Write Makes Right: Michael Shermer

Showing posts with label Michael Shermer. Show all posts

Saturday, March 15, 2025

[1195] Not Like Us

If I were to lay claim to a sort of “super power,” it would be in pattern recognition. Specifically, linguistic ones. I only do marginally better than average at “official” tests for that sort of thing that might get you into Mensa. I, without having to think particularly hard, can recognize how someone is using words. I can tell when they’re batshit. I can tell when they’re “too smart.” I can tell when they’re scared or insecure. I can tell when they’re lying, most especially when they would deny they are doing so. I know people patterns. I know word patterns. I know how they work together.

This is a pretty big, bold, and vague claim on its face. My grandma was 9 for 10 in guessing who was on the phone before picking up the call. It’s a little like if she were arguing the “intellectual” place where her intuition came from. Arguably, she was only getting called by the usual amount of people at their handful of times they might usually call. There was a pattern, but to anyone watching, it might look like a kind of voodoo. I think whatever pattern she was privy to is one we could all see, and any ones I claim to notice, you could too.

Smart people. Smart people are the worst. Smart people have a habit of thinking they are the only one who is smart. They use this instinct to think it grants them license to engage in any number of unwise behaviors. I have a kid in my YMCA program who scored off the charts on some IQ test. I clocked him early in him trying to respond to my new direction for the space in a proactive way. Ultimately, he’s still a child, so he’s also been the one to steal from another child and get caught, is bossy and mean to younger kids who might annoy him, and wholly embodies the word “cringe” when you consider a 5th or 6th grade boy in the abstract.

As a smart kid, he acts as highlighter for what I might observe in smart adults. Which smart adults am I taking in? It’s political podcasts. It’s debates. It’s intellectuals interviewing Ph.D.s from the bowels of academic departments. So many, so smart, particularly in their realms, and then they invariably step over the line to draw broader inferences. Often said, it’s a very specific tone of confidence, that always makes me go “eeeehhhhhh.”

When I listen to smart people, I look for “wise” qualifiers. There’s a class of by-the-numbers Youtube personalities that will give you incredible breakdowns of some social or political phenomenon. They read the bills, site their sources, and are as accurate or relevant as any “expert” you might conceive of in an old-world framework. I’ll think to follow them or subscribe when my instinct about what I hope they’ll say at some point shows up by surprise. One recently detailed Tesla’s magnificent fall and towards the end of the video, wisely, said, “Now now, you’re not the first one who thought it’s time to short the fuck out of Tesla stock, and it’d take one tweet to wipe out your investment.”

I appreciate when someone can fluidly and matter-of-factly arrive at appropriate levels of caution. He wasn’t trying to contribute to a frenzy, he was trying to inform.

Contrast someone like him with what I’ll call “convoluted” or “masquerading” people. These people, desperately, want to be smart. They might have an aggressive ADD or anxious condition. They might have too good of memories. Their brains work, too well, and they find ways to exercise them that have absolutely nothing to do with being smart or wise. This is the pundit or apologist. What they long for is to belong, so their capacity for “reason” is shaped by whatever tribe they most identify with at the time. A lot of incredibly weird people like your Stephen Millers or Ben Shapiros occupy this world. The popularity of levying “cuck” and “simp” are the ironic lashing out of their resented scarlet letters.

What I think is the most prominent pattern of both types above is the utter denial of and then reshapping of words. A smart person can get away with providing a nuanced, bullshit, way of describing their circumstances or responsibility to something. A convoluted person will employ 6 logical fallacies in 5 sentences alongside a complete dismissal of the concept of a shared definition or coherent through-line of causation.

It gets exhausting to listen to conversations that go something like this:

“There’s bloat in the federal government, and people are concerned about wasteful spending.”

“Which departments are wasting and on what? Which survey says how many people are concerned, and about what?

“Only an asshole like you would just disregard the waste and defend DEI while these grifters and entitled others destroy the fabric of our nation and routinely piss on our Judeo-Christian Values; I, for one, believe in freedom and lower costs and bringing back manufacturing, unlike the liberals with their open border policy and men competing in girls sports.”

A convoluted person is perfectly ambivalent about numbers. A smart person might weaponize them in a way that serves their interests. In either iteration, you’re getting someone concerned with themselves, their emotional satiation, more than any concern for reality or the truth. Further, convoluted and/or smart people will jump on their numbers or “arguments” to conclude that, no, *they are in fact speaking in good faith!* And there’s much to be learned in an “honest debate” with them. At which point I dutifully give up and write another blog.

I consider these patterns because I hear them on both right and left media. Bari Weiss is as circularly reasoned in abstract solidarity simping with Batya Ungar-Sargon as the Pod Save America guys are in their smug self-righteousness in brushing against anything Bill Maher says. I’ve listened to uber-nerds absolutely spiral when provoked by Michael Shermer or Coleman Hughes to expand beyond their expertise. Everyone mentioned routinely slips into “There there, I’m kind of above it all” pretentious space and utilize vague smart-sounding generalized sentiments to get away with pretending neutrality or that “we’re all friends here.”

What starts to become clear is that there are no shared “values” beyond the ones loosely associated with being “in the conversation” or popular enough to stay in the public eye. The people concerned with the actual truth of whatever the matter are out studying it, or organizing it, or living it - they’re not arguing it. A segment from Jon Stewart talking about being glib and ignorant about distinguishing that from what he does will always stick out to me. It dawned on him after fighting with 9/11 responders to get healthcare. That’s, primarily, why we’re suffering the fallout of people who truly do live within their horrible value systems and those opposed don’t understand the “resistance” doesn’t even value doing so.

Wrapping your head around smart and convoluted people patterns is one thing, but then you also just have people acting as animals do. Those are the kinds of patterns any social worker, counselor, or busy-body could tell you about. We have reliable statistics on how long it takes to get out of spousal abuse dynamics. We know the reported versus suspected rates of violence, sexual or otherwise. We watch the consequences of in-group/out-group thinking play out at every friendly competition.

Many get dismissive and condescending wishing to write this off as “dumb” people. It’s certainly not someone like them who would behave in such ghastly ways. What’s seemingly always missing from a discussion of class warfare or inequality is the genuine opinions anyone holds about the ones beneath them. Those opinions gets churned through the convoluted pundits and weaponized by the smart people because, wouldn’t you agree it’s their fault, they’re lazy, and they’re motivated to self-destruction? The smart thing to do is avoid the subject and not pretend you can help someone who doesn’t want to be helped.

Vibes. You want to feel smart. You want to feel like you belong. You want to convince yourself that you’re worthy, contributing, or otherwise inherently meaningful to whatever you’re involved in. Any and all means of finding and maintaining that vibe is the pattern you will succumb to. That might mean staying too cozy against a wholly catastrophic family or partner dynamic. That might mean swallow every spoonful of shit your job hands you. That might be engrossing yourself in some hobby or community at 6th-grade boy level of intensity indefinitely. I think it’s your tailored propaganda soup you become a glutton for. Bitch, don’t kill my vibe.

For the myriad patterns I claim to see, important ones in myself are in how I destroy or utilize them. I’m perfectly aware I have zero capacity to “convince” anyone of anything. Convoluteds are keen to hear “arguments” where none are being made, but I assure you, I’m attempting to articulate and explain for myself. It’s been, not precisely a preoccupation, but a soft goal of mine to figure out ways to ride a vibe without exploiting it. I feel my house parties did this. I feel creating the coffee shop did to. The freedom and comforts I pursue as a result of my living situation I’m trying to extend to my working one. I was looking forward to seeing where I could go with it at the Y before the power to do so quit.

I used to routinely kill vibes. I’d be “too smart” in a situation that needed no words. I’d argue like a pundit for something fundamentally abstract or less true than I insisted. I was masquerading as someone more concerned or knowledgeable than I was. That’s a hard thing to notice and break because it’s not insincere, it just doesn’t know how to be more honest. That’s perhaps the extent of the grace I might extend to the Batyas and Dinesh D’Souzas of the world. My Y kids have no idea what they’re saying or where it’s coming from, full stop. They just talk, too loud, or dance, or run, and play with the noises we call words. You can’t tell me merely surviving a few decades longer magically grants you the ability to escape their pattern and make any sense.

I mean, these writings kill the reddit vibe, indeed the very infinite-scroll nature of the internet and social media altogether. This isn’t a place to genuinely introspect or connect with other thoughtful people. It also can’t be, you’ll argue to, certainly not me, but no one in particular. And you’ll invite a pattern of inane internet banter and depending on my mood I will devolve along with you. But that’s only if you break the pattern of fundamental silence.

Saturday, December 7, 2024

[1175] Boss Baby

Oh, shit! You ready? I haven’t written in almost 3 weeks. In that time I’ve started a new job, gotten sick, my car shit the bed, I experienced what felt like a Craigslist “missed connection” at a comedy show in Chicago (Phil Hanley late Saturday show if you’re reading this, Sam!), and have already begun plotting on how to morph my new job role into something that isn’t tantamount to babysitting+.

Let’s start local. I got pink eye. I don’t think I’ve had pink eye since I was 4 years old. I’m a site director now for the YMCA. I’m around, by definition dirty, kids and the things they touch for at least 5 1/2 hours a day. No matter how much wood I’ve knocked in recalling how infrequently I get sick, they got me. This happened at the tail end of getting over a mild cold that decided to get worse just as I thought I had efficiently beat it. I wear contacts and don’t have backup glasses. My eye’s aren’t terrible, but driving has been extra.*

While sick, I’m getting a handle on the true nature of my role and responsibilities. As with most organizations, they have a “mission” and “ethos” and “goals” which are on thousands of pages of wasted paper and policy, but no less inform how some of the most true-believers operate. I’m at a poorer school that no less has figured out how to raise enough funds to consistently engage its kids. I’ve found some people to click with, and found some people who it’s clearly not in their nature to click. Underneath that is the fundamental problem all companies seem to have with basic demonstrations of competence and communication.

I can’t pretend that my job is that complicated, especially given my experience just in my hobbies, let alone at DCS or in counseling. I try not to say it in a condescending way, but I have said it dozens of ways, that I’m a glorified babysitter. At least, that’s how the role was translating my first few days when it sunk in that the difference between a YMCA program and an actual daycare is, drum roll, the programming of activities. If you don’t have anyone concerned with implementing and consistently executing programs, you’re just babysitting. Hence, in spite of 9 people currently hired to oversee 30-ish kids at my site, they hired me to, you know, actually direct something.

At first, naive me was asking things like, “Why can’t the 9 adults do what I’m told needs to be done here?” Several more days of watching people respond to my questions with deer-in-the-headlights faces and pensive toe digs while trying to explain how they’re getting paid to essentially hang out, I got my answer. Also, everyone before me is to blame, as well as the broader chaos of the YMCA leadership.

I’ve done that thing where I have immediately found common ground with the most adult and introspective person and we’ve had quasi-therapy sessions in the mornings about how things are ran or what informs our perspectives. She will be vital in helping me get on committees and pushing reforms that hopefully flesh out that identity and values the YMCA professes. The takeaway is the same as elsewhere, you need to be the adult.

I’ve got some experience with children, but I’ve never been interested in raising them, am bored to tears after too much of doing whatever it is they want to do, and am generally ambivalent about people which informs how I engage with them professionally. A key thing about this is that I don’t seek to control or dominate. I don’t yell at kids. I don’t condescend. I, viscerally, remember what it was to be a child, and actively attempt to mitigate unconscious cultural norms that aren’t helpful in cultivating what you want.

Thus, I have to be the adult for both the kids and the adults I’m now responsible for directing who might feel licensed to get loud and lecture-y and disingenuous in their approach to a kindergartner. For me, who does not profess to be an expert in child-rearing, but who is informed by his experiences, developmental science, and in watching how others operate, I maintain a certain degree of confidence my kids will figure out how to operate along more structured and accountable lines. I’ll suggest something like, don’t reward and entertain the kid who is being performative in their crying. I’m pliable, but keep a decently strong opinion about the efficacy of certain types of intervention, for what age, and under what circumstances.

Some people deeply appreciate this approach, others get petty, aggrieved, and gossipy. You will, under every circumstances, become “the enemy” in one form or another by virtue of any whiff of change altogether, but more accountable change in particular. That’s baked into any leadership role. To me, this means even more not to try to be a dictator more than demonstrator. I speak to the kids like I want you to speak to them. I credit them when they do something right. I trade in time, so when they waste ours, they get theirs wasted while they’re itching for the gym or playground. It’s literally only been 3 days of mild implementation of “my” way, and I’m already seeing positive results.

It’s hard for me to not think about what my day-to-day looks like at scale. We’re now tasked with hoping and praying our way through the next Trump catastrophe, but that’s only to frame it as though we aren’t the fuck ups. That’s to again distance ourselves from our impact and ignorance and hate that dictates the ship. I’ve no less been listening to all my podcasts and reading about how people attempt to digest the zeitgeist. I can’t recommend enough listening to someone like Anthony Scaramucci and then the 5 vs 4 crowd back-t0-back. Or the guests of Michael Moynihan and Bari Weiss and then up-in-arms Leftist academics on Michael Shermer. The nature of wanting/needing a story to supplement or replace personal responsibility beams brightly.

I don’t think there’s a room with or interaction between any two people that exists where there isn’t both an obligation and potential. The obligation would be to something like an imagined universal human value. You treat people a certain way or expect something even as simple as holding the door open for all of space and time. The potential is for that interaction to be dictated or mitigated by personal folly and ambivalence. “It is what it is” as though you have no conscious choice. As though “reason” doesn’t exist or isn’t defined by how it’s executed in good or bad ways.

Monday this week, at 4:45 AM when I tried to leave for work, I discovered my tire was flat. I live in the countriest of country. It’s pitch black, freezing, and recall, my job isn’t that hard or needing of me to actually be there in order for the kids to be kept basically safe and supervised. It’s already extremely wasteful the hour drive I make there and back every day. I’ve been sick. I’ve got the excuse to stay home and sleep in playing out brilliantly. My truck is at my friend’s house. I’m not sure if the new-old car has the equipment to change the tire, further complicated by being on a gravel driveway. I could have left it at that.

I informed my boss of what happened. I sat briefly with my coffee, and proceeded to get to work navigating the problem. The tire wasn’t just flat, but the car I’m driving is very old and 2 windows are taped to try and hold them up. The tape failed, so the car froze on the inside too. Gotta get that fixed. After 3 hand-cranked failed attempts to get the jack to balance, I get the boot on. I drive straight to a tire shop up the road from my job. It takes hours, I overdraft my account paying more for needed tires than the car cost, and navigate from the lobby trying to get money from an account I almost never use, forgetting the pin. In the waiting hours, I cross the highway to mail a package, get food, and make some other errand calls. I was at work for the after school shift.

That night, a flash frozen rain descended upon the area. Parents were over an hour late to pick up kids. Wrecks blocked traffic. I’m perpetually tired the last 3 weeks adjusting to my schedule, sick, and am trying not to ruminate on the irony of being more in debt after getting a job and in needing to get there than by just being broke and at home. I’m staring down the hour and a half minimum drive. I, too, have to navigate remote country roads at 5 mph so I don’t end up like the SUV I stopped for just before I reached home. A “let’s drag this day out even more” cherry on top.

This is either a story of one massive bitch-fest meant to draw sympathy or a basic story of adult accountability employing the tools and skills of perspective and resilience to meet obligations. Some people will view it defensively and try to engage in a pissing match about who has it worse. Some will be ambivalent because...yeah it’s just life and we all get flat tires and deal with the cold. It’s vitally important to me that we all understand most the moments of inflection and choice. I could have sat out the entire day, blamed circumstances, and lied about my ability to address any part of it. I think that’s precisely what we’re doing at less viscerally obvious moments every single day.

You are accountable to you first or you cannot claim to be accountable for anyone else. I would not deserve a leadership position if I were the type of person to pretend I don’t know how to begrudgingly change a tire in the dark, freezing, and on my gravel driveway. I do, I did, and I’m sure I’ll have to do it again some day. I’m sick, so even if it’s more debt and I can’t “really” afford it, I have my medicated $150 eye drops and Urgent Care bill, and began reflexively disinfecting everything I touched at work. I need to continue to watch myself not being an excuse-ridden piece of shit in the world in spite of my very real, very reasonably felt grievances for things I suffer each day.

I unironically bring up unionizing in every job I take. I get zero enthusiasm, feedback, or curiosity about it. Everyone is keen to complain about the pay, disorganization, conflicting feedback, etc., no one, ever, will even entertain the conversation about how to do it better. They also know that, on balance, they’re probably getting away with a certain kind of murder in how they’re making their money or conducting their role. A union is an attempt at a more formal accountability. We, as a species, instinctively and reflexively do not want that.

Don’t be a screaming ape or in denial about your inner insecure kindergartner. We live and die by what we are bringing into or seek to take away from how we engage with one another. I want patience. I want beat by beat reasoned understanding and reflection. I want an earnest investment towards positive changes and values that aren’t empty abstracted truisms eking out of ambivalent cliches masquerading as adults and leaders. Getting by or through each day on some egocentric story of your rights, victimization, or entitlements is not the same thing as demonstrating your understanding and embodiment of your value system. You might profess to be the boss of your own life, but you should be acting as a avatar of what the best version of that life could look like.

Friday, November 8, 2024

[1173] Workin' On The Railroad

I think I recognize a point of major confusion when someone is attempting to explain the “reason” they did something. We tend to think that a choice is discreet, or that one thing naturally follows to another. I choose to hit the cue ball into the 8 ball. Incidentally, we have an idea of the physics that will cause the ball to fall into the pocket, but it’s not predetermined. There’s an underlying chaos and probability matrix seemingly calculating indefinitely in real time.

I read once that to accuse someone of being a hypocrite was one of the weakest forms of both criticism and argument. The reason being, no one ever, ever, feels like a hypocrite. The moment a personally gratifying or sense-making opportunity is presented, a deeply personal choice gets made and the seeming contradiction is resolved by the new embodied person. You can see this during interviews with killers, or Daily Show maga man-on-the-street interviews. This is what every “modern religious” person does. It’s how I can “resolve” being a hyper-focused go-go-go-type person who maintains the capacity to sit around all day watching TV. We’re complex things.

This, I suspect, is where the wisdom of “hate the sin, not the sinner” came from. When we choose to be, we can be as discerning as we wish in painting a picture of the many things that influence behavior. You can love people in your family, it’s said, while you hate everything they do during the heights of their addiction, perhaps. I’ll refrain from speculating and dismissing the messy or haphazard definitions of “love” one might adopt there, but the superficial contradiction and hypocrisy are no less highlighted.

We have evolutionary systems that, one way or another, need the world to “make sense.” That is, you would not be here if your nervous system confused the sensations of pain and bleeding out with the taste of honey. So much of your being is attempting to resolve that sensibility with the abstract nature of language and ever-confusing nature of your experience.

I think I got considerably better as a thinking individual when I adopted an “all at once” and “yes, and” mentality about my power, motivations, intentions, and potential. It started with learning how to shit talk. You can’t become a good shit talker if you’re not observing the things about you that you would use on someone else to cut them down. If I didn’t know I had a receding hairline, big ass, or serial-killer beard when I don’t shape things up, it’d be really hard for me to make fun of you if the second you responded with one of those things I broke down.

No one or ten things you can pick out about yourself or someone else’s looks make the whole person, and the seasoned genuinely comfortable shit-talker knows this. They know it’s attractive to be funny and laid back. They know it’s cool to project power and intelligence or wit. They know that any deficiency they may have will pale in comparison to how someone next to them feels about themselves and what’s wrong with them.

Comics understand that trading barbs is a show of love. In a different context, with someone who doesn’t understand the culture and language, you might make someone cry. To them, you’re being mean, even if in your world you’re not even in a mean ballpark and are genuinely trying to connect. If you try to defend yourself and say, “No no no, I like you, that’s why I said your tits were saggy so be careful they don't get caught in the door jam!” Who says that to someone they like? You’re going to look like a hypocrite who claims to like someone, but says mean things to them. It’s entirely a product of a superficial understanding of where either person is coming from.

To me this feels like an area that’s both extremely personally familiar, but one that many people still misunderstand with regularity. I think the problem has only compounded with characters like Trump in our minds.

The comic who makes fun of you isn’t lying about where they come from. Someone like Trump is lying about everything all the time until it’s a transaction that personally helps him. And then, he’s still lying about whatever feeling he may express about you. He’s not gratified to know you, he’s gratified he got something out of you.

But what’s a frequent defense you hear from Trump’s apologists? “He’s just joking.” You have someone like Jordan Peterson trying to liken him to actual comics and claim they’re making the same kind of jokes. Absolutely not. One class of people are making jokes, professionally. When they step off stage they are normal-enough people with standards of conduct and a shared reality. It’s part of what allows them to reach the heights they do. Bill Burr hasn’t cut down and destroyed everyone in the comedy world like Trump cuts down and destroys everyone who doesn’t service him.

When you don’t want to accept the basic reality, you shift the conversation. You let the words mean something else. You move the goal posts until new norms of behavior and connotative baggage can be shaken or adopted.

There’s several thousand posts trying to explain why Trump got elected. The ones I caught, none avoided the trap of equivocation and nice, neat, or indignant summaries of familiar talking points. One person, Tressie McMillan Cottom actually and accurately spoke to the feelings that drive people on The Daily Show. The equation looks something like this:

Clock vibes –> Create excuse –> Call it “reasons” –> Passionately double-down –> Clock self-fulfilled prophecy vibes –> continue cycle indefinitely.

You know why the whole country moved towards Trump? We’ve been gagging on those fumes for almost a decade. No kid who grows up under that is going to fear fascism. Fascism is the new norm. No media that never learned how to cover or convey information in the first place is going to be a protective 4th estate. Our “norms” have only recently evolved to try and get used to surviving past our 30s. We can devolve into a considerably more ambivalent and blood-thirsty version of ourselves almost over-night. That’s the vast majority of our internal infrastructure.

I don’t want to drift too abstractly. You can stop the cycle at any point by just adopting better questions. You have to ask them of yourself and whomever you’re desiring to connect with.

Do you feel some kind of way when you’re discussing whatever the topic is?
If you can’t recognize or own the feeling, it’s saying everything for you.

Can you recognize and accept whatever the last point I made was?
If you are unable or unwilling to quote someone and recite back what they said, you’re not talking to each other. You’re not sharing language or some version of reality.

I suggest ceasing any conversation that can’t establish these two conditions if you’re genuine goal is to get somewhere useful and actionable.

One of the digressions I read from someone trying to front that they’re a “reasonable” split-ticket person criticized the border bill because of one out-of-context line about how many people it would allow into the country a day. To this person’s mind, they’ve got a reasonable criticism and wouldn’t vote for a bill that has that in it. The huge but, all bills are going to have things in them that one side doesn’t like. The fact that one came together at all, and was ready to be passed, and was deliberately tanked by the person you voted for says an incredible amount about how “reason” fails.

For that criticism to make sense, I would need that person to answer yes or no to a series of questions about the nature of my reality and perception of what a monumental accomplishment the bill was altogether. I’d also want to know their awareness of the history and context of our immigration issues against what the rest of the world is experiencing. What I’d discover within 2 questions is that this person has no idea how immigration works, what details needed to be negotiated, what future bills others were aiming for once there was a floor, etc. I’d also discover that they were not interested in those details fundamentally, because they’re engaged in backwards apologetics trying to justify a bad decision, not look to build reasons into one they think is good.

This kind of “reasoning” and behavior is something you see in social work constantly. I remind my clients often that there’s a huge difference between living in fear and avoidance, and living in an affirmative and accountable way. When they tell me, “I just don’t ever want to think about using again!” I tell them that’s building failure into their expectations. They’re going to think about using again. They’re not, yet, necessarily going to grasp the nature of their power not to do so. They’re not going to have an understanding and awareness of how their environment and self-talk and daily practices inform or impede their ability to reach years-later goals.

So it goes with everything we do. We live in avoidance of the psychological pain of superficial contradictions and difficult conversations with the forces that, having become too abstracted, we don’t respect as killing us. Fentanyl will drop you dead the first time you get the wrong dose. Rage? You’re not even angry…you claim. Fear? You like scary movies! You assert while I’m trying to talk about the consequences of you escaping an abusive dynamic. Faith? With god, all things are possible. Conveniently, “all things” in my head are something positive and not a global flood.

I’ve thought about taking as many posts as I can and sorting them into the categories of excuses, linguistic gymnastic rhetorical bins, and fallacies. It’s what I used to do back when I was “debating” religious ideologues. It’s the exact same mechanisms regardless of the topic of conversation. That’s what kinda kills and yet excites me, because it feels understandable and teachable. Michael Shermer has his books, but I don’t see enough people wrestling with the conversations in real time. I don’t see us as competent to both recognize and know how to redirect or call out in a way that keeps an exchange on the rails. Like, we don’t have a concept of the rails broadly.

I think for my purposes I need to continue speaking mostly to myself and my fleetingly small audience of people who aren’t reduced to reactionary pedantry when they pretend to understand what I’m talking about. If I can refrain from unironically engaging in the errant pissing matches as I’m searching for a compelling way to convert errant pissing matches into something useful, that will serve me best. We need more people demonstrating the value of methodically and purposefully approaching conversations while maintaining expectations for the nature of the exchange. This is incredibly hard to do, not least because I’m unsure how even most of the smartest and well-intentioned have the ability to recognize the problem.

Saturday, July 20, 2024

[1141] Shadow Band

There’s been a decent shift in my energy and disposition since I’ve started applying and moving in the direction of returning to work a “normal” job. My sleep schedule has gone all over the place. I’m finding it harder to focus. Broadly, “adrift” and “pensive” have me in a hole of speculation about how to conduct the next few months of my life.

At the same time, I’m still attempting to consume all of media, so it’s a continuous string of podcasts, music, and TV shows. 99% of approximately 95% of my days are spent in self-reflection/conversation with those. I have a couple people I text each day. Fleetingly, I talk to someone who operates in some professional capacity. If you’re curious, 14.4 minutes is 1% of a day. I don’t spend 14.4 minutes speaking to anyone most days nor 14.4 minutes speaking out loud to nearly anyone most days.

I get this impression, pretty often, that even when a conversation is breached, there’s an insistence to “wrap it up.” I speculate it’s because there’s an underlying fear that things will get “awkward” or someone might get the wrong impression that you, I don’t know, might become too friendly? It’s not that there aren’t the natural talkers and “everyone’s friend” types that you can run into, but it feels very accidental when that happens.

Anyway, I suppose that felt relevant to bring up when I think about the large amount of information I glean from these nerds and their podcasts. I’m struck by how often a theme emerges. We just fundamentally talk past each other.

It’s weird to me because the dance of a conversation suggests there’s a shared space or reality. But the closer you listen, or if you do so at an “overwhelm yourself” kind of rate, you realize each player is kind of doing their own thing and more or less looking for validation. I pause every time I hear someone say, “I think that’s exactly right.” Do they? Do they dozens of times throughout a conversation on whatever the topic freely flowed into?

The same thing happens when you get people on different “sides.” A Conversations with Coleman episode really highlighted this for me. Coleman strikes me as an autistic-type. He wants the facts, details, history, data, etc. and will sincerely try to explore a topic in good faith. He’s willing to entertain mouthpieces for nonsense in the spirit of actively mitigating the development of his own idea echo chamber. It’s a laudable goal, but it’s his and his alone, and the strategy for achieving it feels fundamentally flawed by inviting characters in who don’t so much care about Coleman’s ability to reach truer truths. They care about being seen as legitimate by eliciting any exchange from people like Coleman.

I think a lot about what Michael Shermer points out with regard to smart people being able to construct these extremely compelling and convoluted ways to believe dumb shit. I think people like Elon Musk and Bret Weinstein are poster children for this complex or propensity. The deeply unwise thing to do is presume that just because you’re good or accomplished at one or a few particular things, it automatically translates into broader license for drawing conclusions. Fuck, add Jordan Peterson to that poster.

I don’t think I’m getting “smarter” in my hours of listening to nerd people. Whether they criticize books, describe history, or dig into the weeds of ideological and political projects, they’re all seemingly being driven by a similar pretense. Their particular lens is worthy of your Substack subscription. Their particular insight is novel in how it compiles and describes the subject. Their experience of “this historical moment” is capable and “helpful” in getting a handle on…certainly not what we should do…but maybe we’ve laid the foundation for our next intellectual foray calling out for scrutiny and contextualization.

I’m getting this sensibility that’s empathizing with people who know absolutely nothing about politics, history, or pretty much why anything happens anywhere, and don’t feel obligated to try.

This is in conflict with my baseline disposition that, of course, sought out all of these nerds and subscribed and has been listening to for dozens if not hundreds of episodes each. But when I engage in my Coleman-esc sincere effort to not sound like a fucking moron, who am I sharing it with? My dad and 2 or 3 friends extremely occasionally? I’m not converting my time and energy spent into an infinitely regressing meta-analysis in search of my own following and Better Help sponsorship. I’m not writing digressions like these for official publication. I’m not galvanizing democratic support and solidarity to push new better-informed policy agendas. What’s going on?

My mind jumps into thinking about social media influencers, particularly the pretty ones. You can get millions of people to look at you every day by just putting your hot self on display in different outfits at regular intervals. You can be dumb. You can be naive. You can be vapid and very much a product of your carefully maintained bubble. But guess what breaks through? You’re fucking hot, and eyes equal money. It makes me think of McDonald’s. They aren’t advertising to you, they’re normalizing the very essence and idea of Mcdonald’s as food.

So, today, it’s normal to have strange hot people you scroll through with regularity. It’s normal to engage in “debate,” as though the exchange is at all concerned with what debate actually entails, or that it could be considered an exchange altogether. “Binge” became something of a badge of honor. Ceaseless professing of values and virtue signalling stepped in for civic engagement and meaningful sacrifice.

I’m also struck by how much I don’t really see a “fix,” to what I’m experiencing. You set yourself up for a trap if you conceive of something as a “problem,” more than a simple state of things or small description from your perspective. Say I want to “be more social,” so I’ve attended adult game evenings or been to hundreds of concerts and comedy shows. Do you make friends there? The performance is still ongoing. Volleyball is 35 random lonely dudes, 5 married girls, and dispositions possibly less adept at handling being alone. Softball was people seemingly seconds from changing the rules to allow drinking and smoking on the field.

Are these cunty ignorant observations of someone unwilling to even try? Maybe 5%, but they’re not inaccurate nor coming from a place of disgust or hatred. Add to the mix that I know I’m an aberrant personality who routinely and immediately turns people off to entertaining what I might have to say or joke about. Where’s “my people?”

I’ve never been good at finding a home with a group based on superficial qualifiers. I don’t feel “Serbian” despite my last name being a literal Serbian word for smoked meat. I don’t find solidarity in adopting sky-daddy ideas. I’m technically a Cubs, Bears, and Bulls fan and couldn’t tell you a single player on any team nor when they’re playing next. I’ve watched thousands of hours of “okay” television voluntarily before I’ve made myself look at a game at a bar for longer than 5 seconds. I can’t put together what they’re doing has anything to do with me. My sense of fulfillment and identity isn’t a function of group-think or proxy pride.

Different sports teams I’ve attempted to join as an adult started to drift. The ultimate Frisbee guys wanted to start taking the fun games we were playing to more “professional” levels. The dodge-ball crowd drifted to disorganized chaos. I’d also now have a built in 1.5 hour round-trip drive to most anything I might try to join, and I don’t get enough emotional or physical gratification in exchange for the gas and impending car issues to bother with a sincere pursuit or commitment.

“Disassociation” is a word coming to mind. None of it means anything. It’s all to fill the air and kill time. Whether I get fit or fat, I’ll be mostly alone to do whatever it is I’m doing any given day. Whether I know every sordid detail about Israel, Palestine, Ukraine, or Russia, or never even whisper their names again, I’m not going to speak on those subjects and “move the needle” on entrenched belief heuristics about power and identity. Even on the pages of my “friends,” facebook isn’t going to show you my thoughts and work to stay sane. It’s not a happy picture or doesn’t match your algorithm preferences. This, if it wasn’t for me, would be one more in an ironic fruitless exercise to toss more into the void.

I’ve dug myself such an isolated hole on social media, that even when I share work I do home renovating, my pets, the concerts with the artists tagged, or anything that you’d think would play the “look at me and how happy cool I am!” game of social media, I have literally never gotten more than 5 likes for any reason. The spam bots barely even fuck with me. I’m like not even part of a fucking hashtag community? I watch people get 30 likes for asking what to make for dinner.

I find these feelings, or lack thereof, especially curious because I have non-trivial and non-superficial friendships and family dynamics. They’re in no way the majority of my daily life. They play an outsized role in orienting how and why I think about how my time is spent. A perfect fool would read any part of this as some form of indictment about them or my inability to appreciate and celebrate “enough.”

But then, isn’t it the case for almost everyone to consider their family and friends non-trivial and non-superficial? Isn’t that the way we perpetuate horribly toxic and stressful family dynamics because they’ve been our Mcdonald’s for the whole of our lives and species’ evolutionary history? Our fruitless exchanges and familiar roles providing a comforting feedback loop in their predictable flavor. Do we ever get “enough” of whatever we believe we’re getting from our families?

So much of the make-up of your mind is there for you perfectly independent of whether you have the awareness or intention about it. As you grow more aware and make more decisions, it feels like an invitation to the kind of alienation I feel like I’m describing incredibly terribly from bizarre or seemingly arbitrary angles. My mind returns to my “Older woman who’s been 3 times divorced or had spouses die, has enough money, a long braid or butch cut, hiking boots, a glint in her smile, and knows what she wants by now.” Is she ever rolling 20-deep? She doesn’t need the noise or errant opinions about where to go next.

I don’t socialize like a woman. I haven’t had a vastly fulfilling professional or relationship dynamic for so long that it’s time to rest on my laurels and indulge. I’m not soliciting unwanted attention indefinitely. I’m not seeking solidarity with niche groups, co-opting a fetish or hobby in lieu of an identity. I’m also, if you can believe it, not attempting to hold people to some high pretentious standard of engagement or expectations, particularly when I’m just roaming about the world. I just don’t fit, and I never have, and I see no path to a place where I might.

I’ve been in “desperately maintain” or “work exhaustively for forlorn dream” or “see how much I can get away with before it breaks” modes my entire adult life. The attempts to build things with people are, sometimes weirdly violently, rebuked. My attempts to build competing or parallel ways are wrought with complications. If I “pull out” too far I get stuck in abstract write-forever space and eventually a deep foreboding that nothing matters anymore. Who wants that?

Wednesday, November 15, 2023

[1078] Almost, Not Quite

Whether I had a specific or genuine intention to be or not, I'm a critic. I critically compare or analyze the things I see and listen to. So rarely does anything make me "feel" that when I'm doing so it can register as if I'm being unfairly judgmental, jealous, or begrudging and negative for their own sake. I've spent a lot of time developing my tastes or competencies. I'm going to have an embodied and informed reaction, or lack thereof, to most things even just by virtue of continuing to stay alive and pay attention.

Why? Why criticize anything ever? Why not "let people create" or "live and let live?" It sounds so simple and easy, right? No one is obligating me to engage with what they're putting out. Tastes differ. What's the point of investing any energy whatsoever into an opinion, particularly one that's less than supportive?

That's the framing from the uncritical. To them, all information can be treated equally. They act as though any piece of music, any article, movie, or any interaction with another person just exists in this neutral space with more or less equitable consequences and presumed decent enough reasons for their existence. It's why you can have dipshit day-time talk shows that have been having the same conversation since their inception. There's a gigantic herd of people ready to be info-taimed via the perpetual novelty offered through their ignorance.

There's only so much time. There's only so many stages, radio stations, movie studios, or remotely informed opinions it's worth incorporating into yours. If your time isn't precious, say, because you think you're going to live for eternity after you die, whether you spent 5 minutes or 50 years trying to inform yourself on something, it doesn't matter. It's hard to believe you have a real concept of "trying to inform yourself." I'd argue you're mostly killing time.

It's scarcity that breeds critical opinions. If there's truly moving, energetic talent out there, they only have so much in the tank. You want to promote them. You want to enable them and connect them with people who share not just some naive sensibility that broadly "celebrates artists," but can say, "Oh fuck, this is different, special, or plugged into the zeitgeist right now." People who are paying attention want to hear from others who are actually saying something. Finding voices in an endless scroll of noise is hard enough without entertaining bad arguments for bad art.

I criticized Ayaan Hirsi Ali under her article describing converting to Christianity. It was really poorly written. It was wholly devoid of any discussion regarding secular and scientific value systems, which, she's perfectly aware exist and has written about in the past, and just kind of discarded. She straw-manned the word "atheist" as if it's a value or belief system. She spoke to her failing mental health and fear as the things making the argument for her. It was really bad, especially for someone who's a noted figure on religion.

What was the pushback? I should allow her to feel what she feels. You know, because I have the power to stop her? Every time I hear this one it confuses the fuck out of me. The usual attempts to read my mind and question my character came in. Laugh emojis, personal stories about dead daughters who came back as undeniable signs. Just a ton of nonsense. Per usual, no one quotes me. No one asked me any questions. I'm not even sure most even read the article, and they definitely didn't read Michael Shermer's response, which I also shared.

In the non-critical mind, any perceived affront to someone's profession of "truth" is worthy of vitriol. It doesn't have to make sense. In fact, that's precisely the point. The more and more sense you try to make, the more you fuel the fire they'll use to burn you. You're not occupying the same universe of values, words, attention, or evidence.

Artistic works of all kinds, good or bad, impress upon us regardless of whether we want them to or not. How many advertising signs can you recognize quicker than people you went to school with for 4 to 15 years? How many jingles come to mind at their mere mention? We, creepily, applaud rhetoric and obfuscation from propagandists. Hitler is literally Hitler, and it's rare you hear him mentioned without props to his performances. Because that's what they are, efforts to compel your attention.

I've written a few songs. I play a few instruments. I've made a little documentary about the Merrillville Marching Band. I've written jokes. I've written 1,100 blog posts. I have as much of the creative spark as anyone, and yet I choose to share it with almost no one. You have to come to me and seek it out. You have to cling to the rotting corpse of facebook or have bookmarked blogger.

I put out things that I actually wish to say or I think are worthy of sparking more conversation or reflection. I'm not keen to spam our shared space with "demo" level noodling and experimenting if I know that's what I'd be doing. Let me write and record a song I'm proud of, you'll hear it. If someone comes in to criticize it who listens to exactly one band over and over again, I'll take them as seriously as I do people arguing religion with bronze age insights. I say or share jokes I think are funny and at least make myself laugh first or while I'm thinking about them. I share poems that burst out of me. If I ever got an opportunity to publish things I wrote, 95% of it would be left on the floor.

The same criticism applies to myself and people who wish to create "great" things. They want the work to be recognized, not hop between a series of flukes and incidentals. How many artists get popular with songs they don't even really like or thought they wouldn't include on an album? It's a lot. Listen to interviews about song-writing processes or thoughts as stars are on the rise. The cultural forces that popularize dumb or annoying one-hit-wonders are riding that ambivalent arm-chair capacity for evaluation or cynical spam. Is that what you feel about what you might create? It's so much more noise to be tossed into the ether?

The tools you develop in being critical you can apply across domains. You can be tough but fair to yourself instead of anxiously and despotically tearing down every effort you might make. You can borrow and allude to elements from patterns you notice verses plagiarize. You can work a sensibility into your bones that translates through nuances and between other critical sensibilities. You see this in music constantly in trading off jazz legends and guitar heroes.

I find myself begging for criticism sometimes. I don't exchange a lot of information for all I share. I have like 2 people left in my life who I can talk in depth or at length about some things with. We don't have a competent and critical culture. We have fandoms and feelings. We have tribes. We have overwhelming amounts of debt, sadness, health issues, and we're staring down the literal potential fascist takeover. It feels silly, one might think, to be critical of art or music at times like these. Irony forever wins the day and you might start arguing chicken vs egg.

If you dismiss, or are too exhausted, or "just don't care," or rush to call everything "fair" and declare what everyone's "rights" are as though you're not shitting on expressing them when they arrive in reactionary turn, you lose the whole game. A willingness to offer and engage sincere feedback bred from an earned perspective feels like it's wholly evaporated.

I have incredibly strong instincts about people and relationships that get proven too right way too often. I feel like I'm cheating and clearly must be ignorantly doing what others are so keen to do to me, but unfortunately I just keep seeing the same patterns and people willing to mindlessly let them play out. I'm deeply informed by having worked with, partied with, or attempted to engage in things "differently" or "better" with thousands of people over two decades. I actively listen to hundreds of bands and watch hundreds of shows. I've earned the right to say at least a little something about how someone or something is operating. I'm not stomping my foot and screaming my right to, I'm citing and reflecting on my experience.

Only when you do that do you afford yourself the opportunity to see how many gaps it contains. I can be incredibly right about someone's shitty romantic dynamic. It has nothing to do with every beat of their history and day to day that I'm not privy to. I can summarily dismiss cliche, boring, derivative bands and watch them soar never even knowing I exist. I can reduce the years I've spent learning about religion or human psychology to facebook pissing matches. Whatever amazing person that cunty moron might be when they're not talking at me I'll never know.

Take what gets into your head seriously. Respect yourself enough to utilize the evidence and recognize the patterns. They are there. From the fascist pattern to the shitty country music pattern, you don't have to listen or pretend it's tantamount to Bach. You don't have to stay silent as though your polluted landscape isn't worth coughing out of our collective lungs. All it takes is sincerely qualifying what you don't know, asking questions, and actually sharing what you believe is worth people hearing. We don't really have a prayer as individuals or as a society otherwise.

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

[714] I Believe

As far back as I can remember writing, what provokes me, what’s an ever-present theme is the idea of “belief.”

It’s tied closely to “faith” and “hope.” It’s what provokes “I feel.” It’s got at least one book by Michael Shermer which I can’t remember if I’ve read. It’s the basis of a basically functioning brain. You have to believe the bed isn’t going to disappear when you jump into it. You have to believe in your relationships so you can make long term goals. You have to believe in yourself and that the things you care about hold value. You mess with belief at your great peril.

In thinking the god I don’t believe in is every ounce of ironic and laughing as Al Pacino might suggest, I’ve not only had my mind flooded with Jesus Christ Superstar for weeks (having watched every commercially version available), watched a documentary on Tony Robbins constantly pushing love and general ethereality so-named “God,” but have started training with a company that is deeply rooted in religious ideals - meaning prayer before meetings, offers of “what scripture says about that,” and ninja gorilla training on how to maybe-ever-oh-so-subtly sneak a little Jesus into a life that’s recently had a child taken away.

While I said I wouldn’t criticize what I’m a part of until the end of this week, I can still talk and reflect on what I’m hearing. And what I’m hearing more than anything is, “I believe. I truly believe. I believe with all my heart. I believe in our mission. I believe I was called. I believe you can change the world. I believe every conversation I ever get into has a purpose and a meaning and that we all have something to teach each other. I believe we’re going to grow and grow and that it’s not for us to explore the details behind why our reach is increasing, and we should be able to do such a good job, we’ll work ourselves out of business!"

I’ve known what religious-minded people believe for a long time. It’s why, barring severe brain damage, I’m going to die without adopting a sky daddy. I don’t “believe” I’ll never believe in God. I speak in a way that always allows for brain damage.

But then it begs the question, what do I actually believe? We can leave aside that I don’t behave as if my car runs on milk or that the bed will jump out of the window before I jump in it. Maybe it’s first better to think about what I used to believe. I know I’ve talked about that before with regards to what I believed growing up as a kid about my family or school. I don’t know how much to just lump those in with general childish naivety or if they had a special hold on me that really fucked with me when they were broken. Wouldn’t they everybody? Aren’t we actively watching the consequences of people’s broken homes and expectations play out in real time?

But right now, what do I believe? I believe in myself. I believe I can lie, and play along, and make money. I believe that, if nothing else, I will at least find myself alone, in my field, with too much saved up and too much time to read, watch TV, and play music. That’s so true to me, when I use my third eye, so to speak, I see myself there, just being okay, doing whatever. It’s a kind of baseline belief because I have immediate access to my thought process at all times. I don’t have to convince myself I’m as good as I’ve already done. I try incredibly hard to thrust lies from my life, so even the delusions I have left retain a contentious bibliography.

I believe there’s little I could do that would make my dad leave my corner. He’s nothing but an anchor for what I believe as his ardent stance in service to family. In the same vein, but very different, I believe my best friend will always behave in the ways I might anticipate for myself. Stated differently, I believe me at my worst and best, and I know how to navigate either.

I believe we’re not going to make it. I think “something” could survive over an extended period of time, but “we,” as a species, as capitalist selfish befuddled apes, not for anything but a cosmic second. But I also believe it’s the best thing you can do to fight against that anyway.

What would I have liked to believe? What do I think would have made my picture of the world, not so reflexively “negative,” a word and view I still vehemently disagree with, but one where I’m able to constantly like and share and offer “good vibes” that don’t rub people so raw? I would have liked to believe any time I was arrested by love, that those feelings suggested more than biology. Of course it’s grand to think of security or a partnership or a way to express trust and intimacy. Is it the reality I felt was built to last? You don’t tell a girl who’s mad about you, that you know is wifey material, that she’s going to be the one to leave you on day 2 of you guys ever spending a considerable amount of time together. And certainly, not believing it’s going to work doesn’t make the time together bad or register as a relief when it’s over.

I’d like to believe that I don’t have to carry whatever angry water I have for my mom. I’d like to believe a phone call and “deep appreciation” for the pain that’s been caused could get us talking towards some kind of, at least basic courtesy, of a place. Do I believe that can happen? Well, sure, anything can, but I don’t just not believe it, I don’t even want to believe it. I don’t want us to be reconciled to people who don’t have a capacity to hold themselves to account. I don’t want people who believe in themselves, in their own innocence or lack of responsibility, at the expense of the whole world. I’m not okay with pretending that’s okay. I don’t want that to be a statement about me as an example I set for anyone else.

I’d like to believe that “things are just around the corner.” I used to. I thought I’d be 5 years down the line of a moderately successful coffee endeavor that kinda sorta ran itself. I’d like to think I’m one person who isn’t abject shit and a waste of time away from seeing my appeals online who wants to join up and get started. I want to believe that even in this new job, I’ll hit it as hard as I’ve hit everything, and maybe next month I’ll be wildly surprised at the “ease” I could have been working to get twice as much. But I believe it’s always in the romanticized past. I believe that’s where most of my friends are. I believe it would take nothing short of a lottery-adjacent offer to get anyone to come play for longer than lunch or a weekend.

If you’re a believer, you think all of this is just God speaking through me. You caught this blog at the EXACT right time, and try as you might to fight, certain lines just stuck with you today or came up as relevant like a proverb. I don’t get credit for thinking or sharing. I don’t get to differentiate my thoughts and language. I don’t get to take responsibility for my actions when they seem to contradict. I don’t get agency. I don’t have ideas, let alone ideals. If you believe, I don’t exist, and thus am absolved of my sins. So why not you as well? You as my witness, you who would condemn me with every sweetest profession, you who speaks without saying anything. This is the word of My God! So sayeth, Me.

Monday, January 5, 2009

[70] Genesis Revisited by Michael Shermer

To convey the logical absurdity of trying to squeeze the round peg of science into the square hole of religion, I penned the following scientific revision of the Genesis creation story. It is not intended as a sacrilege of the poetic beauty of Genesis; rather, it is a mere extension of what the creationists have already do to Genesis in their insistence that it be read not as mythic saga but as scientific prose. If Genesis were written in the language of modern science, it would read something like this.

In the beginning-specifically on October 23, 4004 B.C., at noon-out of quantum foam fluctuation God created the Big Bang, followed by cosmological inflation and an expanding universe. And darkness was upon the face of the deep, so He commanded hydrogen atoms (which He created from Quarks) to fuse and become helium atoms and in the process release energy in the form of light. And the light maker he called the sun, and the process He called fusion, And He saw the light was good because now He could see what he was doing, so he created Earth. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And God said, Let there be lots of fusion light makers in the sky. Some of these fusion makers He grouped into collections He called galaxies, and these appeared to be millions and even billions of light years from Earth, which would mean that they were created before the first creation in 4004 B.C. This was confusing, so God created tired light, and the creation story was preserved. And created He many wondrous splendors such as Red Giants, White Dwarfs, Quasars, Pulsars, Supernova, Worm Holes, and even Black Holes out of which nothing can escape. But since God cannot be constrained by nothing, He created hawking radiation through which information can escape from Black Holes. This made God even more tired than tired light, and the evening and the morning were the second day.

And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the continents drift apart by plate tectonics. He decreed sea floor spreading would create zones of emergence, and He caused subduction zones to build mountains and cause earthquakes. In weak points in the crust God created volcanic islands, where the next day He would place organisms that were similar to but different form their relatives on the continents, so that still later created creatures called humans would mistake them for evolved descendants created by adaptive radiation. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

And God saw that the land was barren, so He created animals bearing their own kind, declaring Thou shalt not evolve into new species, and they equilibrium shall not be punctuated. And God placed into the rocks, fossils that appeared older than 4004 B.B. that were similar to but different from living creatures. And the sequence resembled descent with modification. And the evening and morning were the fourth day.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that hath life, the fishes. And God created great hales whose skeletal structure and physiology were homologous with the land mammals he would create later that day. God then brought forth abundantly all creatures, great and small, declaring that microevolution was permitted, but not macroevolution. And God said, Natura non facit saltum-Nature shall not make leaps. And the evening and morning were the fifth day.

And god created the pongidids and hominids with 98 percent generic similarity, naming two of them Adam and Eve. In the book in which God explained how He did all this, in one chapter He said he created Adam and Eve together out of the dust at the same time, but in another chapter He said he created Adam first, then later created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. This caused confusion in the valley of the shadow of doubt, so God created theologians to sort it out.

And in the ground placed He in abundance teeth, jaws, skulls, and pelvises of transitional fossils from pre-Adamite creatures. One chosen as his special creation He named Lucy, who could walk upright like a human but had a small brain like an ape. And God realized this too was confusing, so he created paleoanthropologists to figure it out.

Just as He was finishing up the loose ends of the creation God realized that Adam's immediate descendants would not understand inflationary cosmology, global general relativity, quantum mechanics, astrophysics, biochemistry, paleontology, and evolutionary biology, so he created creation myths. But there were so many creation stories throughout the world God realized this too was confusing, so created He anthropologists and mythologists.

By now the valley of the shadow of doubt was overrunneth with skepticism, so God became angry, so angry that god lost His temper and cursed the first humans, telling them to go forth and multiply themselves (but not in those words). But the humans took God literally and now there are six billion of them. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.

By now God was tired, so He proclaimed, "Thank me it's Friday," and He made the weekend. It was a good idea.

Friday, August 29, 2008

[127] Some Sources

Friday, August 29, 2008 at 10:44pm

Saturday, December 15, 2007

[47] To Be Title Later (Maybe Not)

Preface

If there is only one thing you should know about me its that I think, a lot. I reached a boiling point in my head and one rant blog is no longer sufficient in the effort to keep me sane. I've read about all arguments that attempt to argue for proof of God. I hear about the different weird and negative relationships people are in. Lately I've been trying to talk to as many people as I can to gain more perspective as I keep finding out you can never know too much about a subject. When I talk on these subjects, and too the people, I'm almost terribly blunt and feel as though they think I'm missing some dire point they're trying to make by my short and sweet answers. I assure you that is not the case and in writing this all out, hopefully I will be able to draw the proper analogies and tie in all the ramblings of my mind into a better foundation of understanding. I will try to provide as many links (which probably won't yet exist at the time your reading this) to the different books or videos I reference because they will always be a lot more descriptive and provide the exact source of what made me think or say something the way I did. I'm working on getting mp3's of any book I mention and am soon going to buy everything I've read if you are interested in borrowing. The library works too. The parts of this, I'll call it an essay, I imagine can be read separately. The parts on religion are designed to show why I think and say the things I do. They are not an attack at belief, in a sense, but an attempt to simply raise consciousness about issues you've maybe never thought about. The relationship part is more than likely going to be a reiteration of blogs I wrote years ago, but more encompassing and detailed. I want to discuss and revise my thinking constantly. This will forever be a work in progress and if you find anything you want to add or argue I will gladly indulge you. I only ask that you read with an open and focused mind so this becomes something positive and helpful and not demonized to fight about.

Definitions

One of the major reasons for discourse amongst the people I talk to and I are the varying definitions of certain key words. I want to clear this up in the beginning as we can go nowhere if we're not even speaking the same language.

Interpret: an explanation of something that is not immediately obvious.

Over and over I hear about how people are supposed to interpret the bible and I can't help getting overly frustrated. When you interpret something its automatically changed. The second you take in any piece of information your mind twists it into whatever best fits what you've encountered in the past. Ten million people interpreting one book and not getting the same answers is such staggering proof of this fact I don't know how people ignore the inconsistencies of people calling themselves part of the same religion.

Faith: complete confidence in a person or plan

This is something that is not up for question. If you ever go "o but wait" in your mind in regards to any subject you automatically do not have perfect faith in that subject. This can be a dangerous thing if taken too far, for example, does anyone remember September 11^th? When I talk of faith, I talk of something that is inherent and too often irrational that we devised to better soften the blows of things we fear or don't understand. Whether you have faith in your relationship or faith in God there is part of you that is relying on nothing but a strong inner conviction that does not require empirical proof nor is up for discussion.

Fact: An indisputable truth. (Update 7/8/2018): A better definition is "anything that can be proven or disproven."

This means that simply calling something a fact does not give it the characteristics as such. When I give a fact its from a well documented subject or respected person of the field. The idea corroborates with others in the field and cannot be refuted simply because you don't think its true.

Belief: This means that an individual is convinced of the truth of a statement or allegation.

I'm always reminded of this idea, "Just because you are convinced that something is true does not make its so, it is merely convincing." I am on constant guard when it comes to what I actually believe because it matters to me what I tell people truthfully. As a subscribing member to the human race I find that it is easy to be wrong about a multitude of things when you go in looking for information on the preconception that your already in the know. This is why I hate it when people tell me "Well you believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe, and we'll leave it at that." If you can't even begin to convey to me what you believe how can I go away secure in thought that you even know what you believe?

Hope: A desire for something to happen, while expecting or being confident that it will come true.

It is important to note the difference between hope and faith here. Hope is the stage we are constantly in. Faith is entirely mind encompassing. You hope your relationship gets better. You hope for good health and a good life. It allows you to take in the evidence and persevere down a given path, while faith can completely cloud and lock in an ideal.

Freedom: The power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints.

I made this one last because I want to make a special point about it. One thing I consistently hear is that God gave man free will. I so 100% completely disagree with that statement and I will tell you explicitly why. Reread the definition of freedom. In the religious realm you are not free to disbelieve. If you disbelieve, the externally imposed restraint that sends you to burn in hell kicks in. According to their view, even if your not playing within their rules your subject to be punished by their God. There is absolutely nothing free about this. There is no real choice that exists with such a view. You can be a motor-cross athlete and attempt a double back flip or not ever try. Yes, you may be judged as a pussy, bad ass, cool, reckless, etc…with either choice, but those judgments can be accepted just as freely as they can be rejected. The "freedom of choice" in religion is a not so elaborate mask put on in the face of analysis that never dug deep enough.

Logical Fallacies

If your going to discuss/argue I believe you should at least learn about the different fallacies you may or may not have been imposing to justify your position. Another reason I get discouraged from talking to people is that they start with a glaring gap in logic and then digress their position from that point. If I can find a the video again there is a quick run through of 22 fallacies that are the main proponents to such arguments. There is also a list in "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer that you can get from the library. The different ways people try to convince me of their thinking generally circle around these ideas:

Anecdotes: You tell a story that seems to support your view. 1 story or 10 stories don't matter if they can't be tested and confirmed by anyone but you.

Burden of Proof: If you can't disprove God then he must exist. Unfortunately the job lies with the person making the claim. I don't personally say God doesn't exist because I believe it's a retarded concept to argue about. If you affirm that he does, its your job to prove it. In the same respect if I say something I will gladly offer the proof and source of my assertion.

After the Fact Reasoning: In short, superstition. Because one thing happened then something else must have been the reason. "Correlation does not mean causation." When you want something to be the reason so badly, then to you, that something will become the reason. Your mind is set to make you happy, if only eventually. If you can't guard against yourself you fall prey to yourself.

Representativeness: As Aristotle said, "the sum of the coincidences equals certainty" again taken from Shermer's book it's the idea that we forget the shortcomings and remember the meaningful times. It's the automatic rationalization you adhere to when your truly uncertain but don't want to give up hope.

Unexplained is Not Inexplicable: "I have some event in my life that I can't think about in any other way so it must be God." This one bothers me the most. I don't care to argue people's personal lives. I can't change you, and would die trying. Your life, as depressingly compelling as it may seem, could always be worse and probably has many unrealized reasons for your behavior in certain situations. This doesn't even need to apply, though it has been tried, when you speak of what God didn't allow in your life. If you want a competition to see who can write about all the times God didn't allow you to die you'd have to factor in all the meteors that don't crash on your house, cars you didn't hit on the way home, and shanks you missed out on walking a city street.

How to Think About Evolution and Natural Selection

Your teachers taught it. You hear about it on the news when a discrepancy with a creationist arises. You can either accept or deny it. I was once told by one of my Christian friends that she believed in "parts" of evolution and when I inquired as to which ones she said "well I don't believe we came from monkeys." This tells me that adequate truths about the theory are not being sufficiently circulated to the mass populous. The b/s arguments that there are massive gaps in the fossil record and no proof that humans came from something lower are disproved in 15 seconds with a google search. I have the sites saved in my favorites if you don't care to investigate on your own. I also have the names of books that are even better documented and referenced. There was no "chance" in any part of evolution other than random mutations. And when I say mutations I don't mean some grotesque monster that you'd see in some science fiction novel. Only different changes in cells that account for slight variations. The mountains of evidence in favor of the theory will not be summed up here. I only offer an invitation to get informed before you position an argument on something you only think you know about.

Observable "Human" Nature

We think we are the most important. We don't bother to worry about the billions of galaxies in a multi-verse where billions of other life bearing planets may exist. We are trained to think that the things people do are so beyond different and special than what animals do its just "obvious" that someone created us. I find it very interesting then to learn about the behaviors of apes and especially a species of bird. You might already expect to hear that certain primates care for their young, cooperate to achieve goals, compete for status, and so on so forth. I read about a type of bird, I believe in "The God Delusion," that goes so far as to do good deeds like feed others young and take the dangerous lookout positions at night to make a name for themselves. Birds. Our time honored values of being brave and honorable, trusting and loving, are exhibited in birds with egos. You need to get over yourself. Its not defeatist or nihilistic to see and say things for what they really are. We are products of a process who's only goal is survival. The very fact that we are here means that we are the best suited so far for the current situation. Your kids will be a little better off, their kids too, and so on. (Un)fortunately we have become so advanced that we can avoid or negate the regular natural occurrences that would usually weed out the weaklings. It is your selfish genes that want to stay alive that cause over population and starvation. You can stop wondering why God isn't answering their prayers to be fed.

Religious Moderation

If you don't kill the heretic for talking bad about your God then you are practicing religious moderation. I wanted to get the definition of interpretation out of the way to help explain the problem religious moderation has on the world. In a discussion with a religious friend I asked who's job it was to tell the guy that shot the abortion doctor that his interpretation was wrong. Which religious group is going to confront the people who hold up the signs saying "God hates fags?" The fact, simple and observable fact, of the matter is that people pick and choose which verses are most perfect in forwarding their personal ideas. The next guy that shoots a homo and holds up Leviticus 20:13 can't really be told he misinterpreted can he? Its right there, word for word, the perfect inspired Word of God. "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." If your reading this you've probably never killed a homo. No "sane" person of faith ever has. The problem arises when an atheist or agnostic tries to point out that this guys mind was warped by faithful conviction and the religious moderates say back off, let him believe what he wants to believe. If the religious person tries to confront those people their arguing the God of the bible against the God of the bible. Try and work out the conflicting rationalizations then. When you choose the parts to praise and parts to ignore your obviously working on some other authority than God's. If you "just don't agree" or "think I'm just not getting it" try owning a slave and using the bible to back you up.

Empathy

Say you just got out of a bad relationship. Your heartbroken, can't see straight, and the world just doesn't seem to make sense. Millions of questions are darting around your head and before you even utter a word your friend comes along and says " I know how you feel." More often then not, you don't believe them, or you can't trust that they do because their not the same sex, or haven't been in the same type of relationship. Now there are good and bad things involved with taking this viewpoint. Well from what I can tell, mostly bad, the only real good point you can be sure of is that they haven't lived your life or dated that guy. Other than that, the depression, anger, hopefulness, lust, fear, confusion, or love that you may think you've felt they can empathize. When I talk to someone I hate to think that just because I haven't been in long term relationships they believe I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Feelings are compelling. You'll get over them. When you think that life would not be the same, or that your still going to be emotionally attached your only worrying yourself about something your not experiencing. Yes, there will probably be residual feelings. Yes, people deserve chances and problems should be talked or worked out. The facts will always stare coldly in the face of overwhelming and conflicting feelings. You can make every excuse and I'm going to show them on this nice diagram . You go up and down while reading across. Whether this is the exact format of what happened in your relationship or not it's what can happen when you can't handle the little problems early. It doesn't matter how nice you are or how great you think him to be. The problems are problems. Complaining and hoping will never make them better. You either suffer in a relationship where you constantly rationalize everything he does and justify your feelings towards it or you break it off. Go back to being friends, see what it feels like to talk and exist with out "relationship tension" clouding your heart. You can either be a victim of the line, waver in and out of it, or avoid it all together, but it takes action not excuses.

Love: The Games We Play / The Abuse of the Word

O how to begin? Love bothers me. It's the strongest drug with no law against it. You get taken in by its soothing aroma one minute and find yourself cutting in spite of it the next. People live and die by it, yet they are also brash enough to play with it.

If I think about times I would consider myself "in love" once would be with my stuffed animals as a little kid, and the second would be with a girl who didn't love back ;). There's, I dunno, 20 or so depressed and confused blogs about the ordeal. I don't talk much about myself if this is the first time you hear any of this. I call these times love because of the thoughts and feelings I have/had when I reflect on them. With the stuffed animals, when I really put myself back into my kid mind, as my mom cut open and pulled the stuffing from one of my bears in retribution for breaking a glass or something of hers I never felt anything more painful. Anyone who says you don't get emotionally attached to your toys is full of shit. Mind you, I'm a smart, mean, and inventive kid. Imagine the types of terrible thoughts I was concocting in a moment of such anguish. No I'm not looking for a pity party or for you to tell me my mom was a little confused on how to handle children, I'm well aware. The point is that no matter how young or old you are, "experienced" in the ways of pain and confusion, there's someone out there that knows how terribly hopeless you can feel.

That's probably not good enough for you so I'll go on about the later situation. Now I'm overly critical when it comes to girls. I can find any flaw and blow it up and automatically turn a girl from cute and agreeable to merely "doable." So imagine my surprise when someone comes along that I can't find anything wrong with. Not only that she's more than I ever thought I could imagine. All of a sudden my usual selfish thoughts are replaced by nothing but hopes, dreams, and aspirations that concern her. I'm not gonna lie, I got borderline nuts and sincerely tried to make it all go away in the name of calm, cool, and rational Nick, and it just wasn't happening. All the questions, all the rationalizations, all the hopes and dream, frustration and bullshit that unfolded is in those blogs. I know how confused you can get, I know how hard it is to listen to the real world, I know what it feels like to be the only one that "knows" while everyone else is just missing it. You don't have to be in that persons relationship to empathize and understand their situation. The facts remained. I got over it and myself. I learned to keep my faith in understanding and the statute of love separate from my hopes that it would be with any specified person. It was a hard ass lesson to learn and fuck me if I can't convey how shitty it can get when you become good at making excuses.

(line not able to be shown on myspace) like you've read this far newayz

Religion of Love

It's what the 9/11 bombers joined. It what I, to a lesser extent, joined. Its what we all hope to be apart of and not manipulated and hurt by. The perverted con artist with his stunning good looks and stylish ways thinks he invented it. The teenager thinks they can handle it. The confessed believer thinks they understand it. I find it the ultimate oxymoron that people join a religion for love, always looking from the outside in, instead of taking a bit of advice from the Buddhists who believe change comes from within. Its in this area, all the talk about how much, in fact the infinite, amount of love Jesus has for you that I think religion commits its greatest sin.

What could be more worthwhile and compelling than the love of an infinite God? How can one be so vain as to worry about a petty life issue when all their time and attention needs to be focused on a confessed jealous God? The idea that this ultimate love from God is more important than life itself is what helped drive me insane when I tried to become Christian in pursuit of it. Granted, you would probably say I was doing it for the girl or for any number of wrong reasons, but I can only tell you that while it may have started out as such, I worked at making that not so, and not surprisingly still to no avail. When I think about the different stories I've heard in some "Christian" relationships I'm amazed that I ever thought it was something to aspire to.

I'd never have expected things like, slapping, talking down to, mentally abusing, threats, and orders to come out of a "Christian" towards his so-called loved one. What I find more disturbing than that is the reasoning the girls use to stay in the relationship. If that buffer line touched on anything you've ever said or felt in a relationship, elevate and tie in all the good things with God and the demonize bad things with the Devil. The battle is no longer felt like its in your control. You have this never ending thirst for this everlasting love that, excuse me, exists only in your mind, and you pray and cry for answers that just never seem to appear because its all part of a plan that your not supposed to, nor can begin to, understand. You no longer believe in yourself. You believe in the belief. Without it your more than lost, your nothing. Your hope springs eternal for a new life of soldier with slave duties. But of course, you can throw it all away right? You have a choice to think about other "non-Christian" girls and be adulterous. You can get your groove on as many times as you want for as long as you live, and you'll only have to go to hell as payback. And God said unto man "Love Me or else, make your choice."

How to Think

No one teaches you how. They try to tell you how but ultimately we assume that because we are, hopefully, we are doing it correctly. Moreover, we couldn't function as our selves if we didn't assume we were thinking correctly. Unfortunately, your brain has side streets and trap doors where your thoughts can fall which effectively change your perception without you ever needing to be aware they exist. Preconceived notions are some of the biggest things affecting how you rationally think. When you adopt or credo or set of beliefs they act as a speed bump for everything you ever see, hear, or do. Take on that bump long enough and you think its simply "you." If I was religious I would probably also take offense to a book entitled "god is not Great" how religion poisons everything. At the same time my offense doesn't change any of the words that could have a significant impact on my thoughts. I wouldn't even touch the book because I "know" it has nothing to do with anything I care about because I only care about God. While its obvious the book is going to have different opinions it also address many if all of the questions your faithful leaders are discussing behind closed doors. Not to take any light off of the history behind the different religions it describes.

Do I know for sure that I know exactly the perfect way to think all the time? No. Do I think the way I think is credible and can be explained in hopes of other people adopting certain ideas to help themselves? Yes. When you think too much your bound to find a way that is able to put all your thoughts and life experiences, past and present, and keep them in context with respect to a range of perceptions. In other words you can become passionate and not irrational. Your maybe the old guy that the kids come buy and ask for insight and advice from.

When you think, you have to consider what type of information your getting from what source. Can it trusted and tested? You have to think about what instances in your own life may influence your first reaction or thought to the idea well before you verbally announce them. Anyone who's stopped themselves from saying "A black guy robbed them? Of course" knows how to avoid their "brought up in a racist home" bump. You have to re-evaluate what you call "you." If you can't establish your views, opinions, and even confusions, your playing a whole new dogmatic game.

I Don't Know

For whatever reason these seem to be the hardest words to fully embrace by anyone. There's nothing wrong with them. They are inevitable with the endless questions we humans are capable of asking. By understanding that you don't know, you can begin to question the reasons you don't know. It is unfortunate that while every religion knows everything they still don't know how to admit when they're wrong. I don't trust people with all the answers because they're people with all the answers. Do I know the be all end all of your relationships with God or some significant other? Of course not. Do I know what I can see, hear, and learn about? More than anything else I could claim to know. I don't want you to think, and you don't, that I know it all. But I know a lot, and so do you. The world is a sea of information that grows exponentially every second magnifying and converging on a point that may never have an end. You're the only one who can break the wall of excuses and fear in you mind.

About Me