Certainty
Either an occupied state of mind based upon a threshold of reason, or a measure of our emotional commitment to an idea which has little to do with evidence or reason. Constantly at odds with a probabilistic understanding of the world, which should immediately warn us of its dangers.
Many argue that certainty is reached after we have accumulated a sufficient amount of evidence in support of a claim, but what does sufficient mean? After all, we all have different thresholds for when we decide we have become certain of a claim or view. No generalized models of certainty exist. It is a conscious choice we make based on how strongly we feel about the quality of the evidence on offer. Some of us will be satisfied with little or no evidence to feel certain about something. Others cannot be convinced of anything, even if you provide a large body of coherent and compelling evidence; they are true skeptics.
If an occupied state of mind based upon reason is more to our liking, a model that is reliably predictive must be introduced to qualify our views. Clear criteria must be established to determine if our threshold has been met, but even then, these are highly subject to our preconceptions about appropriate standards of measure. In the absence of perfect information, how much information is enough to sway us? Regardless, we require a model of some sort to keep us honest about when we are falling victim to our own shortcomings. Without a model that generates accurate predictions, there is only emotional commitment.
Uncertainty is not for the faint of heart. Fortunately, there is a mechanism to mediate the differences in our goal posts: a dedicated and lifelong commitment to pursuing TRUTH that we cooperate in discovering together.
Posted: 30 Dec 2022
Business
An entity that seeks to purchase your allegiance.
Businesses have historically sold products, however since the advent of formalized marketing models, they currently barter in NARRATIVES. If a business can correctly identify a human niche that can be exploited, they can construct a brand or image that will incline us to seek it out with an implied promise that our anxieties associated with exclusion will be mitigated. We will belong to something bigger; we will avoid being alone. Once our allegiance has been procured, the quality of their products is no longer part of the equation. We seem fine with this arrangement.
As time progresses, we maintain our brand allegiances because we feel beholden to the comforts and status associated with whatever is popular. We do not value our time, which means we do not value the money it earns us, and we are merely waiting for the next business to acquire our ALLEGIANCE. A product need not be reliable, retain value, be functional, or even be aesthetically pleasing, so long as it makes us feel like less of an outcast. It is clear that our relationship with businesses is an illusion due to how willing we are to transfer our allegiance to the next big thing, and so the promises of belonging are obviously fallacious.
When a civilization is experiencing an identity crisis, we are far easier to prey upon because we are desperate for a sense of stability in the world. The remedy is to discover who you are, be yourself and cooperate with a broader community in shaping one another on terms that are honest, clear and as close to approximating wisdom as possible.
No strategies can guarantee a sense of belonging, but it beats having your identity intertwined with a business or a product. The only thing worse than this is being defined by an IDEOLOGY.
Posted: 30 Dec 2022
Bad Actors
A soccer player who takes a dive. Not only because their melodrama is abundantly transparent, but also because it is cheating.
Virtually everything in life is a game and a negotiation. Humans, among many other mammals, possess a ‘play centre’ in the brain. We seek out games, establish rules, and strategize to win them. Furthermore, our development into well-adjusted and healthy individuals appears to hinge on our ability to navigate these games effectively. They are social by design and by necessity, although the rules and context vary greatly.
The important thing is that games do not function correctly unless we are all following and subject to the same rules, regardless of how arbitrary they seem. When bad actors fail to win, they break the rules. We perceive this as an injustice, because it is. This is the genesis of the divide between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, both of which are inspired by equity.
We do not need to win all the time, but we need to feel as though we are a reasonable competitor. When we are unable to compete, or if we fail to meet a perceived standard of competitive output that we impose upon ourselves, we are left with four potential options.
We can invest more time and effort in order to improve our ability to compete, which is becoming increasingly unpopular in wealthier nations because it demands individual effort and thankless hard work.
We can create a niche within the game that gives rise to new rules.
We can exit the game and play an adjacent one.
We can insist that the game is broken or unjust, and demand that the rules be changed to suit our preferred objectives and talents. Friedrich Nietzsche referred to this as ‘slave morality,’ and it has seen a meteoric rise in the last few decades.
Whatever strategy we employ, a game is always being played, and we are engaged in a never-ending series of negotiations in an attempt to convince others that the one we have selected is worthy of their consideration. As a result, reading and effective communication skills are incredibly important, because they assist us in our ability to effectively persuade others in adopting our rules.
Bad actors do not feel the need to persuade others or make their own games, they will simply exploit the weaknesses of the games they play that were built upon an understanding of common humanity and reciprocity. Being a bad actor is a maladaptive strategy and it should predictably end in their failure. A sign that our system has become corrupt is that bad actors are more common than ever, and worse, they seem to be winning.
The reason we experience moral injury after observing a rules violation is precisely because they are often arbitrary. The world could be a lawless jungle where the most exploitative and aggressive reign supreme, but an existence comprised of zero-sum games will be reduced to rubble and human suffering will be maximized. We uphold rules, arbitrary or not, because our shared history has taught us the value of games framed by mutually agreed-upon rules. Because most of these games are voluntary, when participants cheat, they remind us of a nature that we believed we had acknowledged and addressed. We find it offensive.
The argument at the heart of systems governed by rules is an egalitarian one, proposing that fairness and justice only have meaning within a context of an equal application of standards. This is a nearly ironclad position and defeating it is an uphill battle. How can we justify having different rules for different people? If so, based on what criteria? If one criterion is deemed appropriate, then why not another? And another after that? Who decides which criteria are suitable? How is this person selected? Are they now responsible for any disparate outcomes that will occur as a result of this change? How well do the parties involved understand the complex system being modified? Everything has a trade-off, have these been properly identified and measured against the potential benefits of the change?
A concise encapsulation of addressing these concerns is to try our best to discover their answers through an uncompromised democratic process. The problem is finding one that is governed by representatives that are mostly immune to perverse incentives and consider it a priority. This is why the argument is so hard to defeat, because pretending that any institution will be able to carry it out effectively is virtually impossible. Our institutions simply cannot bear the weight of our fatuously idealistic expectations. As a result, bad actors will join the game and do as they please.
All we can do is try our best to punish their flagrant disregard for the rules, and avoid making EXCUSES for them. Alternatively, we will lose every game as we permit our compassion to be preyed upon, and we will have no one to blame but ourselves.
People are not equal, but we ought to have access and be subject to the same rules. All other models are inferior and introduce far too many opportunities for abuse.
Posted: 30 Dec 2022
4
A dog has four legs.
The sum of 2 + 2, despite ongoing attempts by intellectuals to showcase how clever they are using obfuscating sophistry. Pointing out that there is more than one way of looking at the question is novel, but it is illogical and fails to persuade anyone sensible.
Demonstrating how workarounds can generate 5 as the answer would be cute if it were not literally Orwellian.
The current obsession with this equation is a prime example of why intellectuals have such a poor reputation; they are perceived as dangerous by many and useless by most. They are wasting everyone’s time, as though it were a limitless resource that may be squandered on rhetorical postulations.
It is weak ideological masturbation that claimants believe constitutes revolutionary thinking.
It is a distraction and a manipulation conjured by those who have nothing important or useful to contribute, but adequately serves as cover for legitimate social and political issues.
Fight me. Anytime. Anywhere.
See: INTELLECTUALS
Revised: 4 Apr 2023
Awareness
The popularity of awareness campaigns cannot be overstated. Raising awareness is a form of virtue signaling – announcing to others that you possess a quality of righteousness. Due to the cost of such signals hovering around zero, it does not earn us anything worthwhile. The desired effect is that others will interpret our signal as a willingness to suffer a cost that is commensurate with the righteousness of the enterprise. This will bestow us with an unearned status that we acquired without having to pay any cost.
Not only is this cheating, but it actually produces the opposite of what it alleges. In lieu of suffering a cost and generating value for others, we pay nothing and hope to glean status for ourselves. When we are successful in such endeavours, it is an evolutionary bargain. Because this form of signaling is so lucrative, it spreads memetically like wildfire, and thus becomes an obvious scam that is recognizable by everyone.
The fact that awareness campaigns are so prevalent to this day is a testament that lazy idealogues have infected virtually every sphere of human existence. This may actually be a blessing in disguise; if they were any more industrious, they may actually achieve their ideological goals.
Thank goodness for human incompetence.
Posted: 30 Dec 2022
Assumptions
Asshole
Assertions
There is an epistemological razor that states what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. This is known as Hitchens’s razor, created by and named after Christopher Hitchens, implying that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the claimant. To a logician, this is quintessential; to a monarch, it is law.
From a fairness perspective, this is difficult to beat. While we may be free to assert whatever we would like, others are not obligated to entertain it. This is because assertions alone do not constitute an argument, they are merely words awaiting the gravity of adhering supports. Ideas that float well in thin air are shredded by even a mild gust of wind, which is precisely the fate they deserve.
The petulant authoritarians among us will attempt to supplant evidence with emotions in an attempt to exploit our innate empathy and conscientiousness. This strategy is particularly loathsome because any attempt to resist their emotional weaponry will be met with mendacious accusations ascribing callousness and indifference to objectors.
Maintaining a generous supply of COMEDIANS in any civilization is necessary to safeguard sense-making. Their craft revolves almost entirely around the examination of prolific assertions made by the powerful and the affluent. These modern jokers combine honesty and humour in a manner that dismisses poor quality assertions on our behalf, saving us time while making us laugh.
A reliable way to diagnose the health of a society is to observe how it treats its comedians.
Posted: 30 Dec 2022
ASMR Videos
A commentary on Western culture that diagnoses us as addicts constantly in search of a fix.
The drug of choice is positive emotion combined with a tingling sensation. While it is clear that we need healthy doses of positive emotions for our mental stability, and the touch of another person to ground and console us, consuming videos that produce an Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response is like any other drug: a poor substitution for meaningful social interactions. Instead of isolating ourselves and watching videos like a crack addict, we should go outside and meet people.
One positive meaningful experience with a real person should be enough to inspire a change of habit.
Posted: 30 Dec 2022
Art
A knot that ties up the loose ends of reality. Great art collects numerous strands of profundity and weaves them into an endless cord.
Discussions about art reliably produce two disagreements. One is about its status, the other, its purpose. While these may begin as distinct conversations, they have a way of becoming intertwined. If the status of art is compromised, then it will be incapable of fulfilling its purpose. On the other hand, if there are doubts about the purpose or value of art, then its status as a relevant aspect of human life cannot be effectively ascertained.
When engineering a conversation about abstract concepts, it is generally prudent to establish the nature of something and then move on from there. Failing to clearly define a concept or term is certain to inhibit the utility of any discussions that follow from its introduction; it is a romantic waste of time. The peculiar thing about art is its tendency to include attempts at clarifying it as part of its definition. Ideas and expressions can be artful, and we are likely to prefer elaborations that evoke a sense of awe or profundity when someone is trying to untangle the nature of art. Are carefully crafted and poignant definitions accurate just because they elicit an emotional response? Our reactions say far more about us than the stimulus itself.
This is why reflections on the nature of art often conclude with an admission of humble defeat. Who is to say what art is? We are then left mired in the hopeful assumption that when we discuss art, our audience shares our views. Even this is somewhat artful, and so the endless cord of art is apparent by a mere utterance of its name. It is in this strange and wonderful way that art binds us together, a rope tethering us to a profoundly inexplicable reality. We tie our knots along the cord as markers, hoping it will guide us to truths that reason alone fails to provide.
In a sense, art is indistinguishable from freedom, because although we may struggle to contain its nature with words, when art is placed in a box, we immediately find it unsatisfying. There is something to the idea that when restrictions are imposed on art, it is no longer art, it becomes something else entirely. Limitations on the technique or medium can serve as welcome challenges to an artist, but to parameterize its expression formally depletes it. This has been attempted by every Western culture as far back as we are aware. A government or regulator will insist that there should be approved forms of art, and if an industry is interested in earning less revenue, they can adopt a similar ethos. This is because ordinary citizens already endure enough limitations in every facet of their lives, and so it is imperative that their art and entertainment remain free from the imposition of social engineers. When art insists on a political message, it has become propaganda, a medium that is void of artistic merit. Propaganda is anti-art, confined, deliberate and strategic. It does not invite expression or engagement - it demands obedience.
With respect to the purpose of art, Dr. Cesar A. Cruz posited that art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable. While this may not be the most widely held belief about the purpose or function of art, he is certainly on to something. When confronted with existential dread, many things are on offer that comfort the soul. Art can be one of these things, but it is not uniquely positioned to offer such consolation. The capacity for art to disrupt the status quo is a better angle to shoot.
It is rare for us to actively pursue discomfort, and when we do, it does not typically involve art or entertainment. We want to enjoy our downtime. We do not want to be disturbed, lectured, targeted, violated, or made uneasy. We get enough of that in life already. As a result, the vast majority of distractions we seek out generate emotions contrary to the aforementioned. We want to be comforted, validated, inspired, supported, and feel like everything is fine. Art is uniquely positioned to blur these lines.
Great art, in particular, combines both the disturbing and comforting aspects of reality into an alchemical product that leave a haunting impression in our minds, and often, we savour the unrest it stirs in us. The disturbing capacity of art alone does not classify it as worthy of attention. The majority of modern art is thinly veiled ACTIVISM, designed to raise awareness about issues that are already known by everyone, and imagined as novel by the artist. Art can be political to be sure, but if its wholly political, then it is far better consumed as propaganda. In such situations, it would be prudent to clarify if the piece is using art to convey a political message, or is it art that contains political undertones but is ultimately redeeming relative to human interests. Is the purpose of the piece the art or the political message?
Once we have a functional idea of the answer, we can then comment on whether art is alive or dead. Art exists in a state of perpetual reincarnation, so it is never alive or dead forever, but we can determine its health by extrapolating on the art that is prominently available at a given time. Once this task is accomplished, we will be in a much better position to argue its status.
Well then, is art dead? You tell me.
Posted: 30 Dec 2022
Anti-Capitalism
A sardonic movement designed by wealthy capitalists and adopted by those ignorant of the connection between free markets and economic mobility.
This strange affliction emerges in the minds of some successful capitalists once they have decided to cross the valley into technocratic rule. This occurs after an exceptional benefactor in a capitalist system begins to recognize that permitting the same system to continue threatens their economic stability and affluence due to an ongoing state of competition. What was once their champion has become a villain and they have made it their responsibility to keep us aware of its evils.
It is curious how capitalism is described as evil only after it has successfully delivered on its goodness. To the wealthy and affluent anti-capitalist, now is always the right time to restrict access to the market.
Posted: 30 Dec 2022
Altruism
An inspirational idea for non-serious people that is neither aspirational nor coherent.
Discussions about altruism generally begin with hopeful enthusiasm but ultimately degrade into an insoluble mess of muddled dead ends. Because of this predictable trajectory, conversations about altruism are likely a waste of our time, but if we insist, we will soon embody irony.
It is troubling to notice that attempting to discuss moral purity often makes us feel fundamentally demoralized and lost. The weakness of altruism as a coherent idea is often used as a springboard to introduce alternatives like moral relativism, which is even less coherent than altruism.
This should tell us something about the deceptive nature of language and our complicity in the proliferation of STUPID ideas simply because they appeal to our intellectual laziness.
Posted: 30 Dec 2022
Allegiance
A commodity whose value is determined by how easily it is obtained; the easier it is to obtain, the less it is worth.
If we imagine a scenario where it is easy to obtain someone’s allegiance, then it would be prudent to consider them either fickle or fair-weather. Regardless of which it is, if their allegiance is so easily purchased, then you will not have it for long. Identifying the value of someone’s allegiance is therefore incredibly important, because it permits us to predict their reliability during difficult and challenging times.
Introspections about allegiance can be worthwhile in discovering something meaningful about ourselves. Why do we give away our allegiance so willingly? What am I worth if I am so easily purchased? Am I worth more than this? Beyond this, it is worthwhile to examine the character of those who accept it so willingly. It can be safely assumed that no one of substance or sufficient moral character would accept the allegiance of someone who gives it away without a thought. What use would the allegiance of a social philanderer be to a serious and conscientious mind? If you have no loyalty, then you cannot be trusted, and it could be argued you deserve whatever consequences emerge as a result of these tainted pacts.
Be suspicious of those who happily accept the disposable allegiance of the lost. They are collecting it so it may be spent in a manner that is unlikely to benefit you.
Posted: 30 Dec 2022
Activist
A self-appointed arbiter of other people’s conduct. The lowest calling in life.
An officially self-interested title for those lacking self-awareness.
Someone who seeks to change or control the world; not to understand it.
Thrice the self with twice the fat.
See: OBEDIENCE
Posted: 30 Dec 2022
Activism
A redundant label for normal human behaviour. It seeks to legitimize self-serving conduct by giving it an abstract breadth.
Every animal actively pursues an improved or successful outcome for their priorities or interests. Therefore, establishing a prescribed category for this conduct is unnecessary and STUPID.
See: ACTIVIST
Posted: 30 Dec 2022
Accountability
Re-DO!
The foundation of any democracy.
Democracy cannot exist without accountability, because if no one is held accountable for failures in representative governance, then no one is responsible for making anything work. This infers that, despite having elections, the interests of the majority are not being represented. As a result, elections are performative pageantry funded by tax dollars. Once we have grown accustomed to irrelevant and demoralizing elections, freedom will be the next pillar to crumble.
The health of a democracy can be quickly ascertained by examining how frequently politicians are held accountable for their actions in meaningful ways. Completing this exercise is likely to evoke a sense of despair.
Posted: 30 Dec 2022
Academia
An arena where the battles are so bloody because the stakes are so low.
It is easy to insist on absolute truths and proclaim obvious conclusions when you occupy a position in academia. When an intellectual product that could only plausibly be considered legitimate in academia escapes into the real world, suffering typically ensues. In the event that a particularly obtuse idea leaves academia and infects the real world, human casualties and the destruction of property are guaranteed. Worse still, this is actively sought by some teachers and institutions, virtually all of which are subsidized by your tax dollars.
See: HUBRIS
Posted: 30 Dec 2022
Abstract
A Platonic ambiguation of ideas that, despite being formally critiqued by postmodernists, is regularly inferred when discussing humans because it benefits them.
Humans are not abstract, they cannot be made abstract, and they should not be discussed as abstract if we are seriously attempting to discover what can or ought to be done with any of us as individuals.
A category of ideas responsible for untold human suffering due to their ability to shapeshift into an infinite number of low-resolution intellectual products that seek to bridge the gap into tangible reality. Abstractions are best characterized by their capacity to deceive the human mind through incoherent propositions masquerading as profundity.
Manipulating the abstract realm is most favoured by those seeking to reframe their own perversions as normative human behaviour through the willful destruction of categories.
See: INTELLECTUALS
Posted: 30 Dec 2022
Abortion
Virtually impossible to discuss with anyone in a productive manner due to the impossible line confirming when life begins.
One of the most notorious victims of perceiving humans as abstract.
An excellent proxy issue and the single most confounding human issue ever conceived. We typically employ highly specific frameworks and reductionist thinking in order to resolve such matters, but the fallout of such approaches when it comes to abortion cannot be ignored, that is, unless we are merely pretending to be serious about complicated matters.
The implications of abortion in human life are tethered to so many deeply philosophical questions that we have succumbed to the temptation of avoiding discussing it entirely in any thorough manner in public spaces. On the rare occasions when it is discussed, you can very quickly determine people’s priorities based on their selected standard of acceptance or disavowal.
Most people are moderates in most things, and so the complexity of abortion does not tend to inhabit the margins of human conceptualization. The complexity of abortion emerges amidst the tension of moderate sensibilities when the reality of such decisions plays out in the real world. Moderate views, despite being commonplace, are not inherently equipped to adjudicate the particulars of such confounding concerns. It is those who inhabit the margins that have typically examined the issue to a degree beyond normal expectations who weigh in on the matter so enthusiastically and with a refreshing degree of accuracy.
This poses a problem however, because we only tend to adopt marginal views in resolving issues on a broad scale when we have neither time nor alternatives at our disposal. In wealthier developed nations, there are plenty of both time and alternatives when it comes to individual circumstances and the broader social contexts of abortion. Why then, are we at such odds with one another on a matter of universal significance? Perhaps it is precisely because it is of universal significance that we harbour such strong feelings about it; it is literally a matter of life and death.
Convincing arguments exist on both extremes and many in between, and it is likely the case that issues of universal human significance cannot be solved, they can only be managed on a case-by-case basis. This may be an unpopular view, and for very compelling reasons, but unfortunately, the reality of human outcomes that we are confronted with every day remain unconcerned with the popularity of a view. Every situation is different, and they may be encouraged or condemned equally by interested parties, but applying a sterile and standardized approach to those decisions that weigh so heavily on the human heart is generally a bad idea.
The inference is not that individual cases should be adjudicated by a third party to determine their legitimacy. Rather, it is imperative that discussions about the realities of human sexuality, love, and abortion are discussed in an honest and mature fashion so that when we are presented with such a decision, we can make it as clearly as possible while acknowledging the significance of our choices.
We have developed formalized techniques to terminate potential births and it is not likely that they are going anywhere. That being said, it can be contemplated in a far more honest manner than it currently is, especially by politicians, who prefer to inhale the intoxicating aroma of public relations.
Treating a fetus like a disposable tissue does not do the circumstance justice, and it is in some ways psychopathic. On the contrary, many situations can be referenced that appear to justify abortion, and as a rule, absolutism does not tend to benefit us in the long run.
We may never be certain about when abortion is appropriate, but we could do far more, well in advance of when we may be forced to consider such things, in order to prepare ourselves for the convolution of these life-altering events. Perhaps, just so we may temper the feelings of guilt and obligation that drive us towards one outcome or another.
Regardless of what we believe, or what we choose, someone will condemn us, and unfortunately for us, they all have a point.
Human life is messy.
Revised: 20 Feb 2022