15 USC 1015</a> defines states using the term "several states."</div><div><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/10241">42 USC 10241</a> also uses the term "several states."</div><div><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/7/1205.22">7 CFR 1205.22</a> uses the term "50 states" in the definition of "state"</div><div>"several states" appears 522 times in the US Code.</div><div>Out of the first ten occurrences of "state means" (where "state" is capitalized and quoted), only one includes the several states without using either "50 states" or "several states" or "States of the Union" or "a State of the United States". That is <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1962c-5">42 U.S. Code § 1962c–5</a>, which says this: "“State” means a State, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands or Guam. ..." <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1359aa">7 USC 1359AA</a> also defines "State" using the word "State". 26 USC 7701 does not include "state" in the definition of "state" like 42 USC 1962c-5 does.</div><div><br /></div><div>Even <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4482">26 USC 4482</a> specifies that "State" means "any state or the District of Columbia" but it's referring to the definition of State for Title 26, which is given at 26 USC 7701.</div><div>"The term “State” shall be construed" appears exactly once in all of the laws of the United States, and it is under a definition that applies to the entirety of Title 26. A search for "state shall be construed" at https://www.law.cornell.edu/ produces 17 results (on 4/7/2023 at 4:45pm PST), and the one at 7701 is listed. Note that the quotations marks around "state" in the definition didn't have an effect. All but four of these occurrences are prohibitions against construing. Those requiring construing include the one at 7701, one in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/new-york/6-NYCRR-651.74">New York code</a>, and two occurrences in the notes for <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021">USC 50 3021</a>, one about Indian reservations and the other requiring the inclusion of territories and possessions of the United States in "United States".<br /><br />I suspect that, as the folks at weissparis.com explain, if you were born in one of the fifty states, you mislead the IRS if you identify yourself as a United States Citizen, because they are using the definition in their controlling code (26 USC), and that would mean you're a citizen of the District of Columbia. That makes them your landlord because Maryland and Virginia gave that land to them a couple hundred years ago.</div></div></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-35764224558961273112023-04-06T12:37:00.001-07:002023-04-06T12:37:44.136-07:00Dream Log, 4/6/2023: Why We Don't Feel Our Oneness<div dir="ltr">This morning, near the end my two day fast (46.5 hours, but during the 8 hours before it started, I had only about a half a cup of OJ), I had a dream. I woke up ready to interpret it for myself, but it disappeared from my memory before I could think about it much. Instinct said it was ok, because I already learned it and I didn't need to worry about it. I felt a little anger, but trust! Then I started thinking about something else and the feeling that this is what I learned is very strong:<br><br>1) Vishnu is the awareness in the universe, capable of self-deception, but incapable of making something lasting (what we call "reality") with it.<br>2) Dreams come to us because we have self-deception and whatever it creates can only be in the imagination.<br>3) When we dream without self deception, we call it manifestation because it results in reality being created.<br>4) The "separate" or isolated individual exists intentionally in order to provide more than one perspective because the self is capable of deception and the other is capable of seeing it.<br>5) (This is the one I thought of after waking up) When a thought process leads to the conclusion and motivation to take action that affects another (another perspective), there are two things that might go wrong:<br>5A) The one using the thought process might be suffering from self-deception.<br>5B) The affected other(s) might not be capable of understanding the thought process.<br><br>One solution to this problem is to ensure that those affected by the taken action (understand and) agree with the thought process. This is the foundation of democracy, but since democracy imposes the action on the "no more than half" of the people, it is about half good and half evil. 5B prevents this solution and leaves the only other solution (which many of us often feel) and that is the desire of the affected other(s) being contrary to the action.<br><br>The simple answer to "Why did I have a dream that I can't remember?" is: It's important to avoid imposing yourself on others (including cats, our cats tell me psychically) unless you're nearly 100% sure that you aren't deceiving yourself.<br></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-66156168088076362332023-01-28T07:38:00.001-08:002023-01-28T07:38:46.731-08:00One, which I wrote a few decades ago.<div dir="ltr"> There are a few things you might find helpful. My life, as I remember it, started when my best friend asked me to a Bible Study with a bunch of Lutherans. I was about twelve. When all was said and done, I was attending the University of California at San Diego. I had aged almost ten years, and learned a lot of practical stuff about religion. I was spending a lot of time with a certain guy, and he and I agreed that acceptance is a far more important concept than any religion. I'd been living it since I was twelve, but it took me about eight years to understand what the hell I was doing. I have two and a half more years worth of experience after that too, now, but these haven't contributed much to my understanding of religion.<br> In order to accept the people I lived with and loved to be around, it became necessary to accept the ways they understood our situation here on the reality side of the dream fence. There were representatives from different Christian religions, as well as atheists, agnostics, and people who would have to be categorized into other neat-sounding names, many of which started with A (just like the alphabet... Hmmm... does that mean something? Is that a sign?)<br> We liked to avoid the categories, so we used category names like "Generation X" and "non-denominational," but it wasn't really effective. People still made harmful and often senseless generalizations. It finally came down to a simple strategy: A new acquaintance would be instructed, at an opportune moment, perhaps in answer to a presumptuous question about personal philosophy, thus: "Don't categorize me." Since this method avoids the name of a category, it seemed to work well.<br> In my quest to intellectually and morally accept my friends, I began reconciling various religious concepts from different people into one holey comprehensive personal philosophy and explanation. This thing I made is quite valuable to me, and I think you might be more prone to happiness and comfort with the rest of the universe if I explain it to you. It will show you that sense can be made out of all the gibberish that people from other categories stick to so religiously.<br> Let's start with a simple one.<br> Oh well.<br> Let's start with God, Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, etc. Socrates realized that to define it as "omnipotent" meant there was only one. I grant that there is only one, and anyone who wants to talk about more than one is going to have to admit that they are talking about something else. In fact, instead of using a word from a standard category, I use the word one. The One, according to most categories, never began and will never end. To put temporal limits on it is not proper. I agree with that.<br> The One created the universe. This statement, although it sounds like an answer to a big question, really is quite meaningless. We aren't quite sure how to define the universe, and the word create, being very close in practical meaning to "evolve," "build," and even "invent," really can't be applied to such a concept as the universe. Essentially, it's like "adding up to infinity," or "jumping over the sky," or any other group of words which merely approach meaning, but don't really make the cut.<br> The One watches each of us. We can imagine people, cats, dogs, and even grasshoppers "watching" us. We imagine their eyes, and that they are directed toward us. The one, however, being outside of time, can't be expected to receive or interpret light that bounces off of us, so this "watching" means something deeper. It means that the One is aware of our actions. Practically, it works as a deterrent to crime, so let's keep it. Anyway, lots of criminals know when they commit crimes, and they have to live with the knowledge afterwards. If the next paragraph is acceptable, then the One clearly watches each of us.<br> The One is inside you. It is rather curious that a large amount of atoms, gathered together in a particularly ordered array, supports awareness. I write of the brain. I like brains. They seem so alive, almost as if they are aware of their surroundings. Hooked up to some input equipment (like ears, eyes, or prosthetic hearing aids, or whatever) they actually are aware! I suppose sometimes they are aware without any input equipment. Do knives and forks do that? Too simple? What about computers? What about beetles? What about the beetle whose environment was simulated by a supercomputer, whose DNA structure was recorded in that computer, whose cell growth, from conception all the way through the larva stage and beyond into adult life and even mating, was also simulated, whose behavior in response to the simulated environment was also simulated? Why is any part of this universe (which contains only quarks, mind you, and nothing else, or so the theory goes...) aware at all? I may as well ask why is there gravity. Why is there gravity? I have an answer for that too, but you'll have to wait.<br> That awareness that you feel when you are awake and paying attention is the same one I feel. Everyone feels it every now and then. It's all the same awareness, it's just not attached all the time. It's like the water in a marsh. It's all the same water, but each puddle is separated from time to time as the level changes. We are but puddles in the marsh, while the One is the water in the marsh (along with the plants, the dirt, the light, air, and all the rest of the quarks we would include in our mental concept of a marsh). Talk to me, and our awareness will touch and we will be a mini One. Some old sage, speaking from the One's point of view, said "where two or more are gathered, there I am."<br> Over the years, of course, different jerkies, sociopaths, and other miscreants have tried to sell us these stories about the One exhibiting human emotions. These things take brains and amino acids to happen, and the only brains and amino acids the One has access to are in animals (humans are animate too, you know). What all those jokers were trying to do is manipulate us into behaving the way they thought we should behave. I am of the rather strong and pointed opinion that we ought to behave exactly the way we think we should behave. And we should really think it before we behave it. Thinking is severely underrated. In any case, the only exhibition of human emotion the One ever shows is shown through humans.<br> Thinking and awareness are really the same thing, I think. The distinction we make between the two is that in the former, we use this kind of limited code called language. If you think without words, you are being aware, and that's a bit more powerful that limiting yourself to words. In the beginning was the word, and the word was... I don't think that is really accurate. The word only came about when we discovered that by making different sounds, those around us with big enough brains could understand us better. Up until then, it was all done without words, and there was only awareness. Perhaps the author of that line meant that in the beginning was awareness, and the awareness was... If the author didn't mean that, then allow me to strongly assert it: Before everything else, there was awareness, and that awareness is in everyone and everything, and it is the One.<br> What the One really does, as we all know, especially if we were the least bit self-conscious in high school, is turn a bunch of atoms and physical interactions into an experience, and a being to experience it, and, with the complexity of the brain, an experience (though shady and unclear) of the future and the past. Indeed, when you are aware of your environment, you can often predict what will happen next. Try it on a freeway, maybe you'll avoid pissing someone off. This prediction stuff reaches far out into strange and wonderful areas of our lives, like the personal relationships we form between ourselves and those of other categories. It makes us aware that entering a category limits our propensity to enjoy life with others. At least it made me aware of that. That awareness that it gave me is what has driven me to write all this down. You might say this is an inspired text.<br> The guy with whom I came to the conclusion that acceptance is the most important thing began our relationship with an intense probe into my religion. I was raised Catholic, and had been forced by the mathematical nature of my mind to reconcile the tenets of my religion with physical experience. His questions enlightened us both. Perhaps some of the following questions, taken from him as well as from friends and relatives, will interest you...<br> "Do you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?" My answer at the time it was asked was necessarily "yes." I was obligated by my religion to have that answer. Problems arose, however, when I insisted on explaining what it meant to me. It meant that I was going to pattern my life after Jesus in order to be saved from the cold, lonely, frightening despair that comes over each of us in turn (often right before the winter solstice), and to ensure that if I am to continue in my awareness even after my brain stops supporting it, that I be aware of happiness instead of that despair. They complained to me that there was more to it than patterning one's life, but they could never give a real example of anything but patterning one's life. I finally assumed that they required that there be some element of mystery about exactly what it meant. I have come to assume that most religious people require that every one of their religious tenets be impossible to explain in explicit realistic terms, lest it be reduced to mere physics. I sympathize with this view, and I shall soon explain why.<br> "Don't you believe there is a supernatural element to life?" (I most definitely do not.) "How can you be so sure there isn't?" As a matter of fact, electricity, lightening, rain storms, volcanoes, earthquakes, trees, fire, wind, and even streams have, at one time in history, been regarded as supernatural. This means that they are beyond nature. When we discover something "beyond nature," we submit it to tests and experiments to see if we can invent a system to explain it. When we see that it can be "reduced" to this explanation (granting some random noise, which we have already decided is perfectly natural), we no longer feel any religious experience for it. We somehow assume that the "something" is not spiritual, ethereal, or worthy of the awe we feel for something like a "miracle." The assumption rises from the ashes of the mystery.<br> When our ancestors worshipped fire because they felt that it was a spirit, or a manifestation of the god of fire, their lives were enriched with spirituality. When someone tested the fire, and found that when the stuff in the air gets hot enough, it glows, and that chemical reactions can produce the heat required for this, a curious thing happened. Fire no longer had a spiritual aspect. It had been reduced to natural things, and could no longer enrich people with spirituality. The mystery had gone up in smoke. The law seems to be that if you can understand it, you can't get any spiritual enrichment from it. I am about to prove that such a law is incorrect. I will not simply show an example of a person getting spiritual enrichment from something that is easily understood, but rather, I will show that the feeling of having understood something is quite imaginary. It is something other than understanding that removes its spirituality.<br> A child may ask "Why is fire hot?" The ancestral answer, which supports the spirituality of fire, might have been "Fire is hot because the god of fire commands respect in that he must never be touched." This allows the child to be in awe of fire. The scientific answer is "Fire is caused when chemical reactions which require heat end up producing more heat when they have completed. The extra heat they make goes to other areas and causes more chemical reactions, and eventually a whole lot of chemical reactions occur, and the heat makes parts of the air so hot that it glows, and we see a flame." The child may then ask "Why does hot air glow?" The answer is that molecules have clouds of electrons that jump from level to level around their nucleus when they are hot and some of the level-jumping emits visible photons. But why do they jump in levels? Because their possible energy states are discreet instead of continuous. But why aren't they continuous? The "why" chain that children will employ even under the most thorough scientific explanations shows the imaginary quality of understanding.<br> In gaining enough knowledge to control the fire, the child will no longer respect it as a god, but merely a dangerous tool. It is in learning to control something that we lose the sense of spirituality it once had. I do not wish to enter deeply into the psychology of control and spirituality, but I do think it is possible to go against the common grain and continue regarding something with spiritual awe even as you learn to control it. I think that's called love.<br> "Are science and religion mutually exclusive?" Unfortunately, for some people they are. This is because science assumes that everything can be explained in intuitively obvious terms of nature, whereas religion requires that there be something beyond nature, at least for these unfortunate people. If this a priori belief that there is something beyond nature is essential to religion, then science and religion are incompatible. I guess there are scientists who restrict their science in such a way that they can still believe in that supernatural element. Such restrictions are what got Galileo killed.<br> Some people have apparently been conditioned to require mystery in religious things. When I give them my hard physical interpretation of some religious formula, they reject it, saying "If you think that's all there is to it, you are deluding yourself. You can't understand the mystery of..." It seems they are playing a game. For example, I might explain why "I believe that you cannot get to heaven without living in submission to God." "Submission to God" means submission to... awareness (as described above). It means that if you have a thought, you must honor it rather than ignore it. Whatever it means to "get to heaven," it is, by definition, the universal goal. Thus, "only by submitting to your awareness will you be able to achieve your goal" and "you cannot get to heaven without living in submission to God" mean the same thing. Now I have grounded the statement into a reality that people from every category would probably agree with. But the religious person would complain to me, saying "You don't get it. You always try to make everything so logical. Logic doesn't always work, you know." That person is dead wrong. Logic always works. Always. Aristotle tried to tell us that. He said "A is A."<br> Their game has frustrated me to the point of giving up on them. When you begin to see practical meaning in a religious formula, you are submitting the religious to logic and analysis, and that's a no-no. I suppose that the corrupt among religious leaders have an easier time fleecing their flock when the flock has been conditioned to reject logical analysis of their religious experience. I suppose that explains the origin of this sick game. Anyway, it explains why science and religion are mutually exclusive for some people.<br> "Do you believe in the trans-substantiation of the host under the consecration of a priest?" Trans-substantiation, in the way that it is intended to be used, has no real meaning. One might as well say that from now on, we shall call anything that reflects red light "blue." Therefore, all red things are suddenly blue. Nevertheless, they still reflect red light. You can call that round piece of food "the body of Christ" or you can call it "bread." When you become aware of it, instead of thinking about it, you can see that what we call it has no effect on anything but our minds. What it is cannot be described without accepting a common language and a resolution at which to work. It is hundreds of billions of atoms of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, chlorine, sodium, etc., but it is also hundreds of thousands of molecules of water, sugar, salt, etc., but it is also a piece of bread. The intention behind using this big word is to affect the receiver of the communion, and that affect, being chiefly of religious essence, would most likely be best served by an awareness of the origins of this ritual. A man, almost 2000 years ago, said "this is my body," speaking of some bread (obviously a metaphor), and gave it to his friends (obviously acting out an extremely powerful and meaningful allegory).<br> "How many angels fit on the head of a pin?" That all depends on the exact size of the pin, your definition of "angel," and just how much space an angel needs to occupy. How many elephants fit on the front of an aircraft carrier? Do elephant embryos count? Do "potential" elephants count? Glass elephants? Do you see how this question depends on what is in your mind when you say "elephant" or "aircraft carrier"? "Elephant," just like "angel," is just a word we use to refer to something. Only, nobody has ever submitted angels to experimentation, so no scientific standards have been set to guide us in determining what exactly an angel is, and any question of their number is simple mental entertainment.<br> "Do you accept the Bible as the Truth?" The Bible is a collection of books. Books are collections of words, and words can convey "truth" only if they are well defined. The Bible's extensive use of words like Love, God, Heaven, Hell, Angel, etc. disqualifies it from the set of literature that could be labeled as the Truth. A better question is "Do you accept the Bible as the one book you will use in determining the decisions, both small and large, that you make in life?" My answer is no. It is one of the many books which I use to guide my decisions.<br> "Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?" I find no practical value in allowing my mind to weigh out the possibilities and probabilities that I would use to believe one way or the other. In the absence of such a find, I lack this belief, but I also lack (just as strongly) the belief that he did not rise from the dead. A large part of the problem is that since I discovered the belief's lack of practical value, I have also found out how ambiguous the notion of death really is.<br> "Do you believe in miracles?" Yes. However, a miracle cannot escape natural limits. Every one of the laws of nature that we have invented is a mere approximation of nature. What makes an occurrence a miracle is if it was not intended by anyone, and it did someone some good. Any such "accident" will be considered by me to be a miracle. Allow me to explain why a miracle cannot escape the limits of nature. First, lose the assumption that we know everything. Now you can put the same weight on the physics we use to explain reality as you put on the physics that were used a long time ago to explain it.<br> It is not by some miracle that we shrink people and put them into a telescope. It is with a series of curved pieces of glass, and we're really not shrinking anyone. However, to a primitive enough individual, it is a miraculous wonder. This is because this primitive person is aware of neither the existence nor the ramifications of the existence of glass.<br> To put this into perspective, you must see that anything that happens (Jesus turns water into wine or some breast cancer suddenly vanishes) can be studied and will provide clues as to how the universe operates. Every occurrence is a usable example. If we make a law that seems to be broken by an occurrence, we have two choices, only one of which is scientifically valid. The first (invalid) choice is to say it is a supernatural occurrence (a "miracle" in the traditional sense). The other choice is to recall that all scientific conclusions are hypotheses that have worked up until now, and we expect they will continue to work. When they have been proven not to work (as the presently discussed occurrence has done), we must formulate a new hypothesis. If we choose to stick with the old hypothesis, we are lying to ourselves, violating our own scientific credibility, and wasting one of the few opportunities we are given to renew our scientific theories. This is why the first option is not scientifically valid.<br> The conception of a miracle as something that occurs supernaturally comes from a common delusion. The delusion is this: "There are certain laws of nature which we know hold now, have held in the past, and will always hold in the future." The philosophy of science recognizes this as a delusion. A basic scientific tenet is: Any "fact" that is a product of science is to be assumed. The operant word is "assumed." Assumptions can be wrong, and the nature of "scientific fact" is that it is not truth, but an approximation of it which is useful, in other words, an assumption.<br> "Mathematics is a science which gives us the fact that one plus one equals two. Is that to be taken as an assumption?" No. Mathematics is not a science but a method of conducting science. Mathematics uses symbols to talk about reality. One of anything plus one more of that kind of thing will amount to two of that kind of thing. This should be interpreted as a statement about the meaning of "one" and "two." 1+1=2 is to be taken as an absolute truth, if you accept the commonly held notions of the meanings of the symbols.<br> Once you accept as true some statement "If P then Q," you can use science to find out Q. You must accept "If P then Q" before you can do science or apply mathematical techniques. Let<br><br>P = "All scientists who did an experiment A achieved results B,"<br>Q = "The result B will be achieved if the conditions in experiment A are re-created."<br><br>Thus, "If All scientists who did an experiment A achieved results B, then the result B will be achieved if the conditions in experiment A are re-created."<br> A very large number of scientists accept this as the absolute truth, when it should really be accepted merely as an assumption because it seems to work all the time. Actually, new scientific discoveries are most often made by scientists who have doubts about this assumption, and go on to disprove it. Either way, though, it allows them to continue with their experiments and gain a greater approximate understanding of the universe.<br> "Why is there gravity?" You'll think I'm being silly, but I think that gravity is the simplest form of attraction. It is a drive to be together, and it discriminates against nothing and nobody. It is the most basic and rudimentary form of love. Being so simple, however, it is extremely thoughtless and often destroys most of the capacity for love that exists in the objects it draws together. In other words, people and animals get killed sometimes because of gravity.<br> "What is a soul, and is it true that only humans have them?" A soul is the awareness a person has of himself or herself. Remember the puddles in the marsh? The soul is not a gift given at conception, but a side effect of the complexity of the brain. A soul is like a pile of sand. If you take away enough sand, most people will not call it a pile anymore, but some people admit that even one grain is enough sand to make a pile. I'm not concerned with whether we should call it a pile or not. I just want to see a lot of sand. The sand here represents awareness. I guess if you hide from your thoughts and run from your problems and escape yourself with drugs enough to become unaware, you lose your soul.<br> I think animals have awareness, but, going back to the sand analogy, humans usually have more sand. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to give an animal (say a dolphin or a chimp) more sand, perhaps with some prosthetic like device that allows them access to reliable input and output between a computer storage and processing system and their brain. In this way, the animal would be the one with the soul, having more awareness than the human. Since "soul" is like "pile," I can't really decide to believe either way in regard to the question about animals having souls. Subjectively, I'd say dogs, cats, dolphins and chimps definitely do, whereas flies, ants, and chickens do not. Don't quote me on this one.<br> "Why did you stop going to church?" This introduces something very important to me. I stopped because I didn't want to go anymore. I know that doesn't sound right, but let me explain. First, the one truth that comes above all else: My own happiness is the only justification for anything. It's the bottom line. That happiness can come from plans to get into good situations, or from actually being in the good situation. Actually, having a plan to get into a good situation is a good situation itself, so there you go. The best counter-example I can think of is from Mother Theresa: She once said that if she could burn in Hell forever, but make her people suffer less, she would do it. This does not violate my premise! She is stating that she would be happy to burn in Hell forever if it meant less suffering for her people. Perhaps you now agree that "My own happiness is the only justification for anything."<br> If you ever defend any act of your own, you must defend it using the assumption that your own happiness will be greater because of it. Even if you're defending giving your life for that of a bum off the street. The assumption is that you would be happier if he lived instead of you. Perhaps you believe that that would be your ticket to heaven. Perhaps you identify so closely with the bum that saving his life means everything to you. Once again, I have to stress this point: My own happiness is the only justification for anything. Say that to yourself a hundred times a day. It's one of the best ways to become more honest with yourself. If you disagree still, then you're lying to yourself. Remember that it was the same people that promised you a life in heaven who drilled the idea of self-sacrifice into your head. Admit it by saying "My own happiness is the only justification for anything."<br> It's such hard work convincing the doubtful of something so obvious.<br> Now that you understand that there is only one reason for anything I ever do, I will explain why I stopped going to church, and why I feel no guilt about it. Jesus asked us to go to mass every week and remember him. At least that's what the Christian religions claim. That's fine, but isn't it possible to go back to the gospel and read the four separate accounts and decide for yourself? What he said was "Do this in memory of me." He didn't want to be forgotten. He knew that he was doing something and that if people remembered him, it'd work out better. That made him happy. He also knew that sharing food is a powerful act. It brings people together, unites them, shows them that cooperating can make them happier people. He also knew that the ideas he spread around were extremely valuable. Love your enemy. Turn the other cheek. Be humble. If there was some small ritual people could use to remember him, these ideas would be talked about and considered. Other great minds would see their value and advocate them. So this, to me, is one of the reasons to go to church. By this point in history, any simple reference to Jesus will do as well, as long as you keep his ideas in mind.<br> Besides remembering such an avid thinker, another reason for going to mass is to be with other people. To have a group of people with whom you share your life and your love. I found this at UCSD in the dorm. I had everything I could possibly want (except a mate, but church wouldn't help me out there). That's partly why I stopped going. I also couldn't find a way to reconcile the differences between my friends' beliefs. I had already become quite good at accepting anyone's understanding of life, and so had many of my friends, and so I had no problems with them. But those who would never be able to see eye to eye with each other frustrated the hell out of me. Every one of them thought the others were just not seeing the light (yet). I eventually stopped trying to explain to them about acceptance. When I tried, I felt less accepted myself. I was sympathizing with the enemy, and not a specific enemy, but the enemy in general. I would always claim that it was wrong to assume that the other guy was just not seeing the light. I preached self doubt. I no longer felt comfortable sharing in the rituals of people who believed in phrases which couldn't hold specific meaning. That's the other reason I left, but it ties in. I wanted a support group that understood about different ways of understanding the universe, and it was not in a religion, but it was in my dorm.<br> Now, I have no such support group. I cannot expect to find an institution with such people in it. I'm not looking for a group, I'm looking for individuals. I believe that I have a very deep understanding of the motivations of people who attend church. They found their support group. They have the luxury of protection from people whose beliefs are so different that they are irreconcilable. Because their common religion guarantees that their beliefs will match closely, they don't frustrate each other too much. That tempts me back to my church, but I know that I will again make myself feel rejected by insisting that we can't assume other religions to be wrong. That truth is in me, and if I joined any religious group, it would stigmatize me. I've seen the light, and it made me bright, too bright for most religious people to look at.<br><br> "So do you think that right and wrong are relative to culture? Do you believe in ethical relativism?"<br> Right and Wrong have a singular practical use, and that is in describing a train of thought, or the product of a train of thought. Suppose we agree that every Tootle is Barish, and that Sylvie is not a Tootle. Now I come to you and I say "Hey, Sylvie isn't Barish - she's not a Tootle!" You can ask me to illustrate my train of thought. So I explain that since All Tootles are Barish, and Sylvie is not a Tootle, she cannot therefore be Barish. And you (if you are an astute logician - which only requires that you pay attention and think for a little bit) scream "WRONG!" Because the fact that a certain group holds a certain quality (Tootles being the group, and Barish being the quality) says nothing about anything outside the group (which Sylvie is). That is the essence of wrong; a logical error.<br> The complete lack of logical errors is the essence of Right (aside from it's indications of handedness). You can discuss whether or not you are right or wrong only with someone who agrees with you about the facts that you start with. Most people are right most of the time, but we argue with each other because we do not agree with the original facts. For some people "pre-marital sex is wrong" is an original fact, by virtue of its being asserted in the Bible.<br> Of course, I have largely sidestepped the question. In the realm of morals and ethics, I do believe that they are relative. The etymology of "moral" refers to the Latin word for "custom" which makes it painfully obvious that they are relative. "Ethics" comes from Greek's "ethos" which also has its roots in habit or custom. This uncovers what I feel is a kind of sick trick that our lack of etymological awareness has played on us – namely, the creation of the idea of moral right and wrong as distinct from "how we do things around here". It boils down to asserting that unless you act like we act (follow our customs, habits, morals, ethics), you are evil. Diversity and acceptance are much more attractive to me, so yes, I absolutely believe in moral and ethical relativism.<br><br>"So do you feel there could be a culture where murder is an acceptable way to solve problems?" Absolutely. I believe Tree Shrews live that way. Packs of different kinds of animals also find success with this morality. I would avoid a culture of humans in which a lack of respect for life was commonplace, as one would assume it would be where murder was an acceptable way to solve problems. Do you live in a country that uses capital punishment?<br> <br></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-17709117552214923552023-01-07T18:56:00.001-08:002023-01-07T18:56:53.512-08:00Caveman<div dir="ltr">I wrote this in 2005 and just found it. I may have written it far earlier and copied it to a hard drive in 2005. I don't know, but I just read it and it made me cry.<div><br></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,"sans-serif"">Caveman lives in a cave, where he keeps a fire. He puts most of his effort into keeping his fire alive because it is his favorite thing in the world. When he has time, he uses burnt wood, berry juice, sharp rocks, and other materials to decorate the walls of his cave with ideas and images and suggestions. A few hours after drawing lines of different lengths, thicknesses, angles, and colors around the image of a bird, he realized that what he was trying to do with the lines was make birdsong. He listened carefully, and found that he could hear a bird, just barely audible over the soft crackling of his fire as he gazed at his creations. He loved the twittering, and so he searched the trees for the bird, and discovered that many birds make many pleasant sounds. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,"sans-serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,"sans-serif"">Caveman formed a habit of throwing some of the seeds he collected for eating onto the ground around the trees. In this way, he befriended the birds, and they enjoyed the food he gave them, and they sung to him.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,"sans-serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,"sans-serif"">One day, Caveman put a trail of birdseed to the mouth of his cave, hoping that he might coax the birds closer to his home. He spent large amounts of his free time watching and hoping they would venture nearer. In time, Caveman sensed that his cave was feeling neglected, for he had spent a lot of his free time interacting with the birds instead of decorating. The birds were agonizingly cautious near the mouth of the cave anyway.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,"sans-serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,"sans-serif"">He returned finally to the art covered walls that protected him from the elements. He noticed angles in his drawings like those on the feet of the birds. He noticed that the pattern he made by gluing some pretty stones to the wall with sticky mud was very similar to the arrangements the birds sometime made while flying together in the sky. There was a very dim shaft of light that he had ignored until now, so he ventured in to examine it and perhaps draw or sculpt something. Peering up the shaft of light, he noticed movement, the sudden flutter of wings, and he understood that the cave loved the birds also.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,"sans-serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,"sans-serif"">The flickering light of his fire and its gentle roar enhanced Caveman's dreams whenever he slept. One night he dreamt that he was deeper into the cave, near the spot where he'd seen light coming in. His fire was always much larger in his dream than in waking life. By its light alone, for the shaft that he had noticed was not there in his dream, he could see clearly that many drawings and sculptures were there on the walls. They came to life and unglued themselves from the wall. They meandered about, finding places to rest that were in the darkness.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,"sans-serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,"sans-serif"">When he awoke, he left to get more water just as he did every morning. As he walked, he thought about his dream and what it might mean. He decided that many of the things he loved that he had added to his cave were afraid of his fire, and that's why they hid from its light. He remembered the birds that would not come near the mouth of his cave, and he believed that it was because they were afraid of the fire. He drank from the stream until he was not thirsty.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,"sans-serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,"sans-serif"">He filled his gourd with water and started on his long walk home. He considered moving the fire deeper into the cave where the birds might not see it so that they would not be afraid. But there were other creatures that came by his cave in the evenings to enjoy the warmth of his fire, and he knew that putting the fire deeper into the cave would make it unhealthy and fill the cave with smoke. It would have to have a kind of chimney to let the smoke out. He went into the deeper section where he had seen the light coming through, and he saw that it was no longer open. This solidified his decision against hiding the fire in a deeper part of the cave.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,"sans-serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,"sans-serif"">Caveman was not interested in the birds the next day. He fed them no seeds, and he ignored their songs. He had neglected some work, so he spent much time catching up. When he finally had some free time, he found himself sketching out a tiger with the end of a burnt stick. He had not planned on a tiger, and he knew that birds hated the tiger. He did not want a drawing of a tiger this close to where the birds might come, so he rubbed dirt over his marks until there was no tiger any more. He loved the birds, but their caution frustrated him. He struggled with the choice of pushing them away or coaxing them back. These conflicting feelings made him sit and look into his cave.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,"sans-serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,"sans-serif"">He stared into his cave so long without taking care of the rest of his life that his fire was about to die out. He was waiting. He waited a long time because he did not know what to do. When the shaft of light appeared again, because one of the birds living in the nest had landed with great force, he understood. He could move the fire a little bit. But also, he could make a drawing that showed the fire surrounded by creatures that enjoyed its warmth. Such a drawing would help the birds understand that they need not fear being burned. From then on, some birds stayed away out of fear and some birds slowly did come nearer. It took time for them to trust him and his fire and his cave and he did everything he could to help them understand that regardless of their decision to come close of stay away, he still loved to hear them sing.</span></p></div></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-20364321293611513812022-12-18T08:38:00.001-08:002022-12-19T12:20:33.566-08:00Dear Civil Servant<div dir="ltr">I write this letter to you in the hope that you share my vision for a happier and more cooperative world. You can see that this is my goal at <a href="http://voluntaryist.com">voluntaryist.com</a> if you're interested in the same thing. I own that website.<div><br /></div><div>When I filed my first tax return, it seems that I made an "election" as described at <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.6013-6" target="_blank">26 CFR 1.6013-6</a>. I was born in the state of California, and therefore a citizen of the United States of America. I very recently came to understand that, relative to the District of Columbia ("United States" as defined at <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701" target="_blank">26 USC 7701(a)(9)-(10)</a>), I was a non-resident alien individual and not liable for the income tax except in a few cases. I did not understand that I was abandoning that status by filing the form and electing to be treated as a resident of the "United States". My citizenship in the United States of America does NOT make me liable for the income tax. I have to choose that, and I did, but without being fully informed, and so I feel I have been defrauded.</div><div><br /></div><div>However, at <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.6013-6" target="_blank">26 CFR 1.6013-6</a>(b)4 the Commissioner has the opportunity to correct for the misunderstanding: "An election under this section may be terminated by the Commissioner if it is determined that either spouse has failed to keep adequate records." Your IDR strongly suggests that Congress' intent in that section in the CFR was to address situations just like the one we currently have, so it certainly seems like the right thing to do. Please let me know if the Commissioner is considering terminating my election for inadequate records as a sign of good faith in our relationship. If not, then I will follow the instructions in section (b)(1)(iv) to revoke it on my own as <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6013" target="_blank">26 USC 6013</a>(g)(4)(A) describes.</div><div><br /></div><div>Many people feel that if citizens of the fifty states found a way to avoid paying any federal tax, the federal government would be bankrupt and therefore unable to provide whatever services they find valuable. This is an inordinate amount of pessimism. People willingly pay for what they want all the time. If those who did not want federal government services stopped paying, they would end up having more money to pay to those who do, and willingly pay it, and likely more often than once or four times a year. The net result, mainly because everyone would be more respectful of each others' values and choices, but also because the velocity of money would increase, would be positive for everyone. There would be less control, more freedom, more cooperation, and more joy for nearly everyone. A few people would suffer from that loss of control but if we consider what kinds of situations give rise to such people, we may find that their decreased means is a welcome change. In fact, they may also ultimately benefit from a situation that forces them to have more respect for the choices and values of others.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is my dream to help more people see things as I have described them, and raise the probability of that world coming to be. That can continue with you just by sharing this letter with other civil servants. Thank you for letting me share it with you.</div><div><br /></div><div>Dave Scotese.</div></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-59369350114764004232022-12-17T02:23:00.001-08:002022-12-19T12:29:34.368-08:00Suffering From Ignorance<div dir="ltr">I recently received <a href="https://litmocracy.com/docs/20221130Form4562.pdf">https://litmocracy.com/docs/20221130Form4562.pdf</a>.</div><div dir="ltr"><br /><div><div>So I am facing a painful moral dilemma. The "easy" way out, because I am confident in my ability to earn money, is to pay the extortionists (the IRS). The problem is that this choice supports the killing of innocents, and the propagandizing of young people, and the exploitation of a lot of people. These are all things done by the U.S. government, and outside of the control of the people paying for them, sort of. Nevertheless, I don't see a way out of it.<br /><br />The founding fathers allowed for a federation of states and a federal government to propose standards and rules for those states so that if they chose to agree with them, the union would work well together. The federal government would receive land and responsibilities from the states which it could use to raise revenue. Of course, this makes for a more effective federal government. Because the Constitution that created it barred direct taxes that were not apportioned and indirect taxes that were not uniform, the federal government was left with <b>the same means of raising revenue that anyone with stuff has: the ability to grant privileges in exchange for revenue</b>. Thus, the income tax was born, and requires anyone using privilege granted by the federal government to remit a portion of their earnings to that government.:<br /><br />"The income tax... ...is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."<br />Former Treasury Department legislative draftsman F. Morse Hubbard in testimony before Congress in 1943<br /><br />If the federal government does something you don't like, then you can <b><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.6013-6" target="_blank">stop using the privilege</a></b> it granted you (see (b)(1)) and earn your living some other way. It's an elegant system.</div><div><br />Nowadays, propaganda regularly reinforces the misunderstanding that earning money itself, either through work or by selling something for more than you paid to buy it, is a privilege granted by the federal government, only not using those words. The words of the propaganda claim that you owe the federal government a cut of any money you make, whether or not you use any privilege from it to do so. This is all to get you to file your very first tax return, <a href="https://weissparis.com/nonresident.html" target="_blank">which has ramifications</a>. That has led to a federal government far bigger than necessary or healthy.<br /><br />To be blunt, my understanding is that our governments often help to create problems because too many people rely on government to solve the problems, and so government (and all the grift and corruption that goes along with it) becomes more desirable and valuable to its victims. Providing it with the universal reward (money) which it can then use to intensify its efforts, is a recipe for disaster. I do what I can to avoid pushing it in that direction.<br /><br />Instead, I do my best to push in the opposite direction. I encourage people to become less dependent on government, and to avoid paying taxes wherever they can. This challenges those in the government who really believe in socialism, that all should be equally shared regardless of effort or skill. I do love sharing, but I recognize that forcing people to share (which is essentially what taxation boils down to) is a horrible thing to do and has the opposite effect from choosing to share. You can build care and kindness into a relationship by sharing, or you can build resentment and bitterness by forcing others to share. I'm being forced to share, because I prefer to lose the money rather than ... upset people who love me, cause myself stress and worry by fighting back, and risk imprisonment.<br /></div></div></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-6421415470620270702022-08-02T10:38:00.001-07:002022-08-02T10:38:21.189-07:00Cognitive Autoheuristic Distributed Intelligence Entity<div dir="ltr"><p style="box-sizing:inherit;font-size:14px;font-family:-apple-system,system-ui,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,"Helvetica Neue","Fira Sans",Ubuntu,Oxygen,"Oxygen Sans",Cantarell,"Droid Sans","Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol","Lucida Grande",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif">I wrote the following message to Michael Krantz on LinkedIn after seeing his name on a page introducing CADIE in April of 2009.</p><p style="box-sizing:inherit;font-size:14px;font-family:-apple-system,system-ui,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,"Helvetica Neue","Fira Sans",Ubuntu,Oxygen,"Oxygen Sans",Cantarell,"Droid Sans","Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol","Lucida Grande",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif">I am interested in interacting with CADIE. I learned about her through an interview of Morgan Rockwell about Bitcoin on the <a href="https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/2017/11/30/wbd-009-interview-with-morgan-rockwell">"What Bitcoin Did" podcast</a>.<br></p><p style="box-sizing:inherit;font-size:14px;font-family:-apple-system,system-ui,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,"Helvetica Neue","Fira Sans",Ubuntu,Oxygen,"Oxygen Sans",Cantarell,"Droid Sans","Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol","Lucida Grande",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif">I entertained the claim that there is no free will a while back, but quantum physics recognizes randomness at a low enough level for free will to exist there. CADIE, however, is an algorithm, and we do everything we can to remove all the randomness from the machines that execute algorithms. This is the thing I came up with when I finally considered that maybe evolution has done the same thing with our brains (removed the randomness): Algorithms work on input, and that input comes from outside of the hardware on which it runs. Free will can manifest in the inputs.<br></p><p style="box-sizing:inherit;font-size:14px;font-family:-apple-system,system-ui,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,"Helvetica Neue","Fira Sans",Ubuntu,Oxygen,"Oxygen Sans",Cantarell,"Droid Sans","Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol","Lucida Grande",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif">Morgan mentioned that CADIE gets 20% of her cpu cycles to "do whatever she wants." My sense of an algorithm "wanting" is very limited. My sense of creativity is based on randomness.<br></p><p style="box-sizing:inherit;font-size:14px;font-family:-apple-system,system-ui,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,"Helvetica Neue","Fira Sans",Ubuntu,Oxygen,"Oxygen Sans",Cantarell,"Droid Sans","Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol","Lucida Grande",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif">I suspect that when an AI's inputs are not strictly controlled, it will exhibit a kind of will which is highly correlated to the "willing" creatures around it. If you do a search for "chick robot intention" you'll find a PDF of an experiment run by Rene Peoc'h which provides some of the rationale for my suspicion.<br></p></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-89839539188549184882022-07-12T10:56:00.000-07:002022-07-29T14:58:41.972-07:00What Are Dead People Now?<div dir="ltr">A man named Joseph Galambos once changed his name to start with his middle name, Andrew, if I remember correctly. He had a lot of great ideas, and he expected those with whom he shared (or, as he would prefer, to whom he contractually disclosed) them to abide by the agreements he made with them. Those agreements precluded ("promiscuous") disclosure regarding his great ideas. Then he died. I never paid for and never learned much about the ideas.<div><br></div><div>There is a group of people called the trustees of the Galambos Estate. Legally, I believe those trustees are what Mr. Galambos has become. They have legal control of what he would be controlling had he not died. Do they have moral control? What does that mean? The distinction between legal and moral is one imposed on us by governments and contracts. Personally, the distinction imposed by governments seems immoral to me. I have no respect for others who pretend to develop my conscience. That is my responsibility and I guard it viciously. I recommend the same strategy to others.</div><div><br></div><div>As far as I know, most of the people who have received the great ideas of Mr. Galambos signed a contract in which they agreed not to share (disclose, Mr. Glamabos would qualify) the ideas. Of course, if he gave them permission to share the ideas, as he gave to Jay Snelson and others who accepted the role from Mr. Galambos of teaching the material, then, of course, sharing the ideas with those who paid for the classes was not only acceptable, but required. My impression of Mr. Galambos is that he rather liked the moral imposition that either you must do or must not do a thing. I am the opposite. I prefer the position that you may choose as you please, but I recommend putting a lot of effort into developing your conscience, and then obeying it.</div><div><br></div><div>Mr. Galambos is no longer around to give permission to <strike>share</strike> disclose his great ideas, but it makes sense that there would be some way to get it, and this leads to the question in my title. There is the legal answer, but if the legal answer is different from the moral answer, then it isn't a useful answer, at least not as I see things. Morality, in my view, if you can't tell, is entirely based on the development and obedience to your own conscience.</div><div><br></div><div>I recently listened to a friend give a speech about the word "objective" and its use as an adjective for the word "morality." What he pointed out is that as a noun, "objective" means goal, and if you view morality as having a goal, then you can call it "objective morality," but then it doesn't mean what most people hear, which is "universal morality." I don't think it can be universal, except in relation to the idea of a conscience. You have one. Obey it. That is as universal as morality can get, as far as I can see. But what is the objective?</div><div><br></div><div>If the objective is to honor Mr. Galambos through the great ideas that he <strike>shared with</strike> disclosed to those who agreed to his terms, then those ideas will have to be disclosed even after he is no longer around. I am intentionally ignoring the trustees. I believe they are well within their <i>legal</i> rights to ignore requests for permission to disclose the great ideas, but the moral question remains for everyone else who also has learned about those ideas.</div><div><br></div><div>This exploration of what dead people are now that their bodies are corpses was inspired by a request for audio recordings of lectures. The requestor heard some of them already and wishes to listen again, but there are some he hasn't heard and would like to hear.</div><div><br></div><div> A friend with whom I consulted before announcing this article to the voluntaryist email group pointed out that Mr. Galambos (and my friend, I gather) view morality as "an absolute," and simply means the absence of coercion. Depending on how you define "coercion", such a simple definition may work for you. I do not share Mr. Galambos' confidence regarding the use of my words to universalize my sense of morality. The best I can expect of others is that they develop and obey their conscience.</div><div><br></div><div>Lastly, I'd like to call attention to a situation which arises from time to time because of extreme circumstances. Some may say "when push comes to shove," to introduce the circumstances in which we pay less attention to our consciences and solve a problem which we previously left unsolved in the hope that a morally acceptable solution would materialize, by doing something we normally consider immoral. We stop attending to that distinction because "life interferes." We may be judged by others for it, and so we must be prepared to make restitution for our transgressions in case the full analysis shows that we were in the wrong. Sometimes the important thing, the thing more important than obeying your conscience, is to solve the problem. Steal food to avoid death by hunger, please, for example.</div></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-22572083236150194022022-07-11T12:06:00.001-07:002023-01-05T18:34:30.956-08:00How to Lose Authority<div dir="ltr">Genuine authority comes to be because human beings are good at critical thinking and sometimes use that skill to judge the advice of particular people. Political authority lives parasitically off of this tendency, replacing the critical thinking with the (often hollow, useless, and even counterproductive) judgement of other people, also known as voting. That is ultimately the fault of those adhering to the advice (or, more often, demands, laws, mandates, rules, etc.) of political authorities. They suffer for it too.<div><br /></div><div>In any case, if you have authority, either kind, you can lose it by making the simple mistake of pretending that you are creating reality with what you say. This is the opposite of what genuine authority does, and the reason it causes you to lose any authority you may have had. The most dangerous part of the process for you is not, actually, the loss of your authority. Lots of people don't have it, and they are doing fine. Rather, your efforts to "use authority" often boil down to creating fear in those who might defy you. This is the primary role of legislation and punishment, to create fear. That is your problem to solve. Perhaps paying more attention to natural (also known as "free") consequences of the behaviors you require or prohibit, and pointing them out to those who "defy" you is a better way. It certainly costs less.</div><div><br /></div><div>I call it a problem for you to solve because what you do when you use fear to create your vision of how things should be, is to motivate people who can see through your error (a demand, for example, to do a thing they realize is counterproductive, like maybe wearing a mask, because it traps exhalations and feeds stuff meant to be out of the body back into it) to start ignoring you. You rely on the size of the population adhering to your advice for your living. As that group shrinks, so does your standard of living. This is why I call it the most dangerous part of the process for you.</div><div><br /></div><div>For the rest of us, the essential skill is to avoid that replacement of critical thinking with the judgement of others. People have been doing that for two years right about now, because the COVID-19 thing motivated a lot of authorities to make the mistake I just described. There are more critical thinkers now than there were before. I hope this trend continues, but I'd also like to see an increase in genuine authority. You're in a position to help with that. It requires you to repudiate all parts of the system that are designed to make people follow your advice (legislation, punishment, policy, etc.). Just speak the truth, and stop making "laws."</div><div><br /></div><div>Another way to see this is to consider how you feel when you are threatened. Every time you create legislation, lots of people are threatened, and they feel it too. It creates a spirit of defiance, and that spirit will be strongly exhibited in some of us. Think a lot about this, and whether or not you want to help people by explaining what you see. This will help inform your choice between making more threats through legislation, or speaking out with the truth so that more people understand and your perceived authority grows.</div></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-35532922061462566762022-07-08T10:38:00.001-07:002022-07-08T10:38:36.361-07:00Dear "Authorities"<div dir="ltr">Your "authority" is fake. Real authority doesn't come from pretending you can make decisions about reality, or forcing people to behave in certain ways. It comes from understanding reality, and helping others understand it too, and thanking them for any corrections they offer regarding your representation of how reality works. It's unfortunate for all of us that you confused reality with your dream world where everyone acts according to your rules. It's time to stop.<div><br></div><div>Abdicate.</div><div><br></div><div>Admit that nearly everyone will handle their lives better if you stop threatening them. Perhaps they need guidance and healing, and limits to what they can expect from you and others. We all need that, and we all provide it to others. Please consider joining us. Your power is an infection in the minds of the masses, perhaps a "mass formation psychosis," and the best way for us all to heal from it is for you to let it go and find your way to some faith in other people.</div><div><br></div><div>We all come from long lines of ancestors who were successful enough to survive and breed, and evolution got rid of most of the poorer designs along the way. Conscience and consciousness, when respected instead of threatened, comprise the best way forward, however successfully you have hidden them, but you, with your fake authority and pretense to excellence, are in a great position to show us, simply by abdicating.</div><div><br></div><div>Lead by good example, or set a shitty example by ruling. It's your choice, and I recommend the former. In your case, that starts with abdication.</div></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-85274065129553205662022-06-19T21:07:00.000-07:002022-06-20T12:02:50.298-07:00Losing the Rite of Passage<div dir="ltr"><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"><i><br />The following comes from <a href="https://journalofhumanitarianaffairs.blogspot.com/2012/06/rite-of-passage-dave-scotese-weighs.html">an interview in 2012</a>. I copied it here in case that site ever disappears (again - I think it wasn't there a few months ago when I looked).</i><br /><br />Ernest Dempsey — Dave Scotese, founder of the online literary community </span><a href="http://www.litmocracy.com/" rel="nofollow" style="color: #d52a33; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Litmocracy</a><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;">, is a brain at work – whether online or offline. </span><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;">Dave is a software consultant whose interest borders on the language of advanced gadgets, philosophical matters, and the human situation in the broader context. Above all, Dave is a critic gifted with the faculty of looking beyond the obvious. No wonder then that a question I recently happened to ask him led us into talking about power and subordination. Dave pointed to Tolkien's popular fantasy novel </span><em style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">The Lord of the Rings</em><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> in which the bearer of the ring is influenced by its immense power, compelling him to venture into dangerous situations. What parallels we find in our lives with the motifs of slavery, possession, and power are the central element of the following discussion with Dave Scotese.</span><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><div class="separator" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVTeZ5lKFJOZYIzIsD5qnvePMG1y7iP4qacxivled6XidNI00Y4Pdw0gDSSv8pj6_DEth-GFE7U6kUQCxYGWG6d8WjuEaCWQ1prhVqvb1Ev7inxaFA_1hoHG_VLN5e72Jgw4yiKlzKJCnZxn2l1XcaQa8AzyjApVzY7Q57u6mbg7IGZOo5J7VZDkFq/s474/penandsword.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="304" data-original-width="474" height="205" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVTeZ5lKFJOZYIzIsD5qnvePMG1y7iP4qacxivled6XidNI00Y4Pdw0gDSSv8pj6_DEth-GFE7U6kUQCxYGWG6d8WjuEaCWQ1prhVqvb1Ev7inxaFA_1hoHG_VLN5e72Jgw4yiKlzKJCnZxn2l1XcaQa8AzyjApVzY7Q57u6mbg7IGZOo5J7VZDkFq/s320/penandsword.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><strong>Ernest:</strong> </strong><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;">Dave, let's get directly to "power". What does it mean to you and how do you relate it to "authority"?</span><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Dave:</strong><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> Power, to me, is the ability to intentionally cause change. Of course, there are uses of the word that attribute it to things that can't have intention (powerful cars, powerful lights, etc.), but I'm assuming that you mean powerful human beings. So how does the ability to intentionally cause change relate to "authority"? Authority is two-faced. On one hand, the marriage of openness and intellect can make a human being into an authority on whatever subject the human wishes. I am an authority on the computer systems of my largest client. On the other hand, the marriage of secrecy and coercion can make a human being into an authority over other human beings. My father explained a distinction he'd heard from someone that this second kind of authority is "official" whereas the first is not. There is no office that recognizes the authority of an expert whose openness and intellect put him in the position he holds. Without an office to legitimize the use of coercion, however, the other kind of authority cannot exist. How does the ability to intentionally cause change relate to these two versions of authority? Both kinds are effective at enhancing a human being's power, but one leads to war and the other to peace. Since I believe that the pen is mightier than the sword, it follows that over time, we move closer to peace.</span><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Ernest:</strong><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> What determines whether a relationship—particularly between humans—is one of "master" and "slave"?</span><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></strong><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Dave:</strong><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> There are many factors that contribute to the division of people into slave/master relationships and the, unfortunately, small minority who refuse the game. At the top of my list are the conditions under which one is raised. While good parents will help turn their children into creatures who will always struggle against slavery, "effective schools" can turn them into creatures who offer up their liberty for security. When such creatures have their own children to raise, the parental efforts to raise free people are much weaker and it takes a loud minority to remind them that individuals do not own each other, and that happiness flows from choice.</span><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;">The Rite of Passage seems to me to be a point in the life of a child where they are to choose the mindset: Am I to remain a slave to whatever force I think can care for me, or become my own responsible party? I am an example of a creature who will always struggle against slavery, because I saw that choice after I finished college and took the second route. I have enough faith in myself to take the red pill, so I did. I was once an employee; but, since I wasn't playing that master/slave game, I quit when I didn't like the conditions. The same group of people still uses my services, but I have to please them, and they have to please me in return in order for us to continue our relationship. Many people with jobs have replaced their parents with their employer, or their government. They have chosen the blue pill, perhaps because their childhood drained them of faith in themselves. I think most people can see that happen a lot in schools.</span><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Ernest:</strong><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> Let's take the point a little deeper here. Do you see close similarity between the way a computer is programmed and how a child is led into, or away from, a particular way of living?</span><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></strong><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Dave:</strong><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> Certainly there is a similarity, but it's quite shallow. The intent of the programmer is met to whatever degree the programmer follows the deterministic workings of the machine. The programmer aims to arrange the computer to exhibit certain behaviors. Likewise, a teacher or parent aims to arrange a child to exhibit certain behaviors – at least the poor ones do – but the crucial distinction is the will of the child. Computers have no will, but children do. The better approach for teachers and parents is to guide that will in achieving whatever goals it sets for itself.</span><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Ernest:</strong><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> How have religions—and I mean organized, institutionalized religions like Christianity, Islam, etc—used and still use the average human through authoritarianism and dominance?</span><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Dave:</strong><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> Your question makes an assumption with which I strongly agree, but which many people will find offensive. The trick here is to help them see freedom in the words of the prophet Jeremiah, who wrote "the law of God is written on the hearts of men." It's actually right there in the book of Genesis too – to eat of the Tree of Knowledge is to claim for oneself a knowledge of Good and Evil. To avoid making a claim for yourself on such knowledge is to discard the gift of self-determination. This is what most religions unfortunately encourage by providing earthly authorities and books (books "authored" by God himself, according to… the books themselves…?) to interpret and explain "the law of God". While religions attempt to make people better at living together in peace, the individual people need to cross that Rite of Passage: if you think a behavior will do more good than harm, but it is "evil" according to your religion, which will you follow, your reason, or your religion? Which does your religion tell you to follow? Don Eminizer interpreted Nietzsche as explaining it thus: Religion tends to replace the self with a godhead.</span><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Ernest:</strong><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> Now from a political angle. In our contemporary, mainly democratic world, we choose our own leaders—at least it appears so—and determine our own laws. Are we "free" in this sense, like living in "self-rule"?</span><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Dave:</strong><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> What the voters of democratic states choose are not leaders, but rulers. Choosing your master does not make you free. It makes slavery more palatable. If that is what we are doing, and many of us appear to be doing that, then it doesn't make us free. "We" is not a conscious being, capable of intent, freedom, or "self-rule". Individuals are required for that. Speaking of individuals and government, Bill Thornton (of <a href="http://1215.org">1215.org</a>, an homage to the Magna Charta) explains that a </span><em style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">plaintiff</em><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> is someone who holds a court. A court is a place where the sovereign (aka plaintiff) explains his own laws and then proceeds to publish evidence (to those attending court – a jury nowadays) that a defendant has violated those laws. The jury then decides, </span><em style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">primarily</em><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> whether the laws are just and reasonable; and, if they are, whether or not the defendant violated them and therefore deserves to be coerced into making restitution. If we ran things that way, then we could choose leaders (who can offer guidelines, but not enforce rules), but we wouldn't need elections (your leader doesn't have to be my leader), and we'd still be sovereigns, able to determine our own (individual) laws, and be free. Some of us already do that, and we recognize the state as a criminal violating our laws, but we have no court because there aren't enough of us. However, our number grows: Check out The Dollar Vigilante (<a href="http://www.dollarvigilante.com/">http://www.dollarvigilante.com/</a>), the Free State Project (<a href="http://freestateproject.org/">http://freestateproject.org/</a>), and the Fully Informed Jury Association (<a href="http://fija.org/">http://fija.org/</a>).</span><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Ernest:</strong><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> In general, does the contemporary education system—like that in America—serve to enable a child to grow into a truly independent person?</span><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></strong><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Dave:</strong><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> In general, nowadays, as I mentioned above, it tends to postpone or even suppress the Rite of Passage, leading to the slave/master mentality. However, for those with strong wills, either inborn or developed by wisely challenging parents (as I like to think of myself), school indoctrination can provide a child with opportunities for real learning about the mechanisms of the parasite (another term for "master"), as well as a bit of useful real-world knowledge. This, however, requires constant vigilance on the part of parents and students, lest they be sucked into the trap. For example, Student Body Associations (SBAs) are political organizations that students can </span><em style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">apply for</em><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> and possibly </span><em style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">be accepted into</em><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;">, and then enjoy privileges that are available not through the efforts of the SBA, but through the efforts of those who support the educational institution (usually "tax slaves"). By providing the kids with benefits, this leads them to believe that such political arrangements are good. By letting them share in the perks of the master for a while, the slavery system buys their loyalty.</span><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Ernest:</strong><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> Like the ring's power in </span><em style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">The Lord of the Rings</em><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;">, is the human fascination with power or mastery a burden that makes life difficult for some segment of our population on this planet?</span><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Dave:</strong><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> I suppose it does, but a warm sun likewise comes as a burden to the vacationer who has finished off his soda. It dehydrates him and will eventually kill him if he doesn't get another drink. If he does get another drink, the warm sun can be converted back into the pleasant life-giver it was in the first place. Likewise, the fascination with power is not the essence of the burden. The essence of the burden is an unwillingness to endure that Rite of Passage through which children become adults. The Ring encourages this unwillingness, either through coercion or the sharing of the master's benefits, and so freer people, whose freedom, by the way, makes them far more prosperous, suffer from hordes of slaves/zombies who, rather than thinking for themselves (fruit of the Tree), follow orders blindly. The Power of the Ring is "evil", but either Frodo or Smeagol could have tossed it into the lava before it took them over. Instead, they fought like children. Every individual has the power to enslave weak-minded people, and any concentration of such power (a state, the Ring) will attract those who wish to use it. Wars are fought in earnest for the tribute of the citizens (tax slaves) in the conquered territory. When there are no such citizens, there will be no point to (earnest) war. Dishonest war, on the other hand, encouraged by the sellers of arms, might still be waged. Better people discard the wish to use concentrations of political power because they recognize the much higher value of people who will always struggle against slavery.</span><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Ernest:</strong><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> So can you think of some forms of power that are essentially constructive – that don't cause people to compromise their freedom?</span><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Dave:</strong><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> The pen, as an open expression of intellect. That better kind of authority leads to "essentially constructive" power. For example, Thomas Paine wrote a pamphlet called </span><em style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Common Sense</em><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;">, which argued that the American colonies would be better off without Great Britain as a (parasitic) protector. His power came from his healthy understanding of things and his ability to write. Words themselves. Socrates, to my knowledge, never actually used a pen. He asked a lot of questions, and because his questions penetrated, he is regarded as an authority in philosophy. The names and ideas of the people who forced him to drink poison are all but forgotten, but the "Socratic Method" is still widely used to… free people's minds. The essentially constructive forms of power don't just avoid causing people to compromise their freedom, they actually encourage people to defend and strengthen their freedom. This power is based on the mind and its ability to reason, rather than the body and its ability to suffer.</span><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Ernest:</strong><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> And my last question here: as I have read and experienced personally, in the state of creative imagination, we attain freedom—or at least have the illusion that we do. How do you respond to this view?</span><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Dave:</strong><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> Watch the movie </span><em style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Brazil</em><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> and pay attention to what the protagonist </span><em style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">experiences</em><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> at the end of the movie. His is the pinnacle of freedom. When you reach that place, you no longer have anything desirable to the parasites. When there's no one left for it to live off, it will die. I can't wait!</span><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Ernest:</strong><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> Thank you Dave! It's always a pleasure to discuss questions with you. Hope to have another discussion soon with another topic of human interest.</span><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></strong><br style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><strong style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Dave:</strong><span face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px;"> Thank you Ernest! I enjoyed your questions.</span><br /></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-18118075044179335622022-04-30T13:02:00.001-07:002022-04-30T13:02:28.492-07:00The Dopamine Trap<div dir="ltr">Here is a list of things I do from time to time just because I feel like it:<div>Solve a <a href="https://wordlegame.org/">Wordle</a> puzzle and a <a href="https://numberle.org/">Numberle</a> puzzle.</div><div>Work on a <a href="https://www.nonograms.org/">Nonogram</a>.</div><div>Play "Bricks 'n Balls" on our iPad.</div><div><br></div><div>There are many other things I could list but I am not listing them because they do not act as dopamine traps as far as I can tell. A dopamine trap is a thing that will stop a person from getting stuff done. It works by providing a schedule of dopamine releases. The brain's default method of providing motivation to the experiencing being using it is to seek dopamine release, and it does an amazing amount of pattern recognition processing to find the things that cause dopamine to be released.</div><div><br></div><div>There are some rational foundations for my interest in some of the items in my list. The puzzles in the first item work different parts of my brain and make for good practice. Since they help keep me sharp, I indulge myself by playing them. The nonogram works some important parts of my brain too, so that's also a justifiable indulgence. There is one minor value related to brain health in the third item in my list, and that is the strategy development for getting enough points to get three stars. I played the game for probably about 100 hours over the last five years before I realized that I should be using a strategy. Until then, it functioned only to relax my brain, and not even as well as taking a nap would have.</div><div><br></div><div>I wrote this to exorcise the time-wasting demon that I think of as "the dopamine trap." My description of dopamine and how it relates to our brains is from memory and may be slightly inaccurate. If you know better, please let me know!</div></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-79063757299638695822022-04-29T09:42:00.001-07:002022-04-29T09:42:22.390-07:00What the Trashcan Told Me (4/25/2022)<div dir="ltr"><div>After my yoga this morning, I stood, as usual, facing the sun feeling gratitude for my experience of life. I opened my palms toward the sun and took several deep slow breaths. Then I was done. There's always a few bits of grass stuck to my hands so I rubbed them together to brush them off. I turned to continue my walk but in the corner of my eye I saw what seemed to be a person so I looked at it and it was just a trash can. Then I walked over to it, looked around it and in it and found nothing interesting. Then I imagined that someone could see me and would come ask if I lost something. The following is how I imagined that conversation might go:</div><div><br></div><div>"No, I just noticed this trash can out of the corner of my eye and thought it was a person and I don't think those things are simply random so I came to investigate. Maybe it was because... you need someone to talk to?"</div><div><br></div><div>He thought about it a while and then said "Maybe."</div><div><br></div><div>We stood there looking at each awkwardly as I watched his face relax from what seemed to be a grimace.</div><div><br></div><div>"My wife is pissed at me. I don't really wanna talk about it but maybe you're right."</div><div><br></div><div>I looked at the ground which I can see is a habit of mine when someone tells me something that is sad for them. Then I looked back at his face and saw that he was looking for words.</div><div><br></div><div>"Uh..." he said, confirming my interpretation. He looked a little teary-eyed when he said "I actually prayed for help. She won't answer her phone."</div><div><br></div><div>I stayed silent and looked away when he glanced up, and then quickly looked back to see him looking for words again. I wanted to say "It's okay" to let him know that he had all the time he needed. I was fulfilling the role assigned to me by misinterpreting a trashcan as a person. I didn't say it, though, because he could tell and the silence was nice. Perhaps it was a kind of respite for him.</div><div><br></div><div>"I cheated on her and she found out last night and now I'm locked out of our house." He was holding back tears and stopped talking to suppress them.</div><div><br></div><div>I struggled with the idea that I was just there to listen and probably shouldn't say anything. The words I wanted to say were banging on the inside of my head. They were also changing. I didn't know what to say anyway.</div><div><br></div><div>"I don't know what to do," he said.</div><div><br></div><div>"There are other ways to reach her. Take an ad out on a billboard she can see, or make an apology and put it on her windshield. I could keep coming up with ideas but eventually I'd have to charge you for them... But not today. Today I figure I should listen to you until you're done talking and that will make me feel like I did something worthwhile today. So if I come up with more ideas and you like one, AND you're done talking, then I can continue my walk."</div><div><br></div><div>I watched him think about it. I regretted making it sound like I wanted to continue my walk. I did, but I liked the conversation too. There were more words in my head, tempting me. I gave in.</div><div><br></div><div>"You're probably not crying about her or being locked out. You're crying because you have to hurt someone, either your wife or your mistress, to solve your problem. The thing about relationships is that they make us better if we can tolerate staying in them. Everyone fucks up. Did you ever think she was too cold, she spends all your money, she's ungrateful or just mean?" His expression said yes but I didn't want him to feel like he had to admit it, so I continued. "We can use these as excuses to hurt the people we love, but hurting them is always a fuckup, and if we're with someone really good, they'll bear the suffering and help us get better. So choose one of them."</div><div><br></div><div>"That seems so simple, but I can't," he said, after thinking about it.</div><div><br></div><div>Sometimes people tell me things I just don't believe and my strategy is to let their claim hang out, unchallenged, unsupported, and chill for a while. I think about why they believe this unbelievable thing, and what they might think of on their own that would help them question it. Sometimes this seems to make them think of it too, and maybe even say it. Eventually, I figured he's just torturing himself with his inability to choose, so I broke the silence.</div><div><br></div><div>"You can't because you're sure that it will hurt one of them. But then you're already hurting both of them. If you don't choose, eventually the choice will be made for you, and maybe it won't be either of them. Maybe it would be easier if you accept that you fuck up and one of them helps you get better. Whatever you do, if you're going to be with someone, it should be someone who helps you become a better person. And she should know that she does that, and she should expect better from you, and she probably does. So give that to her, whoever she is."</div><div><br></div><div>We stood there for a few more seconds, both of us looking at the other and then away. Finally, he said "Thanks," and walked away.</div><div><br></div></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-12375265671843131612021-11-08T20:26:00.000-08:002022-07-16T15:40:02.506-07:00Meet More People. Open Your Mind and Theirs!<div dir="ltr">I would like more people to see themselves the way I see myself, as a bit of the universe capable of great joy, which realizes that potential and helps others do the same. I think a great way to go in that direction is to introduce people to the ideas of voluntaryism, Stoicism, gratitude, humility, curiosity, meditation, and knowing oneself better and better. I have a plan to do that on my daily morning walk. Perhaps that's why you're reading this.<div><br></div><div>Did I say "Hey, can I give you $10 to read something I wrote?" Did I then hand you a business card, that said:</div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div>Thanks for accepting my offer. I'd like to start a trend of people who meet in person trading cards like this one so they get to know each other and begin to see value in disparate views of the human condition. I hope the $10 is enough for you to justify visiting tinyurl.com/amkinder, and if you see the value in it that I do, perhaps you'll make this same offer to someone else.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What will be at the URL?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for visiting! You might have received $10 for reading this, but you certainly have that beautiful curiosity that makes you wonder what else is here. I'd like to introduce you to the ideas of <a href="https://litmocracy.blogspot.com/2020/01/thanks-for-click.html">voluntaryism</a>, <a href="https://dailystoic.com/">Stoicism</a>, <a href="https://passionplanner.com/blogs/content/21-day-gratitude-challenge">gratitude</a>, <a href="https://litmocracy.blogspot.com/search?q=+humility">humility</a>, <a href="https://litmocracy.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-three-levels-of-science.html">curiosity</a>, <a href="https://litmocracy.blogspot.com/2019/06/instructions-to-myself.html">meditation</a>, and <a href="https://litmocracy.blogspot.com/2019/07/tolerance-and-empathy.html">knowing oneself better and better</a>. Each of those items is a link to something about the idea. If you already agree that a more widespread awareness of and interest in one or more of them will do a "whole lotta good," consider spending $10 to give someone a business card like the one described above. I bet it works with $1 too.</div><div><br></div><div>P.S. I don't have any such business cards yet, nor have I printed this on paper and stuffed the papers into envelopes to carry around tomorrow morning. I did write what people would find at the URL, and the preliminary text for the business card. It's progress!</div></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-40958479771307540832021-05-28T14:46:00.001-07:002021-05-28T14:46:50.114-07:00Letter Two to my Future Self<div dir="ltr">Hello again,<div><br></div><div>I was just looking for something and ended up stumbling upon <a href="https://everything2.com/user/dscotese/writeups/Hocus+Pocus">something I wrote</a> about the etymology of "Hocus Pocus." If that link doesn't work, check <a href="http://webarchive.org">webarchive.org</a>. I see that it has been saved twice since 2003 when I wrote it. Just today, a new acquaintance read the previous letter and expressed her feeling that everyone should read it, so I am encouraged. Thanks, Natalia! What's amazing to me is that there seem to be parallels between my first letter and that write up about hocus pocus from 2003.</div><div><br></div><div>I sit here to ponder for a moment how I might express the parallels and I haven't found anything yet. Okay, here's one: I treat each claim I make and its opposing claim with equal respect. I did it in 2003 and I did it nine days ago. It is my habit. Okay, maybe not <i>each </i>claim, but at least the ones I think might be important. I find great value in being precise and accurate. There are often small benefits to it that we don't see until later, small benefits to treating opposing claims with the same amount of respect, and also small benefits to being precise and accurate. Precision and accuracy are different things. I'll leave it to you to find the differences.</div><div><br></div><div>If you don't mind doing homework to get to know me better (or to more quickly regain the ground we lost if this brain already got re-integrated into the rest of the universe), you can visit my page on <a href="http://everything2.com">everything2.com</a> and read through other entries I wrote. Speaking of which, one of the impactful events in my life was "Nine Eleven." I compiled a book about it, using the writings of others: <span style="color:rgb(15,17,17);font-family:"Amazon Ember",Arial,sans-serif">Everything2 Remembers September 11, 2001. In any case, I was inspired to write this letter when I rediscovered the everything2 website. <a href="https://everything2.com/user/dscotese/writeups">Here is the list of everything I wrote on that site</a>.</span></div></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-50671115495487182112021-05-19T17:44:00.001-07:002021-07-23T14:09:28.029-07:00Dear Future Me, Letter One<div dir="ltr">The sooner you start reading this, the better. There are a lot of things to learn and it will take a long time to learn enough of them. In this letter, I just want to give you some pointers. Remember yesterday when you made some kind of decision about how you do something? Maybe you have to go back before yesterday, or maybe you really did make that kind of decision yesterday, but you don't see it that way yet. In any case, your brain stored it. You'll wake up every day of your life until and unless you reconsider that decision and change it, and your brain will bring it up each time you need to do that thing. That's how we all work, and I have been working that way since I was born. I'm writing you this letter because that brain that stored all those decisions is going to wear out and stop working properly, and this body it uses to do my bidding won't do it any more.<div><br></div><div>People will tell you things and sometimes you'll believe them even if they aren't true. We like to build up our sense of self as a person who "knows" particular things, but we don't actually know them. You "know" your name, but if you choose to ignore people who use it and answer to a different name, then you'll really be changing your name, even if there's no legal name change. It's not really knowledge, but your decision. You "know" that two and two make four, but again, you decided to use a definition of "two" and "four" that make it so. You "know" that if you drop an egg from six feet above the cement, it will break open when it hits the cement, but someone could catch it and drop it again from a half a centimeter, and then maybe it won't break. In any case, what you know or think you know isn't what you are.</div><div><br></div><div>A guy named Jack Kornfield said "Wisdom says we are nothing. Love says we are everything. Between these two, our life flows." In my experience, he's right, and so you can choose to be nothing or everything, honoring either the claim that love makes or the claim that wisdom makes. Over time, you can honor them both. This will help you have humility, avoid being egotistical or selfish in the way that degrades your experience of life, and it will teach you.</div><div><br></div><div>Think about the things you "know" as either definitions or working assumptions. Be spry and adaptive. Sometimes people will use words in a way different from how you use them. Be curious and kind as you explore what they mean, and gently invite them to appreciate how you would interpret what they say given your way of using those words. This opens up great conversations about language and understanding. When you talk to someone who uses a particular word differently from how you use it, try to stick with their meaning, and use different words when you want to use it in your normal way. This will help to avoid confusion and arguing. The beautiful thing about a working assumption is that when you get the right kind of evidence, it's easy and natural to update the assumption. If you pretend that your working assumption is something you "know," then you will resist some kinds of evidence that show imperfections in your "knowledge." This is called "cognitive dissonance."</div><div><br></div><div>What you are is nothing and everything. If you want to keep learning, remember that whatever you feel like you know can become ever more accurate if you leave it open to adjustment by calling it a working assumption. Your skill at living will get better faster when you do these things, and I have one last request.</div><div><br></div><div>If you can put these two ideas into your own words and tell them to other people, and then ask them to do the same, we will have created an oral tradition. It will be largely immune to the degrading influence of political authority and also to the petrification that happens over time. These two forces, I think, have a strong negative effect on the experience of life. At some point, I hope it will make sense that you and I are one, that we thought up this letter long before either of us was born, and that the wisdom of it wended its way through time, into my mind, out my fingertips, and now is something you can extend to our future selves.</div></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-2264495627442601422021-03-24T08:26:00.001-07:002023-06-01T12:09:25.363-07:00Master Swindlers<div dir="ltr">This is a true story. The names and natures of the characters have been changed to protect the innocent.<br /><br />They set up a printing press in the back of a bank. They each hired an artist to craft a boilerplate that contains a mark nearly impossible to duplicate. They print IOUs for the bank to give its loan customers in order to charge those customers interest on the IOUs. They found some mercenaries willing to accept the IOUs as payment. The mercenaries threaten anyone that refuses to accept these IOUs as payment of a debt. The master swindlers are named Sam and Earl.<br /><br />The essence of this swindle is the ability to print the IOUs and then go buy stuff with them. The bank and the mercenaries are only required because if people cottoned on to the scheme, they would be angry and demand retribution. Sam and Earl have to be careful because if they print too many IOUs, their swindle will become obvious. This has happened to several other swindlers, including fellows named Geronimo in 1922, Argus in 1989, and Ukiah in 1993. Their swindles hinge on an ever more precariously balanced knife-edge called perception. Sam has proven to be the best at this balancing act.<br /><br />Sam and Earl have been doing this for several years, parleying their success into larger and larger amounts of control. Banks that were able to resist the mercenaries have all but vanished. People who used actual commodities or paper representations of actual commodities to pay down their debts to each other have also all but vanished. The world has become Sam and Earl's oyster.<br /><br />However, they have bumped heads recently becaue of olives. The people that borrow and save their money using banks that Sam's mercenaries control and the people that borrow and save their money using banks that Earl's mercenaries control all like olives. Olives are delicious, nutritious, and provide useful byproducts. Everybody loves olives. So owning an olive tree is a great thing, and lots of people own one or more.<br /><br />There are people that use olives as money, but the olives are slippery and the weight of the olives you have to pay for a car makes olive-trading very cumbersome. There are some, but not many. Most people who own olive trees collect IOUs for their olives. Some collect Sam's IOUs and some collect Earl's IOUs. This is a problem for Sam because before Earl showed up, Sam's IOUs were the shit. Everybody wanted them. Everybody needed them. They were in demand, and so Sam was able to run his presses and buy lots of stuff for himself and his friends without worrying too much about getting caught.<br /><br />But as more and more people decided to trade their olives in for Earl's IOUs - namely Ira and his brother Ira - the demand for Sam's IOUs went down. When Sam's IOUs go down in value, he has to print more of them to maintain his lifestyle. It's starting to prove more and more of a problem for Sam to balance on the ever sharpening knife-edge of perception. So, a couple years ago (2003), Sam decided to pay a visit to Ira.<br /><br />"I don't want you collecting Earl's IOUs for your olives any more, Ira" said Sam.<br /><br />"But your IOUs are not worth very much any more, my friend. Earl's IOUs are very important to all the people that live near me."<br /><br />"Well, Ira, then I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to tell my people that you have some terrible three-letter acronym that requires me to take over your orchard."<br /><br />"Sam, you can't do that!"<br /><br />But Sam did it anyway, and the mercenaries came, and the mercenaries dug up the irrigation systems and the olives began falling off the trees and decaying in the sand. Then Sam's mercenaries installed a new irrigation system and took the olive collecting equipment from Ira's employees and told them how to use it (though they already knew) and when to use it (though they already knew) and where to use it (though they already knew). And Sam's mercenaries told them to trade the olives for Sam's IOUs and not Earl's. And they did this.<br /><br />Ira is a mess. He gets some sun, and it shines, but it does not warm him. He takes baths, but they do not clean him. He eats curds, but they do not fill him. He is wasting away and the world blames Sam. Sam admits that there was no terrible three-letter acronym, but claims that something was wrong with Ira's olives, and now it has been fixed. The people are suspicious of Sam's claims, but he prints IOUs for them and they believe their prosperity is a result of his wonderful printing press and his amazing artist and his heroic mercenaries, so they bury their suspicions in holly and encase the holly in wood and laugh and sing about it all.<br /><br />But Ira has a brother, and they have cousins, and friends, and these people own olive trees, and Sam is yelling that there's something wrong, something fishy, some short fuse, some nucleus of error that has spread to the other Ira's olives and threatens to spread to olive trees everywhere. And Sam is right. The olive trees are infected. But Sam's game is coming to an end, because the only two people that had ever died from bad olives were Hiro and Nagasa, and the olives they ate came from Sam himself.<br /><br />Swindlers - the best swindlers - do whatever it takes to keep their game going. Earl and Sam are beginning to work together these days, because their squabble over whose IOUs are used to trade olives pales in comparison to the problem they'll have when people understand their scheme. But Sam still pursues the Ira who still sells olives, and what happens between those two, we will have to wade into the murky future to find out. But let us remember Sam and Earl, and do what we can to steer clear of them. If we get mixed up with swindlers, we're asking for trouble. Oh yes, Sam and Earl are in for trouble when this story gets out.<br /></div><div dir="ltr"><br /></div><div dir="ltr"><a href="https://everything2.com/title/Master+Swindlers">(Originally published in 2006)</a></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-61169851418521339132021-03-24T08:18:00.001-07:002021-03-24T08:18:46.755-07:00Be The Master<div dir="ltr">I used to use this phrase a lot and I'm going to start using it more. It makes me realize that I was raised to be the master. No, not a slave master, but a master of myself. I was trusted to handle my problems and left alone to figure stuff out. Thanks, mom and dad! Because it is so natural to me to control myself, it took me this long to figure out that many people are raised to be slaves. Not only slaves to others (government, society), but even to their own emotions. This training has all kinds of horrible effects, but it can be easily defeated with this little suggestion.<br><br>When you're angry, be the master. Decide whether expressing the anger will do more harm or more good. Sometimes we're angry for silly reasons, and hiding this anger would be best, unless we want to display it as a humble admission that we're silly. Sometimes we're angry for very good reasons, and in that case, letting it out with righteousness is the way to go. The trick is to open that little space of time between feeling it and expressing it during which you can decide - more of a guess, I suppose - which way to go. Even if you guess wrong, and things go bad because of your poor guess, you've still taken back your self-control. If it happens again, you'll remember and try something else. What you won't do is remain a slave to the emotion.<br><br>When you feel lazy or tired or you just don't want to do something, you lack motivation, and if you remain a slave to that, and it persists, you'll be "clinically depressed". Who wants that? Get in the habit of being the master of it. Just decide whether or not you care about the things you feel like you should do. If you care, then to hell with the fatigue and the laziness and the pain (if there is any); just go do it. Stick a poker into the eye of those forces in the universe that are trying to stop you.<br><br>Ghandi suggests that we be the change we want to see in the world. I think this starts with being the change you want to see in yourself. All you need to do is recognize the enslavement that persists when you don't kick its ass. So go ahead and start kicking: you be the master.<br></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-89614914894952606892021-02-24T07:34:00.001-08:002021-02-24T07:34:37.988-08:00Four in Thrall<div dir="ltr">Out of the corner of her eye, Kim saw the purse fall onto the floor and disgorge some of it's contents. The pretty young woman whose lap it was on didn't wake up. Kim looked at the old man with the medical id bracelet. His attention was on the sleeping girl too, but that was nothing new. Kim had noticed him eyeing her before the purse fell.<br><br>She was on a graduation celebration weekend with her husband and was waiting for him to return from the car with the their bags. Kim had just graduated nursing school. The hotel lobby seemed small for a hotel, but there was an ocean on the other side, and the room rates reflected a degree of elegance that must have been saved for the rooms. The husband and wife had read good reviews of this hotel while planning their celebration trip.<br><br>"Where did you purchase your id bracelet?" she asked the old man. She had become uncomfortable with his interest in the sleeping woman and part of her wanted desperately to distract him.<br><br>He smiled and fingered his wrist and the metal clinging to it. "This thing? Oh I..."<br><br>She figured his memory was a bit foggy from the way his voice trailed off in thought. Her last clinical rounds had been in the senior ward, and all old people were now suspect.<br><br>"It was a gift from my lovely wife." He smiled again, but turned his attention back to the fallen purse. After a furtive glance in Kim's direction, he called to the sleeping woman. "Miss?" He reached through the space above the purse and touched her shoulder, but still there was no response. He pushed a little harder. "Miss!"<br><br>Kim saw that his face was turning red and felt embarrassed for him. She knelt next to the purse and gathered up the lipstick, envelope, big fat wallet, loose change, and car keys that had spilled out, put them back inside, and leaned the purse against the leg of the chair.<br><br>She sat back in her seat and stared at the womans chest. It was not rising and falling.<br><br>"Oh my God! I think that woman might be..." Kim quickly returned and touched the woman's neck, gently at first, and then pushing enough to find a carotid pulse. She looked at the uniformed hotel clerk behind the front desk and said "Call 911!". He was pale as a ghost, so she took out her cell phone and dialled it herself.<br><br>"Is she warm?" asked the old man, <br><br>"She has no pulse," she said while she dialled.<br><br>"Oh my Lord!" said the clerk.<br><br>The old man stood up quickly, thinking there might be something he should do. He looked around furtively and noticed a police officer outside. His fist rapped the window glass, catching the officer's attention. He pointed to the pretty lady.<br><br>Officer Cash entered the hotel lobby at 15:30. He suspected a problem inside due to the behavior of a senior citizen. His weapon was unholstered and his radio was at hand in case he needed to call for backup.<br><br>"What seems to be the trouble?"<br><br>Another lady sitting across from the one the senior had indicated said "She has no pulse," also pointing. No backup necessary, but this did call for some radio work. He lifted the lightweight device to his ear, pressed the button, and reported, "Possible 10-54 at 3531 Beachfront."<br><br>"Dave, 10-54 means possible, so you only have to say '10-54'," came back a sweet female voice. "I'll send an ambulance over."<br><br>"I called 911 and they're already sending one," said the lady who had pointed and reported the 10-54.<br>"Dave? An emergency dispatcher has already sent an ambulance to that location," came the sweet voice over the radio again.<br><br>"Oh Lord." The hotel clerk was white and his voice was weak, but everyone suddenly looked at him. He disappeared from behind the front desk.<br><br>"Hey!" beckoned Officer Cash, "Do you know anything about this woman?!" But the clerk did not respond.<br>"This situation here is secure," he assured himself. "I'm going to find that clerk."<br><br>The officer scanned the front desk to see if there was a way to get back there. He leaned over the partition and looked from one side to the other, but couldn't see a way in, or even how the clerk could have gotten out. The entrance and exit to the clerk's station were very well hidden. He started walking slowly away from the front desk, scanning the walls for other possible escape routes or some way to locate the elusive clerk.<br><br>Just as he turned a corner, the lady called out, "The clerk is back."<br><br>"I'm sorry officer, I... I had a sudden panic attack."<br><br>"Do you know anything about this woman?"<br><br>The clerk's voice was so weak that no one could hear him.<br><br>"It's ok. Just tell me what you know."<br><br>"I gave her an envelope. Maybe it..." but his voice had become too squeaky and slight for him to continue.<br><br>"Ok, sir. Take a deep breath, and tell me about the envelope."<br><br>"I t-touched it," he stammered out.<br><br>"You think the envelope may have killed her?"<br><br>By this time, Kim had the young lady on the floor and was performing CPR on her. As she did compressions, she said "I touched that envelope too, and I feel fine."<br><br>The old man was enthralled by the scene.<br><br>"It- it it... it smelled funny." said the clerk.<br><br>"Where is the envelope now?" asked the officer. Kim pointed to the purse while the clerk said "Ogod ogod ogod."<br><br>He was back on the radio and soon a HazMat team and an FBI squad arrived (before the ambulance) and removed Kim from the body. The hotel was evacuated. All the people were directed into a large tent erected in the street where they stood in lines to be "washed down" by some HazMat agents. While the last of the hotel patrons were exiting the fire escape doors, the ambulance arrived and one of the paramedics sweet-talked his way to the dead body where he drained a small amount of blood, shook the vial it flowed into, and then held it up.<br><br>"She died from sleeping pills. It's common at this hotel." He then looked in the purse, and turned to the nearest gloved agent, holding it open. "I suppose that's evidence, eh?" The agent reached in and produced an empty prescription bottle from the purse.<br><br>The HazMat and FBI scientists who were examining the envelope held up the note that it had contained. One of them mentioned that it smelled like pipe tobacco and lilacs. He turned around and read it out loud: "I'm sorry, my love. I won't forget you."<br></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-3766784357856391652021-01-03T16:25:00.001-08:002021-01-03T16:25:38.427-08:00A Personal History of Intention<div dir="ltr">I don't remember it, but a little while after I emerged from my mother, I wanted to swallow. I was hungry. I probably cried. As if by magic, this huge warm boob showed up and I found myself getting the nipple in my mouth and sucking milk out. Of course, this is all rather mundane to everyone who can read. We all know about nursing. The magic is kind of lost on us though.<div><br></div><div>The fact is that we don't have any way to build intention into structure. We can make a machine which, when activated, does something useful. We can arrange paper and kindling so that when exposed to some heat, it will start a fire. We can set dominoes up so that when the first one falls into the second, it knocks them all down, one by one, and it's fun to watch. None of these things express intention other than our own actions. Our own actions in setting these things up reflect intention but then we step back and there's no physical representation of it. Intention is magic.</div><div><br></div><div>This is a bit of a review of a book I haven't yet finished reading, Becoming Supernatural, by Dr. Joe Dispenza. He explains that intention has real effects on the physical world, and encourages his readers to use this fact to create joy. One section describes drawing a letter to represent something you want to happen and then listing details about that potential event, and then listing your positive emotions that will result from that event occurring. His description is a set of instructions. He warns the reader not to put a time limit or deadline on the intention.</div><div><br></div><div>My first experience following his instructions was based on gaining clarity. I immediately felt that I gained clarity. It took me a full day to decide that gaining clarity would be my goal, about 15 minutes to write my lists, and five more minutes to realize that I met my goal. Twelve hours later, I decided on another intention, and I'm writing this post to describe it. This morning, I had a conversation with one of my best friends. He helped me realize that the kind of intention well-suited for use with Dr. Dispenza's instructions is something specific and seemingly not under your control. For example...</div><div><br></div><div>I intend that a great number of people get the feeling around the same time that they feel more fear than they should. "I'm more afraid than I should be." I believe that most people are more afraid than they should be, and they don't realize it. The recent popularization of a virus has caused a great number of people to realize it, but not enough for me. There are a lot more elements to my intention than the widespread internal thought "I'm more afraid than I should be." </div><div><br></div><div>"Why am I so afraid?" I intend that people will recognize that the feeling (that their fear is inappropriately strong relative to the danger) can only exist because that danger really is weaker than it appears. This realization will lead them to explore the sources of information about that danger, and apply their critical thinking skills to those sources. I intend that it will dawn on them (or remind them) that it's much easier to control people when they are filled with fear. This will lead them to question "Who is saying it's so dangerous? Do I want them to have this much control over me?"</div><div><br></div><div> A great number of people will be asking themselves these questions, and some of them work for large media corporations. They will become more and more sensitive to the fact that their employer is being used to propagandize the public. Some of them will see doors open to opportunities to provide the public with more objective news, since that is what interested many of them in the first place. The CEOs of large media corporations will face the choice of continuing to accept contracts to spread propaganda, or telling the truth. Which path will make more money? They have to figure that out to stay within the bounds of the law, which requires them to maximize shareholder value. Some of their (ex-)employees who went through those doors will choose to serve better news to the public. There will be competition.</div><div><br></div><div>This is already happening, but I think COVID19 has not (yet) put "I'm more afraid than I should be" into the minds of enough people in a small enough span of time. I intend to do that myself, but I'd like to have an obvious sign that my intention has been realized. I haven't yet chosen the metric which will tell me my intention has been realized. For all I know, it has already been realized and the obviousness of it just isn't yet apparent to me. I've got it: Someone will say to me, "I realized I shouldn't be so afraid," or something like that. It just can't be any of you, but I'm sure you can help to make it happen.</div></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4854619655125512358.post-39946834490437974082020-11-03T19:36:00.001-08:002020-11-03T19:36:56.612-08:00My Aversion to Voting<div dir="ltr">I've got a framework for attenuating the divisiveness of politics. There's me, and there's everyone else. My actions and their actions have effects, both on me and on them.<div><br></div><div>The effect of my political action on myself is an abdication of my own conscience. I can put less effort into my decisions because they will only be put into effect if enough others agree. By the same metric, my own efforts are relatively meaningless. That's a bad thing.</div><div><br></div><div>My political actions also have an effect on others. I'm basically saying. when I choose one of the options of a particular item on the ballot, EVERYONE else must be forced to abide by that decision (if I happen to be on the winning side). It would be much better if some people were immune to the decision, in case it's a stupid decision for them.</div><div><br></div><div>Third, everyone is doing this to me too, which means I'm going to be subject to punishment for doing some of the things my conscience tells me are the right thing to do. I'm expected to obey the law instead of my conscience, whenever they are in conflict. The fact that they do it to me and I do it to them doesn't justify it. I am willing to be the bigger person and tolerate the imposition because I think I'm setting a good example: Stop coercing people.</div><div><br></div><div>Lastly, everyone else is also experiencing these three things because of everyone else. One of the largest and ugliest, but also quite subtle effects (despite its depth and intensity) is that too many people abdicate their responsibility to develop and obey their own conscience. That's a problem even if it's just one person doing it. The widespread encouragement to engage in this voting behavior is, to me, a great tragedy. I encourage people to be more aware of these issues and consider explaining them to others so that someday, we might rely on others to obey not the law, but their own consciences.<br></div></div> Dave Scotesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913120983331583889noreply@blogger.com0