Reading about existentialism, I’m once again made highly conscious of the absurdity of most theories and philosophies about life, what it means, and how to live it. I’m glad there are philosophers to question these things, although that emotion—gladness—is probably unrelated to philosophy or even thought.

Being pleased that there are people treating something important that I also think might be important is just the recognition of other people being like what I think people should be like: me. It’s disingenuous. It hinges on a doubt: as if there was a possibility that there aren’t people like me in the world, that there is a chance that I am unique and alone. A stupid fear that, like the essence of paranoia, is a disguise for the fact that I want to be unique.

Read the rest of this entry »

I think I know why I don’t blog very much. I either have hyper-focus or super-wide focus.

Hyper-focus is for technical ideas. Currently, I put almost all of my hyper-focus effort into work, which is usually both private and overly technical (read: boring). I’ve got another blog for technical writing, but I never blog there, either. If I worked on something open source, or if I did user-level design, I’d probably be more of a mind to write about it. I don’t want to talk about the research and new development work I do, because it gives my company a competitive advantage. And I’m not comfortable expressing my opinions about our products from a user point of view. I don’t know enough about them, and it’s not where my enthusiasm lies.

Wide focus is for philosophy, social commentary, and cultural criticism. Also boring to the vast majority of people, but more importantly, I’m not even amateur rank in the areas I’m exploring. At best, I can mention what I’m reading about, maybe summarize some of the ideas. I haven’t encountered anything new, lately. Mostly I’ve been reading predictions about how various resource depletion issues may affect our civilization in the next ten to a hundred years. I’ve grown wary of predictions, after reading so much science fiction for so long. The only thing I have any confidence in is the ability of the future to defy all expectations.

I don’t spend cycles on in-between stuff. I read a lot but don’t seem to form the right kind of opinions for sharing. Medium-level stuff just isn’t important enough to get excited over. And I hate blogging about my personal life. I’m only interested in writing about ideas. Medium-level stuff includes all those opinions about products, entertainment and special interest politics which fills up almost everything out in the blog-o-sphere. Medium-level stuff is what kills real progress in the ability of humans to understand their world better. Of course, the purpose (or aim or desire) of most human beings is not to understand their world better. But it is mine.

So, every time I try to think of something to write, I think “I’m not Google”. If people want to learn about something, they have other places to go.

And yet I like writing, and want to find something to write about, other than trying to find something to write about. I guess I just have to sit down to write more often. Maybe I’ll figure out my take on things in the middle.

So I bought a new TV and Blu-Ray player. Very good deals, relatively, anyway. $900 + insurance + tax + shipping for both. Am I bragging? I’m trying to be straight up, here. I declined to buy a Sony PS3 because I won’t play games on it. I don’t want to play games on it. I want to play games less often, not more.

I don’t need a TV, but the one we have is dying, and I like watching movies. Sometimes I watch broadcast television. I don’t have cable or satellite. I despise telecom companies, and have no use for the vast majority of television programming. What I like, I watch on DVDs (I rent from Film Fest Video on Duplex north of Eglinton in mid-town Toronto).

I got the TV and player online; they’ll be delivered on Wednesday, probably. Means I’ll have to work from home New Year’s eve. Tomorrow I’ll go down to College Street and find HDMI and optical cables so I can actually use them, and then maybe buy or rent a couple of Blu-Ray discs. Kim says she’s going to buy the Planet Earth boxed set. That is a worthy purchase, I think. Maybe I’ll buy Blade Runner. It now makes sense to own movies that have real photographic artistry.

I don’t buy many movies. I download some. I think I would like to be part of a Blu-Ray rental club. I don’t really want to “own” movies, nor do I want to download massive Blu-Ray movie files and store them or burn my own copies.

As much as I hate consumer culture, I’m a product of my generation. But if I like consuming anything, it is information. And I still like books the best. But that’s probably just how my brain is wired.

Read “Build a frontier, you get cowboys” Part I and Part II. (The link at the end of the first page is broken, but my link works.)

I spammed the hell out of twitter and now I feel a vague remorse. But Christmas is the one day of the year where I’m really not supposed to work or I can’t because of all the stupid distractions and gift giving.

I pretty much hate Christmas. More than that, I hate atheists and agnostics and their self-indulgent, self-congratulatory buying orgy. Christmas is disgusting. The one day of the year people can get pissy if you don’t give them what they want. Socially mandated generosity. How putrid. Christmas, as it is practised in Canada and elsewhere by soulless consumer zombies, makes me hate the human race. At no other time of the year does my childhood longing to wake up from the nightmare of being a human being in order to find out that I’m really a robot planted on earth by advanced aliens to observe these ridiculous talking apes.

Anyway, Christmas is just kind of stupid. And it’s only a symptom of wider degeneracy in a culture of self-absorption, self-entitlement and self pity. How do we not go insane and kill one another in droves? How many people actually have meaningful lives doing meaningful work? We’re most of us all slaves to laziness, gluttony and all the rest of the qualities of our baser natures. Spoilt children! Cowards! Toadies! And yet we’re so pleased with ourselves. Crowing about our pathetic accomplishments and gloating over our stacks of material garbage or engaging in endless and pointless tribal rituals. It’s so low. It’s so disgusting. I am overwhelmed with disgust on this day more than any other day of the year. It makes me sick.

Of course there are exceptions. There are a few people trying, in their way, to encourage responsibility, thoughtfulness, self-restraint and other qualities without which we will inevitably destroy our culture, our heritage, our self-esteem, our environment and ultimately ourselves. But they are so easy to ignore, or to mock, or discount. Their message can be distorted, bastardized, taken out of context, or drowned out with the noise of a billion televisions and computer screens. Youtube is all we need to be happy. Or a nice Santa Claus hat. That’s what life is really about, isn’t it? Fat men wearing funny hats giving out free presents? What more could you possibly want?

Essential reading by Francis Fukuyama in NewsWeekThe End of America Inc.

Excerpt:

Like all transformative movements, the Reagan revolution lost its way because for many followers it became an unimpeachable ideology, not a pragmatic response to the excesses of the welfare state. Two concepts were sacrosanct: first, that tax cuts would be self-financing, and second, that financial markets could be self-regulating.

Prior to the 1980s, conservatives were fiscally conservative— that is, they were unwilling to spend more than they took in in taxes. But Reaganomics introduced the idea that virtually any tax cut would so stimulate growth that the government would end up taking in more revenue in the end (the so-called Laffer curve). In fact, the traditional view was correct: if you cut taxes without cutting spending, you end up with a damaging deficit. Thus the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s produced a big deficit; the Clinton tax increases of the 1990s produced a surplus; and the Bush tax cuts of the early 21st century produced an even larger deficit. The fact that the American economy grew just as fast in the Clinton years as in the Reagan ones somehow didn’t shake the conservative faith in tax cuts as the surefire key to growth.

Unfortunately, Fukuyama seems to have a gaping blind spot in his analysis. It’s the same blindness shared by most policy makers and policy-obsessed analysts. Growth is not fueled by policy. It is fueled by energy. And what deficits indicate is that the growth in America during most of the last twenty years was imaginary, because it was fueled by short-term energy (fossil fuels), instead of long-term energy (human effort and other renewable sources). The current financial crisis is the spectacle of Americans waking up and realizing that they aren’t wealthy and haven’t been doing meaningful (wealth-generating work), but merely pretending to. They’ve been playing games and calling it work, and building sand castles and calling them bastions of economic prosperity.

Since starting to read Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine I’ve been wondering what it takes to make a guy like Milton Friedman able to delude himself that his theories are worth a damn. The Chicago School of Economics is essentially a cult of personality, although instead of being a prophet of a personal god, Friedman was a prophet of disembodied principle: a mathematical theory of social organization. But I’m hardly the first to recognize the religious nature of Friedmaniac economic theory.

I wanted to know how psychology might explain the relationship between people like Friedman and those who use his particular brand of social Darwinism as the rationalizing window dressing on their own oppressive actions. It’s readily apparent that the psychology of those business and government elements who support Friedmanism also support violence, terror and other repression and are driven predominantly by a inflated sense of self-importance. So I did some digging the Internet. It was when I thought to replaced “self-important” with “narcissism” that I hit on a great article by the self-described “Dr. Sanity”: Narcissism and Society.

Dr. Sanity, sadly, feels he is unable to reveal his true name. And his blog site is somewhat disturbingly (and contradictorily) decorated with Right-wing ads. This may be a coincidence owing to the fact that today is the anniversary of 9/11. But don’t let these associations distract you from reading an interesting serious of articles with some good ideas. Here’s a quote from part III:

In some ways, the rise of human civilization from the cave to the present day has resulted because of attempts through the Rule of Law and social controls to set limits on the unrestrained Grandiose Self. This is primarily due to the destructiveness of the Narcissistic Rage generally associated with that part of the Self.

Because of this, the Grandiose Self has received a bad reputation philosophically, morally, and politically. The natural development of Governments and Religions (which ultimately are an expression of the Idealized Parent Image/Omnipotent Other side of the Self)have all too often attempted to ruthlessly suppress the Grandiose Self–much to the detriment of the individual AND the success of the particular society or religion.

In fact, despite the obvious truth that governments, nations, and religions are in a much better position to wreak far more systemized misery and death on human populations, it is almost always the Grandiose Self that gets the blame. As Wretchard at The Belmont Club pointed out in a recent post, a review of the 20th century, for example, shows that all the “people’s revolutions” supported by the Left and purportedly for the purpose of “freeing” large populations of people; resulted instead in enslaving them and increasing authoritarian rule.

Without a political or economic framework that is able to incorporate what we refer to as “human nature” into its calculations, all so-called “perfect” societies and ideologies will at best simply fail in the real world; and at worse cause untold human suffering. With the best of intentions (this is perhaps debatable), the social engineers of philosophy, political science, and economics have caused so much more slavery, misery and death on a grand scale–that the grandiose CEO’s of the largest corporations can be considered mere pikers by comparison.

And more to the point:

A perusal of any list of economic systems will demonstrate that ALMOST ALL OF THEM are relatively extreme expressions of the Idealized Parent Image/Omnipotent Object. Almost all emphasize the group, the community, the collective, the nation, the state, or god at the expense of the individual. Examples are numerous. Socialism and Communism; fascism and religious fundamentalism.

Unfortunately, at that point, when there is a chance to start a conversation on what really works to balance the good of the group versus the good of the individual, the discussion instead ends with a truism about capitalist democracy:

The political and economic system that is optimally compatible with the Grandiose Self and the Idealized Parent; and which maximizes individual freedom, while acknowledging the needs of others…is Democratic Capitalism. When combined with Democracy and individual freedom, Capitalism will provide the greatest measure of happiness and well-being (by encouraging a Cohesive Self)for the greatest number of people. It allows for optimal expression of the Grandiose Self and limits (but does not suppress) it by the Rule of Law. And Democracy limits the power of the state also by the Rule of Law and by specific protection of minorities from the majority. The optimum advancement of each individual person will occur by securing for the individual the greatest amount of mental and physical freedom compatible with the general welfare.

The unique aspects of Democratic Capitalism are not shared by any other political, economic or religious system. To the extent that other systems permit capitalistic endeavors within a fundamentally authoritarian system (e.g., China), individuals will be somewhat better off. But it is still not the optimal combination that maximizes the expression of both sides of the Self.

What is conspicuously absent is the admission to the possibility that even democracy and capitalism can be undermined by the “Grandiose Self”, to the extent that its surface appearance may belie its true operation. However, the author does admit, “I do not pretend to have all the answers, nor do I believe this analysis is perfect. Narcissism alone cannot explain all of human behavior, let alone all of the evil in the world.” Indeed, the presence and effect of narcissism is more complex than the author admits, as are the contributions of all of the components of any non-linear dynamic system (like a society).

What I think we need at this point in history is a better understanding of how the complexity of our social, political and economic systems can be manipulated by selfish, immoral persons and groups to pervert the functioning of institutions to the point where they act against their original purpose and intention—to increase the common good—instead being used to further the agenda of a powerful and narcissistic minority.

My ability to apply these ideas to a critique of Friedmaniac economic theory is limited, but is comprised, essentially, of the observation that Friedman supported grossly non-democratic means of establishing free markets. Any means of removing the ability of government to affect the flow of capital is justified in his framework. Democracy, like government itself, is irrelevant. The whole essence of any proof of its failure is based on this anti-democratic and pro-authoritarian grounding.

Here is a nice summary of Narcissism and Corporate Fraud: Narcissistic Abuse in the Boardroom. But again, a quite small scale overview, missing out on the bigger, more nefarious enablers of such actions, including the theories that guide them and the institutions (governments, banks) that not only fail to stop them, but support them right up to the end, when to not take action would engender popular revolt.

I suppose I could have used this shot of Doctor Evil, but that wouldn’t make my point as well.

The idea that being supportive and protective of a family at best means that you are socialized. It doesn’t mean that you are fit to run a laundry service, much less a country, let alone a country that is supposed to be based on virtues like equality, justice, and human rights.

The more emphatically you argue for “family values”, the more neglectful you are likely to be of civic values. The “family” is the last bastion of prejudice, inequality and injustice. The interests of your genetic relatives is the last publicly acceptable excuse for an endless litany of crimes committed against others, either by action or neglect. Even animals have family values.

Leaders must understand the values of community, of protecting the weak and the vulnerable, of truth and honesty, of dedication, and of duty to one’s fellow citizens, even if that might mean putting family second. Otherwise, how are we better than some Sicilian mafioso? Or Americans, for that matter?

Google search on “post-oil society” picked this up: Ten ways to Prepare for a Post-oil Society.

How do rational people find one another in an irrational world? Can rationality be measured? Is rationality enough? What am I trying to say?

The future is uncertain. But there is growing concern that the level of uncertainty is increasing, and that the variations on the future, if left to the minds and hands of those who have only limited understanding and a short-sighted self-interest in mind, look to be more and more extreme. The number of dreadful outcomes is increasing.

Predicting the future is a tricky business, because of three major factors: fractal divergence, random events, and feedback. I chose to include our lack of complete knowledge of any situation within the “random” category, as the appearance of these otherwise irrelevant effectors is random at the time, irrespective of the fact that a logical, deterministic understanding can (sometimes) be worked out in hindsight.

What we need is an organized, emotionally engaged movement of people with ethical principals, rational intelligence and a healthy self-interest with long-term planning tendencies. Most of all, they must be motivated to act in a co-ordinated manner in ways which are informed by those other traits. These are people who will not shy away from unpleasant truths and uncomfortable or vexing facts. They will seek pragmatic, inclusive solutions which require real effort but which have a reasonable likelihood of succeeding and making a difference in the long term. They will be resistant to fads and trends, and avoid being caught up in aimless, impotent analysis and theory.

In a properly functioning society, this group of people would generally be the government. But by that measure, how many societies in history have ever been properly functioning? You cannot reasonably expect an entire society, or culture, or even sub-culture, to adhere to these principles en masse. They are the product of a certain kind of environment, and/or certain innate personality traits, which are rare. The nature of human beings is fundamentally animal, emotional and socialized (which means self-normalizing, irrespective of what “normal” means–and it certainly doesn’t have to mean rational or devoted to long-term interests).

Read the rest of this entry »