[1133] Fog Of War

You're born into a fog. It's little droplets of absolutely mystifying information sometimes cooling your face, sometimes collecting so thick you can't see and feel like you're drowning.

I find one of the defining factors of what I consider a "great" or superb-to-perfect piece of media is definition. The characters, good or bad, actually sit within the consequences of their strengths and flaws. They aren't randomly inserted at choice times because "the plot must go on." They aren't apologized for. They aren't treated like a schizophrenic episode manically punctuating a moment because a substantive idea couldn't be had. Things like "over acting" fall into this category, or the too-humbled place someone falls in being made an example of in your message-piece.

The analogy holds for the difference between a great and superb life. You can do a fair amount of "good" or "fair" things, and die without scandal or offense. But the people who lean into their characters seem to define precisely what we don't wish to be, or explicitly could. I think this is where ideas about "celebrity" versus "influencer" really diverge. A celebrity depicted timeless tropes and stories that have sustained us since we started telling them. We're drawn in. An influencer is trying to trap your attention. They're selling easy and accessible in a way someone pretending to be Hercules isn't.

Why should you want to be your character? I think about this a lot. My head echoes with the guy at a beerfest years ago who said, "You have celebrity energy." I feel like I know exactly what he's referring to, but have done next to nothing with it. I don't even know if he's actually met any celebrities, or if he's just unfamiliar with extroverts on a good day, but I'd be lying if I haven't, for years, rehearsed what I'd say on talk shows. But, what business would I have being there?

Famous chefs and political figures get their time in the sun without needing acting credits. If you spike in popularity for some viral moment, occasionally you can sucker well-known people into entertaining you for another 15 minutes when they're struggling for material. It's not something I really aspire to, but has always felt like it'd be something I should be prepared for. It may be one of the most irrational persistent thoughts I ever entertain. Bert Kreischer got mini-famous for partying. There was a couple years in college where people were shouting my name across campus still-enthused about one of mine.

Arguably, I'm more "blunt answer on the news" kind of "potential famous" at this point. I want to be known "in my world" whether it comes to social work things or if I manage to develop anything on the land. I listen to famous-enough people talk about how it's nice to not get mobbed, but it's never a bad day to have a stranger smile at you and tell you what an impact you've had on them. Garnering a certain notoriety tied to a creative approach or genuinely helpful fix to something is what I'd like most to lend my energy towards more than "look at me" or "let me sell you."

It's only exhausting to be the "life of the party" if you don't enjoy the party. If you're there out of obligation or desperation, it doesn't feel important or wise to invest in your character while you're there. If you're an appeaser who smiles and laughs at everything that doesn't earn it, or frame your existence as the thing other people need to enjoy themselves, I don't know how you refrain from resenting that immediately.

It's been about 2 days since I left off, and I've noticed another pattern that informs my foggy thoughts.

I look for people smarter than me to listen to. I like listening to nerds who specialize in some area to give me the details and history of topics I'll never have the patience or sustained interest in to research too deeply on my own. The thing about nerds, they usually only really know about that one thing. Even when they're talking about the logical fallacies or lapses in wisdom that "smart" people succumb to, breathlessly they'll mindlessly and unapologetically engage in said behavior if you give them 5 extra minutes to talk.

This makes me wonder what would happen if these people I enjoy listening to could get together and identify how to put a stop to that.

After 100 hours of Peter Boghossian interviews and videos, I can identify somewhere around 10 things he consistently does that feel like expressly poor framing, straw-manning, or frustration stoking that impede his ability to understand more about what upsets him.

The If Books Could Kill guys will matter-of-factly relay what they believe to be someone's, say Steven Pinker's, political opinions and conclusions to be and poo-poo qualifiers and context to endlessly insist there's a more insidious misstep occurring. Because they'll do so back-to-back with a genuine fact check that refutes bad research, it feels more right of a behavior and posture than it is. I think you get to score a point for calling out a bad, old, or piddling example used in service to the broader argument. You don't get to mind-read.

The amount of times Jordan Peterson is invoked as a kind of shorthand for alt-right nonsense is such a cliche lazy thing to do, he feels like the next Ayn Rand in the mind of a liberal who thinks reading or listening to him will make their head holes leak. He's become a king for speaking outside of his lane and religious apologetics, but he didn't start that way, and still sometimes recognizes when he's fallen off certain cliffs. That should matter. He's couched in so much stupid, but he's not Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, or even the most manipulative religious dicks he gobbles like Jonathan Pageau.

The religiosity of Chris Hedges and Cornel West keeps them perfectly blind to what you'll hear argued from Sam Harris and the guests like John Spencer who specialize in the history of urban warfare. Masih Alinejad, Yasmine Mohammed, and Maajid Nawaz are functionally silenced when it comes to an honest discussion about the practical and moral consequences of cultural ::ehem:: differences. Noam Chomsky will talk out of one side of his mouth about American imperialism, and downplay what funded his early career with biting defensiveness.

I think Coleman Hughes does a decent job of bothering to engage people on different topics while being less adept, than say Sam Harris, at knowing enough particulars of a given subject matter to undermine his fastest-talking guests. Coleman can get a side-stepping apologist or defensive Ph.D. to get caught in their errant missing-the-point loop which can be interesting in shedding light on how hollow the basis for many popular and too-many-books-about ideas really are.

I just listened to Yanis Varoufakis refer to what's happening in Palestine as a "genocide," after detailing a historical picture of how France and Germany have played out politically and economically. His penchant for insightful financial analysis or digestible conceptual frames stalls outside his lane like so many on the left who think this is the first time in history war has killed or starved children and continually forget who started the whole fucking thing.

Seth Meyers, who've I've gathered has cared about real shit, has a segment where he does corrections on what he's broadcast on his main show. John Oliver will do similarly, but you can feel him routinely skirt and downplay the brunt of a critical conclusion about the position he's explaining, and pawns off deeper responsibility like Jon Stewart used to do before his return on a sensibility that, "It's comedy first, after all."

I guess I want to know, what is it that makes the ability to reason, and reason so strongly, simply, and concretely just stop at a certain point?
Is there a mechanism in the brain that gets overwhelmed or hijacked?
Is there something we can measure at the level of emotion that prevents new or conflicting information to take hold?
Why does it feel impossible and unrealistic to get a standard for discerning and discussing information to as good as it ever can get, and then strike a dissonant note so simultaneously fluidly, and weirdly consistently in that extra bit of time you give someone to talk?

At a certain point in my "learn everything" behavior, it sank into my bones the futility of the effort. Whether I was trying to record every animal name in notebooks as a child, read/watch every book, lecture, debate, or online fight related to religion versus science, or do ALL THE THINGS when it comes to home projects, playing instruments, playing video games, listening to bands or podcasts, or seeing shows. You either learn to enjoy the ride, or you suffer the infinitely incomplete indefinitely.

It feels like the project of being a "public intellectual," is to professionally create a fog around yourself as you detail out someone else's. Are you both united by reason? Occasionally? Certainly more than you're united by a god concept, but a god complex instead? I'm not sure.

In my naming different people, I feel I should shout out to Naill Ferguson, Christopher Hitchens, and Michael Shermer. For the amount of subjects they can (or did) opine on, I've gotten the most consistent sense of that general respect for reason and its process. That Naill and Ayann Hirsi-Ali are married suggests to me your heart is clearly the most irrational thing, thus invoking "passion" for your position is always a loser. My pithy grievances with Sam Harris and "free will" I'll probably take to the grave like Dan Dennett.

We'll "believe" in "science" until it threatens our "identity." Our statistics are the one true statistics and not something to contextualize with dozens more at all times. I see another in road for why people adopt the perpetual high-horse-ery of a religious system. Is there any greater power than feeling no obligation to even state plainly what it means to butt-fuck your little boys or bag your women?

The intellectual wants to feel powerful too. I think they fuck up when they wish to cling to a certain "truth," like any religious apologist, instead of the truth of a process. You'll never lift the fog just by blowing your hot air.

[93] When There's Just Never Nothing To Say

Saturday, May 24, 2008 at 6:46am

::commercial announcer voice:: Did you know there is an answer to the biased views expressed on Wikipedia? Is there a place that doesn’t demean and censor the truth like godless Youtube? Well folks, Conservapedia and Godtube are for you. If you’re a conservative Christian who wants to take America back to the Dark Ages, don’t forget to spend part of your daily devotions on these sites. You’ll learn such fun facts including all the failings of evolution, how Hitler was an atheist, and the perfectness of bananas fitting into your hand which shine the light on the truth of God. Too old for your Christ action figure? Tired of reading the same old passages in church? Take a gander at Conservapedia and Godtube and you’ll be well on your way to damning the human race. Ah, who are we kidding we’re all damned to begin with ::chuckle, ha, cheesy smile::

I aim my rants at Christianity because that’s what I’m most familiar with. Don’t get me wrong, the second I don’t have to worry about getting assassinated I’ll write more about the failings of Islam and maybe one day Scientology. I just think when something’s that obvious who am I to step on the toes of Sam Harris, Ayan Hirsi-Ali, or Pat Condell. I just couldn’t refrain from saying something at least about those two places above. I’ve talked about Godtube before so quick note, every video is either how you can pray, the faults of evolution, or a hell scare video. Conservapedia I just found tonight. This site actually listed five scientists and said “….did not propose the theory of evolution.” Ummm….. It also has over 200 sources from which it compiled why evolution is a theory in crisis. I think we need to take a moment and remind the Christians to take a step back and smell what they’re shoveling. You can make a shit pile as tall as that Lego tower recently in the news, but please, don’t think it’s anything more than shit. If Christian stood for anything more than denial of facts and irrational behavior, I might slide more easily into the category Mr. Bowman subscribes to “Christian-ish” or perhaps moderate Christianity. Unfortunately, this is not the case and virus sites like AIG and creationweb inspire people to spawn offspring and paint such a lovely picture of what you become associated with when you take on that title. Obviously, it isn’t places like this alone that should keep you away, but they help as reminders. Ignorance tells you evolution is a belief system. You acknowledge facts, you don’t have to believe in them.

I need to have this question answered. Does it not bother you to watch the world remain chaotic and desperate? If the truth of any religion was so powerful and compelling, why hasn’t it won out and proven itself? If it’s the responsibility of every Christian to go out and spread the word, why is so much effort put into insolating the base already in place? When church is no longer enough, you go to bible study. When bible study gets tedious you go to camps. When camps start to fail you join support groups. When support groups fail you find some Christian oriented program that’s geared toward an interest of yours that has nothing to do with lessons from Christianity. And if those faithful aren’t having enough problems, imagine the people being told to pray and abstain from condoms if they want to eat.

I’m going to argue that there’s no such thing as a Christian who “knows god” in any capacity beyond stories they heard about Jesus. Think about it like this. The most logical of the apologetics will admit that they cannot empirically prove god. This is just a common sense fact. So by definition they have to be agnostic. There is no choice here, I’m not discussing your choice “level” of faith. So what would you call an agnostic who believed in Santa? Perhaps a child, misinformed, or deluded yet still hopeful and happy. The Christians who are bold enough to say they know anything about God are at best happy hopeful agnostic deluded children. Now slow down and realize I didn’t say “Christ’s teachings followers,” I said people who claim to “know God.” This is going to piss someone off so prove me wrong.

So onto those “Christ followers.” The ones who explicitly follow what Jesus said or did and any mumbo jumbo they don’t understand that layeth elsewhere in the bible can remain laying. Does it matter to them that “Jesus quotes” appear in books and documents well before Jesus? His miracles painted on Egyptian walls and frequently performed by those ghastly pagan gods. I guess they like to ignore the part where he goes on about enforcing the laws of the old testament, you know the juicy ones, and not abolishing them…hmm. I have this little idea of history where stuff that came earlier is probably the originator of something that came after that carries striking similarities. That’s just me though. If an Egyptian god gave Jesus his material, so to speak, why isn’t he considered important? Granted, this is oversimplifying. The overall point remains. The bible was humanly written, “inspired by god” seems to be an off the cuff response to the simple minded who couldn’t help but point out the obvious human flaws and similarities of the past. I took a science and the occult class will give you too much detail between Christianity and its origins.

Also, I’m so sick of hearing about the truth of prophecy I could shit. There was no channel 5 reporting on the day to day activities of Jesus. He wasn’t part of the original Real World cast. Writing the story of someone you only know from previous stories does not, will never, and never has lent any credence to the integrity of a prophecy. Jesus’ life is a compilation of word of mouth stories that were agreeable enough to make it into the bible. The passing documents that refer to him, or more likely a “Christos,” independent of the bible or apocryphal texts are not in agreement with what you’ll read in the aforementioned texts. I’ve had people ask me “how could Jesus choose to be born on the predicted day?” Aside from the absolute ludicrous amount this man doesn’t know about how Jesus’ birthday was originated ehem assigned, I suppose an even simpler answer would be the son of god can do whatever the fuck he wants. And shouldn’t the power of faith not need something so concrete as fulfilled prophecy anyways? Looks like someone back then understood faith is in what you can make someone swallow, and not just in remaining alive while choking on it. You take all of that and put it on a prophecy that’s as vague as a Ms. Cleo readin’ and you tell me why I should believe you. When the bible predicts the lotto or the next Katrina I’ll be interested.

Didn’t you know these blogs are inspired by god? O, you’ll scoff and think I’m mocking you, but truly I say unto you the only way to the Father is through these blogs. The big secret though is this. God will only allow those into heaven that have enough gusto to disbelieve in him. Despite all the proof he has given us like a home on a dangerous planet spiraling through an infinitely cold universe, natural disasters, and sewage through our pleasure centers, you need to just forgo your old notions to be saved. Are you willing to risk it just going along with those passé ideas about your faith like they’re going to save you? Something that can work that easily only works on those eager to buy it.

I wanted to keep this short with the sales add for those dumbass sites, but when you’ve got nothing else to do….

3 comments

Updated about 6 months ago

Billy Bowman (Bloomington, IN) wroteat 11:41am on May 24th, 2008 Woot! I was referenced in a rant! i feel special... As for the retards calling wikipedia biased.. i'm speechless. I really can't find words to describe.. how that makes me feel. It only strengthens my feelings that hardcore christians and some of the most retarded people on earth. I say hardcore christians because many who call themselves christians, are in fact not and only call themselves this as they've been raised that way or don't know what to believe, but its these ones that study and believe without question what they read.. they are dangerously stupid... Perhaps it's not even just limited to christians, but anyone who does not question and seek answers for themselves, in any aspect of life.... yes i think that is far more likely... but christians are no doubt a shining example in this country. As for godtube, if they just posted their videos on youtube, and let whoevers out there looking for that kind of thing... i bet they're videos would get a lot more hits. Report - Delete

Billy Bowman (Bloomington, IN) wroteat 11:54am on May 24th, 2008 The rest of your rant as always bring up good points, and more thoughts and questions about what exactly it is i believe... but believe makes it sound like i must have some sort of religion, and thats not it as all.. it's more.. answers that i'm seeking.. well.. at anyrate. I'm appreciative of them. Hopefully i'll be able to figure it out sometime soon. Report - Delete

Michele Elizabeth Zerbe wroteat 2:39pm on June 11th, 2008 its unfortunate that so many people use different religions as labels for other people. just like the ignorant people who believe anyjew is liberal and ceremonial, or that any man believing in alah must be out to destroy something American, people use christianity as a scapegoat for a lot of things. sometimes just bad experiences can prompt such habits. if i picked a religion and stood everyone id ever met side by side who claimed that religion, id likely have trouble finding anything else in common about them. its foolish to belive that all "christians" act the same way or "cause the same problems" or belive the exact same things. which is exactly why there is so much gray area in the christian religion. lots of people assume that if they believe in "God" than thats automatically christian. or some people who separate themseles morally but hold onto their "title." reading some of your little notes almost tempts me to feel guilty, but that goes away as soon as i see how base that is.