Used Squier's The Big Beat for a drum loop and otherwise just the free VST Synth1. Now off to study till the sunrise. Tomorrow I work my first night shift as a nurse.

I think we learn that in order to be happy we ought to think of certain things while avoiding thinking of other things. I think this learning occurs almost solely on a subconscious level. And the decision for our thoughts to wander in one direction as opposed to another occurs just about solely in the subconscious.

-My schedule is now, more or less permanently, switched over to a night shift schedule. I'm laying on the couch at 4AM last night. I'm alone. Truly alone. It's deathly quiet as the desktop headphones don't stretch that far... I'm laying there and it occurs to me that I can take my thinking in such horrible directions. Existential directions mostly, thinking of my existence as a sentient human being and what a pitiful thing my existence reduces to.

But beyond that. Somewhat more practically speaking just in how I'm all alone. It's the middle of the night. Pretty much everyone is asleep. There's no place for me to go to be with the few other people awake. I actually went for bike ride at 1AM. The world is dead out there...

The internet? Not really that interesting... The possibility to connect in a truly meaningful way is... (sigh) I don't know. Perhaps it's best to not even try?

Beyond all that, something more...

But, I can instead lay there and study. And... there is a way to happiness. There is a way to lay there and not feel so utterly alone... The imaginary eyes... Something...

And my subconscious plays. And says, 'No, please, goes this way... please...' And I do.

-All the blog philosophers are talking about Michael Jackson. About what he meant to our society, etc. I don't think such things matter. To an extent it's talking about what is something of a mirage. Trying so hard to define and explain things that actually have nothing to do with what anyone's really feeling. And much worse: things that just don't actually matter, things that actually really don't have any meaningful bearing on people's happiness. So what are they really doing? Their subconscious is showing them safe places to let their thinking go. Such cultural critique is safe. Safe first and foremost because it never really means advocating any actual change from the status quo. One can merrily talk about such things without ever having to worry that they're truly stepping outside of conformity into the danger zone.

Michael Jackson. Who cares?

...for humor's sake then what did I find really interesting about Jackson was his exaggerated hip thrust in his dancing. Such a symbol of power going back to chimps in the wild ritually humping their inferiors. Both a symbol of power which a person could successfully grok as that. But then also something to ridicule as it does also symbolize monkeys.

The other thing is I wonder about how after artists die they often get more famous, more appreciated. I wonder if this is related to the tendency of our society to be an endless competition. When Michael Jackson was alive, although he wasn't without talent, he surely didn't deserve to be a billionaire or whatever. It wasn't fair. Other people felt some jealousy, etc towards him? Now that he's dead, such people can finally go ahead and try a bit harder to understand him and be fair to him. Not as much reason to bother being jealous now. Instead now that he's dead we can feel compassion for him. (lol)

This concept then goes over to dead artists in general. The very fact that anyone has managed to make art is a reason to feel jealous of them.

For example I listened to last.fm last night for a couple of hours. Industrial radio. I exposed myself to a decent amount of industrial I hadn't previously heard. And sadly, unfortunately, comically, it made me feel kind of good that it really wasn't very good music (excepting the good stuff I'd already discovered.) Why did this make me feel good oi vey? :(

In part because I'm becoming somewhat bitter as an artist. I think people could have been a bit nicer. At least to listen to it and say something!

Anyway, such jealousy I suspect is within a lot of people. But once the person's dead we may be more likely to overcome such competitive tendencies.

...does being competitive about a given thing automatically mean having jealousy towards those we perceive being better at that thing? I really try to avoid being competitive about anything that actually matters to me. I guess because I do try to avoid jealousy. I try to act as if we're all on the same side (while I guess a pretty hefty number of people aren't remotely acting like that).

One can really try to be good at a thing without being competitive. Being competitive means you're concerned with being better then everyone else as opposed to just enjoying being really good at a given endeavor. I try to only be competitive over silly stuff. Although I guess the line isn't perfectly clear between silly and serious.

Yeah I think being competitive about something that you think really matters means being jealous of anyone you perceive as being better then you.

I don't want to fight too much for gay rights because then people will think I'm gay. And I'm not!

I don't want to vocally condemn the TV show To Catch A Predator because then people will suspect I'm a pedophile.

I don't want to give some defense of 'stalking' because then people will think that in order to have such insight I must be a stalker.

I didn't protest the Iraqi War too loud because the sort of people who supported it are the sorts who'd not hesitate to destroy the lives of those who disagreed.

I'm afraid to not follow social norms even though I recognize them to be essentially harmful, negative things. I'm afraid to nonconform in any way whatsoever because I know that the assumption is not that I've recognized the standard way is wrong but instead that I'm too mentally deranged to properly conform.

I'm afraid to point out that basically everyone is hiding their unhappiness and being fake because then people assume I must be just horribly, clinically depressed, when I'm really not. The reality is that I know, I KNOW, that roughly half of people are wobbling along on a high wire barely managing to survive only through simply ignoring 80% of reality.

Personally though, I'm a winner. I'm happy. (Buddy Jesus pic as below again right here.) I'm a manly man. Not the slightest bit gay. No perverse sexual interests. Not even a foot fetish. When people wrong me I just immediately move on without ever thinking about it further because I'm a winner! (not a stalker, (not a person with a strong sense of morals)) I just didn't really protest the Iraq War or anything else similar because I knew it was a waste of time, not because I've been sufficiently intimidated into silence. I can follow the social norms like an effing ken doll no prob and again, I'm happy, happy! If I weren't, that would mean I'm wrong. And I'm not wrong, I'm right.

I am controlled oh so well.

I see preachiness as a potential huge problem for me because I've spent so much time trying to come to unique understandings of human behavior and it is indeed the reason I bother wanting to be a writer. I've done this to a greater extent by far then most and it means that not only is there the possibility that others will disagree with my ideas but that I just recognize that I've got ...somewhat unique ideas that I want to make very clear.

The wanting to make them clear is a problem...

Hal Duncan: Emphyrio: Thanks. To be honest, “preachy” seems like a valid critique to me. I’d take it seriously if it was levelled at a work of fiction, mine or anyone else’s, in a way that I might not with a word like “pretentious”. I’d take it as translating to “didactic” and “instructional” with maybe a hint of “dogmatic” — i.e. so focused on a particular take on a particular theme that the narrative is warped to read like pure advocacy. Single-minded. Belaboured. To me it’s important that, however much I might hold to this or that idea, tackling a theme means exploring it from as many angles as possible, and that means giving the Devil his due, so to speak. If you can’t understand why the “villain” thinks he’s a good man, he’s not a well-written character. If you sort of think he might have a point, that’s better writing, to my mind. Ultimately, I’m not averse to making a point and making it forcefully, even having characters articulate it explicitly, but largely I’d be inclined to set things up so that they’re not just my mouthpiece. The character of Seamus Finnan in Vellum has some fairly preachy dialogue of a socialist-pacifist bent, and I am, it has to be said, fairly bolshie myself. But the character’s most preachy moment, where he gives a speech to Red Clydesiders during “Bloody Friday” (January 31st, 1919, George Square in Glasgow) is largely a set-up for exploring the collision of those two ideals when faced with the Spanish Civil War. Exploring a real dilemma is simply more interesting than finagling one so it can be “solved” by your philosophy — i.e. setting it up so you can have the characters finding the Obvious Solution and explaining to each other why the Solution is Obvious, thereby turning the story into polemic.

---

To be honest, “preachy” seems like a valid critique to me. I’d take it seriously if it was levelled at a work of fiction, mine or anyone else’s, in a way that I might not with a word like “pretentious”. I’d take it as translating to “didactic” and “instructional” with maybe a hint of “dogmatic” — i.e. so focused on a particular take on a particular theme that the narrative is warped to read like pure advocacy. Single-minded. Belaboured.

Which is to say it's more busy giving a lecture than in actually being entertaining. Yes, this could be a real problem for me. If it's obvious that a given character is the bad guy then one can describe actions without worrying as much that people are missing his 'badness'. But I'd be so worried that I'm describing actions that have an essentially harmful nature that the reader is just missing... that I'd want to really make it clear... and just turn it into a lecture instead of something entertaining...

And "dogmatic" just meaning the lecture I'm giving happening to be wrong.

To me it’s important that, however much I might hold to this or that idea, tackling a theme means exploring it from as many angles as possible, and that means giving the Devil his due, so to speak. If you can’t understand why the “villain” thinks he’s a good man, he’s not a well-written character. If you sort of think he might have a point, that’s better writing, to my mind.

Not an issue. I definitely try to see all the angles.

Ultimately, I’m not averse to making a point and making it forcefully, even having characters articulate it explicitly, but largely I’d be inclined to set things up so that they’re not just my mouthpiece. The character of Seamus Finnan in Vellum has some fairly preachy dialogue of a socialist-pacifist bent, and I am, it has to be said, fairly bolshie myself. But the character’s most preachy moment, where he gives a speech to Red Clydesiders during “Bloody Friday” (January 31st, 1919, George Square in Glasgow) is largely a set-up for exploring the collision of those two ideals when faced with the Spanish Civil War. Exploring a real dilemma is simply more interesting than finagling one so it can be “solved” by your philosophy — i.e. setting it up so you can have the characters finding the Obvious Solution and explaining to each other why the Solution is Obvious, thereby turning the story into polemic.

1. To a greater extent than the norm I think I know what are harmful actions. In truth every single moment we are performing actions that result in more or less harm. (And that's all that morality/ethics is.) (For better or worse I haven't bothered making a distinction between the two words. Semantics.) I've spent more time trying to understand such things and thus I'll find myself wanting to point out so many things, the varying level of 'morality' of so many actions that it will get in the way of telling an entertaining story and turn into a lecture.

2. How intelligent does one assume their audience is? Do you take the chance that all kinds of meaning is probably getting missed? Or do you end up insulting their intelligent by talking down to them?

I suppose for one thing I just like polemics. I both liked Robert Tressel's The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists and Ayn Rand's propaganda, though I disagree with it.

...I'm still just not qutie wrapping my head around this properly. I want to write passionate stuff. What the hell can that mean other than having strong opinions about actions which cause harm? The more potentially passionate and worthwhile writing may be, the more potentially preachy.

Amongst the relatively stupid and immoral, life is a competition which ultimately devolves to whoever is the happiest wins. It is thus essential that a large shit eating grin is slapped on one's face at all times and whoever is seen without one is the "wrong one", the loser. The ultimate put down, "oh, I'm sorry that things aren't going so well for you. I hope you feel better in the future. Perhaps you should seek professional help?" Etc.

It begins innocently enough. One must show they're well adapted for this world. You must smile. If you don't, people think you might be a threat to them and will respond with hostility. If you have a minority belief you really better be showing how happy you are, as a critical eye is really turned upon you then.

The relatively stupid and immoral go about their way causing harm, you dare to point it out, "can't you be a little bit nicer?" They respond by attacking you of course. And in their eyes what's the ultimate proof that they're right? Proving that they're happier then you.

Absurdity.

And so, we live in a world today where almost no one will honestly express whatever unhappiness they may feel. Where everyone goes around with a shit eating grin plastered to their face. And they do actually manage to actually feel some happiness as a result. A happiness based on simply ignoring almost everything.

It is truly an idiot world.



But you know, oh well oi vey...

I think I really like that last song actually... (70) (It inspired this post.)

...it's not even really that the vocals are that bad, they could work..., but that 98% of the vocals that aren't heard are so awful and it's just a fatigue of failure, failure, failure till I'm so disgusted and in such a bad mood that I want nothing whatsoever to do with music. OTOH the song before literally took 5 minutes total to write and was fun and straight expression, a pure example of how the process should be. It shouldn't be 6 hours and just endless wincing in horror, just randomly spraying filth on the walls and then slicing out a few tiny pieces that maybe aren't quite so awful? Maybe? But any ability to judge is out the window after listening to so much awful crap.

And it's not good to just keep coming back refreshed later on, as the continuity is then gone, the original feeling one has to keep trying to find again, there is a fatigue in trying to manage that over and over again also.

There is a battle which goes on in the mind against the very concept of failure. Too much failure and you don't go on eventually. For me there's so much failure with vocals that it's really iffy stuff.

I can't stand my voice. I originally wanted to make industrial music. I thought surely you just slap a bunch of distortion and growl a bit and surely I could manage?

No. My voice cannot do industrial at all. I can sing effing country music. Which is the one type of music I have no interest whatsoever in making.

So, I post my music online really just in case my house burns down. It's an easy backup. I post this here to remind myself that I did try, oh did I. But the voice is hopeless. And that's the last attempt. Repetitive song but this is more just a reminder of how bad my voice is. Really without the telephone booth effect, forget it. My voice is just so awful. It's nasal yet very deep. How did I manage that? The best I can manage is to sound like a zombie.

Me trying to sound rageful, for proper industrial, is just funny. Arnold Schwarzenneger would make a better industrial singer. (sigh) I tried to be flexible.

With giving up any kind of vocals at all, I don't know that I'll bother trying to compose much more music. Maybe a bit of trance. Maybe some piano solos. Otherwise, I really wanted a human voice.... Oh well. Perhaps I'll experiment with some pitch shifted distorted grunts in the future...

...I had to get off 69 songs though, lol. My synethesia doesn't like the number 69. It's this dark red. A blood red that reminds me of blood. Then also it's not even remotely prime and thus unoriginal. 3, 6, 9. 23x3. No. Does the sexual connotation bother me? I don't think so...

70 is a light blue. 7 is a prime thus 'original'. 70 floats like a giant balloon that's alive. 70's good.

71 would be better actually. It's an actual prime. It's sharp and fast and original. A darker blue. It's thin but strong like steel. Unfortunately synethesia can be kind of stupid if you think about it too much.

That primes are liked because they're original/not derivatives is sort of interesting. But as to 70 versus 71. zero is like a balloon? 1 is thin and fast? That's very crude synethesia.

Why is 69 blood red? Because it's like a drop of blood welling up and hanging the moment before it falls.

I heard someone say synethesia was just cross wirings in the brain. No, I don't think so. Although yes, one can have cross wirings. I for example sneeze when I step into bright sunlight. But the idea that we'd have endless cross wirings so that we'd randomly associate all kinds of stuff that has no real association does not make sense.

The reality of synethesia is just making relatively logical associations on a mostly subconscious level.

All these 'idiot-savants' that love prime numbers. People don't understand why.

It's because they aren't connected to other numbers. They stand alone. The larger ones being more fantastic because they manage to tower right through the clouds without any help.

When I'm presented with a number, I immediately just have in mind a number of properties of the number. What it factors into. If it's a large number or say a phone number, what it would look like on a graph. Then what the number shapes bring to mind, etc. And so numbers have personalities. That's what's going on with Daniel Tammet for example.

But then the same for languages. The same for music. What else? Everything else.

The US media, led by the New York Times, is continuing its concerted propaganda campaign against Iran over charges that the government stole the June 12 presidential election.
I read some such articles today. They aren't even saying it's suspicious but just outright claiming the election was stolen without any evidence at all. And the current guy won almost two to one the same as the only cited survey had shown him ahead prior to voting.

And concerning how depressing it is that so much of "the left" is jumping right on board despite the fact that they really ought to know better: look even at The Nation. But that is perhaps just a bizarre aside. I really don't understand why so many on "the left" seem to be swallowing this stolen election story... Maybe I'm wrong in thinking so many are? Maybe because Obama's president they're being less critical? Maybe because actually most are still just plain ignorant of imperialism? Not understanding the types of tactics that are used? Opposition parties, protests/riots (not to mention weapons) paid for by the CIA, etc? And/or how the MSM works? Maybe because they still don't give adequate respect to the power the media has in shaping people's opinions? Even the opinions of people who do have some understanding of how incredibly biased corporate news is?

For US imperialism, as well as its European allies, huge interests are at stake in the outcome of the Iranian crisis. Indeed, the intensity of the media propaganda campaign is the truest gauge of the extent of the interests—geo-political and financial—that are involved. This is an “aspect” of the Iranian crisis that the publications and organizations of the middle-class left—hopelessly gullible and stupid—take no notice of.
(Although still making distinctions between the middle class and the working class in this age is stupid.) (And we might as well just drop the marxist lingo altogether as the MSM has so brainwashed people as to automatically reject any ideas expressed with such phrases. Go on about 'the working class' and you've already lost more than half the population's interest in anything you have to say. Say 'petty-bourgeois' and you'll be lucky if even 5%... aren't regarding you with derision or as some strange comical figure or haven't just tuned you out.)

I think I love work. People seem so good there.

Then on the other hand, I look in other places and people appear so awful.

I think it's because people are good as long as there's no danger in being good. But as soon as one thinks acting 'morally' might result in getting attacked, the good people get real scarce.

It does seem though that in order to take morality any distance at all, it means being strong enough to continue being moral despite getting attacked.

But in reality too much morality results in such people being less likely to successfully reproduce.

For example, if you thought christianity was resulting in people being treated badly, etc, and spoke out about it, there were a lot of times in history where they killed you. If you spoke out against the Nazis while living in Germany, you very well could have died.

Whenever you're in the minority, if you point out that the leaders, the people who are primarily establishing social norms, are wrong in some way, they're going to see you as a threat to their rule and possibly kill you. That's how it's been for humankind for all of history. Being 'moral', acting 'altruistically', was only acceptable provided it didn't go against the men with the power.

...And so, I love the people I work with at the hospital. Such essentially good people. I love going to work. Then I look... elsewhere. My god, such indifference as far as the eye can see. (And that's a long damm way thanks to the internet.) But it's no wonder at all that almost no one speaks out against the immoral actions of those with power. Throughout mankind's history doing so has almost always meant dying. And through killing such people, humans today are generally a lot more selfish and stupid then they'd otherwise be.

It is a sort of genocide.

"Moralicide"?

Still I love work. What a wonderful place. I hope to work as a nurse for decades. Even if I finally get that trust fund my stepfather first said I'd get then strangely denied having said (haha), still think I'd have to continue working there at least a few days a week. Just such a positive place. (Even with constantly being over worked and basically no patient ever truly getting quite the quality of care they should get.) Still, the work is so positive. The people are good.

And it's a damm good thing I love work because outside of work I keep not turning away from such ugly truths and it's tough to stand.

http://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/a-reminder/

Avoid trolls and grey vampires. You cannot change them. No need to pity them with your company; they will find others. Life is short and your energy level is not infinite. Do not squander your energy on trolls and grey vampires. How to know who they are? Just pay close attention to your personal energy meter and see who makes it dip. Avoid those people.

This is just this all over again. It's just a different way to justify being closeminded and to treat people badly.

"life is short".

To the extent we practice short term thinking we are generally less moral.

"just pay attention to your personal energy meter and see who makes it dip."

The writer is a professor of philosophy which tells you plenty of that profession. The failure of philosophy is that when it comes to such essential practical matters as how we should treat one another, this is what our philosophy professors can manage.

A 'personal energy meter'?

Hmmm, women with big breasts make me feel energetic, I guess they must be anti-trolls.

People who I perceive as being dumber then I, make me feel at ease and confident. I guess they're OK.

People who seem highly intelligent make me doubt myself. Best to stay away from such trolls.

Worst of all, those who ask questions I have no answers for.

It is maddening but useful stuff to think about. It's the philosophy of being closeminded, deciding you're right and finding ways to permanently condemn those who disagree, without ever answering the questions they have, but instead by simply ignoring them as ultimately 'they're not being positive'.

That, I think, may be what it reduces to. In the case of this professor "they don't have a project, I/you do" is used instead of they're negative and you're positive but it amounts to the same thing.

It's a matter, one way or another, of saying some person isn't being positive enough, and permanetly condemning them, closing your mind to them and their concerns.

And what really is being 'positive'?

Being a short termer. Ignoring negatives and focusing on fun (even in 'object oriented philosophy') right now. Ultimately being a idiot. A closeminded fool.

To a degree anyway. And the people who do it, they've not a clue really what's going on in their heads. They view 'the troll' with suspicion. They start by imagining the worst of others and then it's a matter of just finding a way to justify ugly behavior on their part in order to defend themselves from questions they'd rather not face as they have no answer.

You want to do something actually worthwhile? Face the questions you can't answer.

If instead it is someone just asking questions you've already answered over and over again, OK then, that is someone who's wasting some time unfortunately.

(This fellow's idea that if you haven't been published by 35 you're probably hopeless is also crudely stupid.)

There is hardly any election, in which the White House has a significant stake, where the electoral defeat of the pro-US candidate is not denounced as illegitimate by the entire political and mass media elite.
It's beyond annoying watching it done over and over and over again. The same old crap over and over again.

Sex.

The male praying mantis may continue to thrust after his head has been chewed off but I think the vast majority of beneficial sexual mutations are related to perceptions that the activity is increasing one's distance from nonexistence.

-like with having friends in general we perceive we've got a bit more power/security, more so the closer a friend they are...
-information, what's underneath those clothes? etc... And to some extent we do look exactly how we are... or better put, we have an ability to decipher looks...
-usually men liking to feel in charge, a sex game where they feel more powerful than they otherwise actually are. Unfortunately is rape not just a question of a greater degree of such a thing?
-...I dunno... information (=power=increasing distance from nonexistence), feeling connected (=power=etc), etc...
-altruism, making the other person happy in turn, showering them with love, makes us happy....
-...and why are the most regular features so often considered the most beautiful? Ugly stuff. It's about conformity. And, having our genes combine in a way that will result in a hopefully well conformed child. And so short women always want tall men for example. And so hindus value fair features (caucasians are the most average looking). Japanese die their hair red. Black men love white women... and asian women... But it doesn't work in reverse so well because the power balance gets out of whack. The poor asian man feeling too physically inferior to a black woman. (And there has to be a balance though... what is it again that the women generally has in order to keep things from getting too out of balance? I don't remember at the moment... was it sex? Ugh, I dunno. Oversimplifying.)

The perception of beauty is tied right into conformity. We are constantly controlled by the need to conform without realizing it.

There is still something of the headless praying mantis thrusting away tied into human and animal sex... I think of certain things and get an erection. There's no sense to it but it feels good. Oh well.

--

What were the three main negative emotions? Anger, sadness and....???? Luckily I wrote this down somewhere... But anyway, sparked by rideflame's blog to reremember...
We feel sad when we want others to help us. We feel anger when we perceive someone is closeminded.

Not remembering the third primary negative emotion is the number one reason I have this blog. No need to look it up right now though. If I ever came along and found this blog deleted (which the owners reserve the right to do at any time) that would be awful.

--

My first day as a nurse was yesterday. Went well. I can't quite put my finger on just why I like work so well. Was wondering if being the only guy harkens back to some primitive thing, where I vaguely feel like the alpha male. I don't think so... There are men who work there on night shift. I switch to night shift very soon. They seem just as nice as the women. I really don't think I care that I'm surrounded by people who physically are female. But there perhaps is something about the different way of thinking. Occasionally it hits me how bizarre it is, for me of all people to be a nurse, surrounded by women. I am not the sort of person one would expect to be a nurse. Somehow it seems to be working out really well.

I want to say that all actions can be reduced to a single motivation: trying to increase one's own distance from nonexistence. This definitely should be defined in negative terms. And altruism has been taken care of. (Long term self interest and empathy=understanding+occasional transference of suffering and the two levels of "morality" where we the simplistic level is just feeling pride for doing the right thing even when it clearly doesn't make any sense at all in a given situation.)

I want to say that everything comes down to a short term and/or long term thinking which gives the perception that the distance from nonexistence has been increased.

A potential road block is defining actions as instinctual; which is to say that no real "thinking" is going on. Such would mean that the motivation for some given actions (a pandora's box really of actions) doesn't come back to trying to increase the distance from nonexistence. It is instead just mindless. Stimuli A is received. Chemical is produced. Which in turn just causes action B as if it were just a mindless reflex.

To the extent it is true that actions are mindless/instinctual, to the extent our understanding of actions amounts to vague hand waving and the claim that it's just instincts, it would seem to be a waste of time attempting to understand humankind.

And there are actions that are outside of our control. Actions that I suppose amount to instinctual actions. Jerking one's hand back from extreme heat for example. To a lesser extent the beating of our hearts, the working of our digestive systems.

But where then is the line? I would like to think that except for things such as that, all can be explained as conscious/subconscious attempts at increasing our distance from nonexistence.

The point being that in explaining our actions, any person explaining their actions, instead of just saying, "I just do." Or for that matter explaining any complex series of actions by any person or animal as "instincts" I would want to see them be able to bring every action back to that one single assertion. We act, we bother to do anything in an attempt to increase our distance from nonexistence.

What little that can definitely be described as instinctual also generally increases our distance from nonexistence. But I find it somehow really a problem that there's not sense to it, that it's just mindless crap. It matters to me because I need to understand why I'm doing any given thing. And being told, "because I said so" or "it's your instincts"... No, that isn't going to work. I need to understand. I'm not a machine. Yes, I do jerk back from extreme heat. Yes my heart speeds up here and there. I remember once my hair even stood on end. But these are just little silly things. For any complex action, I can understand exactly what is going on and control my actions. I can understand exactly the process, exactly why I've the perception that the action will lead to increasing my distance from nonexistence.

When I ask someone to explain the reason for their actions, this is what I would most desire; something that always comes back to this one single assertion, that of an organism attempting to continue existing.

Saying it's just instincts, saying that's just what I do, saying there really isn't any reason = no good.

To understand everything you must be able to reduce everything to this single motivation.

A big road block is sex. I vaguely recall an answer from long ago which I've forgotten. But maybe not. Maybe with this everything collapses. Maybe we are permanently destined to be freakish creatures that get up, move around, and live for decades with not a clue why really we're doing much of anything.

More about pretentiousness

http://notesfromthegeekshow.blogspot.com/2009/06/ethics-and-enthusiasm.html

“Motherfuckers” equals “bastards” equals “arseholes” equals “ponces” equals “pretentious”.

I can smell that word in the air from a mile off. Pretentious. It’s probably my least favourite word in the whole discourse of critique. In a review that aspires to be no more than a compatibility assessment for populists it basically translates to “smarty-pants”, stands as a marker of a philistine grudge against the audacity of ambition. “You think yer so big with all yer dictionary learning and la-de-da long sentences!” In a review that aspires to greater things it basically translates to “you’re trying to look clever, but failing”, and stands as a marker of that which it accuses. Which is to say, the moment you project that spectre of hollow intent onto a writer, on the basis of your inability to glean meaning despite a work’s blatant complexity, (the charge of pretentiousness implying a sense of show-offery,) the moment you assume that this is an absence in the text rather than inability to perceive what’s there on your part, you are claiming an intellectual eminence that unpacks to empty flummery. You can try to excuse it as shorthand for various types of tangible problem — mannered prose or gauche symbolism, for example — but with this lazy stopgap term you are not really addressing the flaws you perceive in the text, but rather mumbling and waving at the signpost of a word which can be applied to a text only in an act of transference, which conventionally signifies a projected flaw in the writer. You are still painting a fantasy into the negative space of your reading rather than delineating the positive space of the features that mark it out. The fact that you didn’t mean to just makes you look even more of a simpleton. Sorry.

Again: Have you ever used the word “pretentious” in a review? Come on, hands in the air. You know you have. Thing is, we all use it informally, as lazy shorthand, as presumptive dismissal, in one sense or other. I’m sure I’ve used it in talking about other writers’ works and probably will again out of laziness and ill-considered frustration, though given the veiled quality of the insult I’d rather be plain-spoken and just say, “poncy”, “arsey” or “wanky” if ultimately I’m playing j’accuse. It’s probably the veiled quality to the insult that irks the most when it’s levelled at you, the sense that personal slight is being passed off as criticism of the text, that the person using it may themselves be blind to their own presumption, so cocksure of their own nous that it simply never occurs to them they may just have missed the fucking point completely. And so they wave a hand in the air and say “pretentious”, a hand with a gun in it. Pretentious. Poncy. Arsey. Wanky.

There's plenty of that sort of projection in reviews. Sometimes it's meant as hyperbole. Sometimes it's a figurative turn-of-phrase. But as much as writers have to learn not to take it personally, sometimes there is a blatant personal insult, an impugning of motives. Any reviewer who crafts a fanciful narratives characterising the writer as some sort of hack or charlatan is waving that gun in the air...

I really try to hold back on the criticism of thinking something pretentious. Some stuff really is though. Some nonfiction at least really is dishonest. Some is really only pretending to be objective and just hiding it's actual biases behind a pseudo intellectual facade. A couple of examples: Thomas Sowell's Vision of the Anointed, which is just rightwing propaganda, funded by a rightwing thinktank, Sowell gets paid to push rightwing arguments. If he quit doing so he'd no longer be getting a paycheck. Vision of the Anointed is a dishonest book which contains a lot of statistics trying to support rightwing arguments against government intervention, etc. It's an insulting book in that these lies are so slapped together he must have had a very low opinion of his intended audience. The appeal of the book is that he sounds intelligent while making arguments that are roughly the equivalent of Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity. Rightwingers mention this book in trying to claim that the right is just as smart as the left. What's strange is that one big argument of the book is that the left is a bunch of arrogant elitists hence the title. You'd think he might then adopt a folksy tone..? No, instead he tries to show how he's just as smart. It ends up seeming so damm pretentious because despite the language adopted, the ideas are just so pitiful. Anyone with a political clue can see right through it.

Another example of obviously pretentious that comes to mind would be "H. G. Wells at the End of His Tether" by I don't know who, he doesn't deserve to have his name remembered. Buying this book was a mistake. Of course it's good to read points of view that differ from my own. But I think I've pretty much heard all the rightwing arguments. They're on TV 24/7 (unlike the left which is censored). This is a book (not even a biography really) that pretty much consists of a sentence about the far left utopianist views of H. G. Wells followed by a paragraph consisting of the conservative personal opinion of the author. And the conservative arguments are just the tired old crap you hear on FOX news.

I mistakenly bought the book because the title really suggested to me a person sympathetic and empathetic to Wells. The last book Wells wrote was called, "Mind at the End of its Tether," which was a very sad unhappy thing Wells wrote. It did occur to me such a title (H.G. Wells at the End..) might instead be someone poking fun at Wells but, that would be so vile, so mean spirited in view of the final Wells book, I thought surely no rightwinger would go that far.

I was wrong about that. The title and the book amount to pissing on Wells' grave. It is one of the most vile and mean spirited books I've ever read. I would suspect the author had some secret jealousy of Wells, like Wells stole his lover or something except they never even met. And the author tries to hide what looks a lot like just hatred by adopting a psuedointellectual tone. Clearly psuedo as the author isn't intelligent enough to even understand a lot of Wells' ideas or his state of mind. He gives ridiculous summaries of Wells' books. The very book the title of his "biography" is based on he only gives a couple of sentences about at the end which amount to, "it's incomprehensible and stupid."

It's pretentious because the stilted language adopted isn't remotely necessary for the crude ideas it contains. It's just a cover to try to appear scholarly and objective when actually he just hates leftism. But a pitiful attempt at that. It's so bad it doesn't deserve me or anyone bothering to write about it.

But I was just curious, does anything ever deserve the criticism of being pretentious? Yes, some things definitely do.

But probably the majority of times that I'm starting to think: "Pretentious!" Maybe not.

"The problem with you smart people is... you think you're so smart."

I hate that people get attacked simply for being intelligent and I hate to think that I also probably do that to some others. Probably I do though. The question is where is the line? Where is someone being pretentious and where is it just my own damm problem that I'm too stupid to follow them?

If it's fiction, people can write however the hell they want. One can write "beautifully" and if that means that they're hard to comprehend, oh well. I, for example, couldn't comprehend a lot of Joyce's Ulyesses(sp) (although I was trying to read a good bit of it at an awful Jimmy Buffett concert) but I never for a moment thought it pretentious.

But for nonfiction I think the question is, "Are the ideas really so complex that such use of language, etc is necessary?"

People all the time try to make themselves/their ideas seem more important/get taken more seriously by really trying to sound smart.

...a problem with the above is the divide I've made between fiction and nonfiction. From pulpish escapist fantasy fiction to nonfiction there is varying degrees of relevance to real life. All of it can be (is to some extent) getting at The Truth. And Truth does matter. More Truth equals less suffering and thus worrying more about sounding smart then making your ideas easy to understand equals causing additional suffering and is thus ultimately an immoral thing.

I was essentially saying above though that in fiction a person is free to not give a damm and just enjoy what amounts to pure escapism, where sounding "beautiful" can be the primary goal and if no one really understands a point, whoopee.

Why would this be OK? Because there maybe just isn't any meaningful Truth/understanding contained within it that's really going to lead to reduced suffering in the world. Perhaps all it's got going for it is a very short term escapism which in large part relies on "beautiful" writing. But such is either rare or practically doesn't exist at all.

If it's worth anything at all there should be some useful truth within it. And a person may feel that the unique Truth in their writing is contained in part within the unusual use of language they're using (which others may just find hard to understand and totally miss the intent of.)

OK I really don't know about the fiction/nonfiction divide with regards to being pretentious. I suppose I'm wrong and there isn't really any meaningful divide but I just can't happen to think of any examples of pretentious fiction at the moment*. In theory fiction could be just as pretentious. The thing is that instead in fiction it's usually just that the ideas are so paltry it just doesn't even matter. As opposed to worrying about being pretentious it's just boring. For it to reach pretentious it would first have to manage preachy (IOW actually have some ideas that aren't so universal thus they can be noticed as actual ideas (thus preachy), which one can then either successfully or unsuccessfully communicate thanks to the usage of pretentious or unpretentious language).


*Has any rightwinger ever thought Golding's Lord of the Flies was pretentious or preachy?

http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/011182.html
I would agree that they pose a threat to themselves, but in some ways they are more toxic to those with projects than the trolls. It's quite easy to identify and distance oneself from a troll: once you've established they are a troll, sever all contact with them and - this is imperative - don't read anything they write. This requires a little discipline, but not much, and after a while you'll completely forget the upset they caused. For what is usually a very short period, trolls cause a great deal of incendiary, fruitless antagonism, but it seldom leaves much of a lasting trace. The final victory over them is achieved by simply persisting in the pursuit of a project, refusing to allow yourself to be ensnared in the self-doubts and impotent autocritique that disables them and which they seek to transmit to you.

I find this a strange way of talking. I can understand the idea of a troll just wasting your time. But ultimately it's good to have some kind of an answer to all criticisms. This instead almost seems to be espousing the necessity of being closeminded in some respects in order to just do something instead of doing nothing. One could read it actually as being an example of downright comical closedmindedness.

OTOH I do see the possibility of losing one's creative spark as a result of getting in mind some negative audience that no matter what is going to just tear down whatever you say.

I have thought of this before how this idea of an audience, this idea of finding ways to continue wanting to be creative can tie into actions that end up appearing closeminded. A most obvious example being I've the comments closed in this blog. As does this fellow, who though isn't out stranded in the dark like me. Unlike me, he matters. He's a part of academia and has endless important conversations with others about philosophical matters. I feel slightly jealous. And then furthermore there's Schopenhauer's comment about the cuttle fish (fortified by my own obscurity) which I usually have in mind when reading most of these philosophers...

Still trying to figure out what to make of supervalent thought's blog. I like the subject matter but 'cinematically mediated queers'?? You mean gay people on TV? I think I'll just learn the lingo (and thus eventually not notice how incomprehensible to the average person it appears) before I come to a conclusion as to whether or not this is a valid example of 'writing beautifully' or some kind of pretentious, dishonest behavior...

So then there's the question of asking supervalent thought her thoughts on writing beautifully while not being comprehendable by 98% of people while talking about an important subject. Asking such a question then of her or just stating my annoyance for how hard she makes it to understand easy concepts, either way I can be labeled a troll.

But I shouldn't be. She ought to be able to have an answer. Probably she doesn't and I won't even bother of course as the possibility for it to be considered a negative thing is too great. But she ought to have an answer. I ought to be able to ask and get an answer instead of being stuck trying to reinvent the metaphorical wheel and figure out entirely on my own which is the correct way to write ("beautifully" or in a way that people can easily understand). Well, it's seems a silly question, surely one should try to be easy to understand? Maybe if it's just some escapist fun one can enjoy writing with a flair for language, but she's talking about suicide; I'd assume because she actually cares about people unfortunately committing suicide.

Me pointing out such a criticism would though just be thought of as being stifling to her creativity most likely and I'd be dismissed as just a troll.

vegan propaganda article

Regrettably, the “angry vegan” image is based in reality – thanks young Matt! My self-righteousness gave many people a lifetime excuse to ignore the hidden realities of factory farms.

Again, I want to point out that as a reaction to what goes on in factory farms and slaughterhouses, revulsion and fury are entirely justified. Although understandable, being ruled by our rage does little to help animals and move society towards being more compassionate. If we take suffering seriously, we must deal with our anger in a constructive way.

It is not enough to be a vegan, or even a dedicated vegan advocate. If we want to maximize the amount of suffering we can prevent, we must actively be the opposite of the vegan stereotype. The animals can’t wait until we get over our despair. We must learn “how to win friends and influence people.” Regardless of the sorrow and outrage we may understandably feel, we must show everyone we meet that we are a joyful person leading a fulfilling and meaningful life.....

If I claim that I can’t be happy because of the suffering in the world, I am saying I am not in control of my own life. If I can’t be happy as a vegan, how can I expect others to be interested in veganism? Just as we want everyone to look beyond the short-term satisfaction of following habits and traditions, we need to move past our anger to the meaningful action of optimal advocacy.

I think this is a problem of most activist movements; that they think they have to slap a happy face on. It's the fake face of activism where everyone pretends they're like the Brady Bunch. They must make sure they're not dismissed as unhappy and thus just some person with issues, they must make sure they're not dismissed as some fringe weirdo. And so except for some pet cause like veganism and/or socialism, etc, they try to show how utterly "normal" they are, well adapted and happy, happy, happy in this great little society we've cooked up.

It's very very rare, (and that's why I bothered to point it out) that someone actually comes out and openly asserts the need to do exactly that. Few people actually come out and say it. But I wonder how many along with Matt Ball are doing it?

It's not a good thing to be doing; feeling it's not enough that you're vegan, now you're constantly on show, constantly doing a good or bad job representing veganism. Spending your life worried what 'norms' think of you, thus letting them control who you are is not a good thing.

This isn't to say one should be like this person was in their early years either of course. But I do think someone should really address such issues; that indeed, as a vegan living in the world today, there IS a lot of reason to feel alienated and isolated (I guess unless you're living in a large city running a major vegan organization, then apparently you know thousands of vegans.) But I don't see anyone doing so. Probably because at heart people are doing to an extent what this guy is openly asserting.

I don't believe vegans or any other minority belief should be full of anger, etc, but squashing it down for the sake of presenting the proper (dishonest) image is hardly a good idea. Instead what one has to do is learn to better understand others. Understand why they don't share such a level of compassion, etc. It would be good if we tried to help one another cope better with being such a minority instead of doing what is being advocated here in this passage from Ball's article.

http://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/another-advice-post-on-writing-productivity

k-punk: Fans, Vampires and Trolls

Too short on time lately.

The top link... I think I disagree... sort of kind of... Oh I don't know. I do think there is something "mystical" in the writing process just in the sense that the unknown is mystical and the unknown is our subconscious and our idea of an audience is residing to some extent in our subconscious... our imaginary eyes... At least I think so...

The second post is (or I can just say it is anyway) a counter to the feeling that the audience has gone all wrong and is ruining the writing.

It's such a complex process though. Layers and shmayers...Lately things seem to have gone awry a bit and I can't figure out why exactly. Too happy at work? While still having a final chop chop off in the distance (and too busy at work) to find time to think it out. A few people linked my blog. Did that play a role? But already felt "reticent" before then. Just too busy I guess. I always procrastinated wonderfully when in school. Was thinking maybe the perfect way to write would be to take college classes forever with no intention of actually passing them and instead taking in a laptop, sitting in the far back and just writing. (With the necessary pretense (to myself) of attempting to pay attention, which generally has always been impossible to do, to actually listen to anyone talk on and on for 50 or more minutes.)

No time...

I think most of the left spends too much time talking about anti-gay bashing and racism. I think both are the result of focusing on symptoms instead of getting to the heart of the problem. They are both like just giving aspirin to someone with a fever who's got a bacterial infection and really needs antibiotics.

Then otherwise we have many going on like a broken record pointing out the corruptions of our current system. Yes, it's been corrupt right since the beginning and hasn't changed. How many centuries before we go ahead and try to come up with some new solutions then?

I think I don't really know of anyone at all on the left who is sufficiently radical; anyone who is getting down to the underlying fundamental problems.

It's the same stuff over and over again. Pet causes of changing the economic system. Saying racism is bad loud enough over and over that people start listening? Same old stuff but when it comes to how even members of the far left interact with one another? Why they're perfectly conformed to the status quo.

And perhaps in part this is because these activist minorities feel like they have to show that essentially they are perfectly 'normal;' to try to prove that they shouldn't just be dismissed as weirdoes.

This isn't to say that I frown on pointing out racism is bad and that it's occuring, and pointing out corruption and imperialism, etc, just that I'm really getting tired of people being too afraid to take the next damm step and looking at the fundamental ways in which we interact; questioning if on the most fundamental levels we need to make some changes.

When I'm not merely surviving or doing some silly diversions I want to spend my time trying to make the world a better place. This takes two levels:
1. The local. Person to person interactions. I do this in my job as a nurse but beyond that I still want to help people. Most of the silly diversions that make up our lives don't interest me anyway and thus I'd happily replace a lot of such time instead still more attempting to help people.

2. Producing some kind of art which can be mass produced which could increase the happiness of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people.

I've a tendency towards focusing on the grand. Setting my sights high. But time spent on this second goal is most likely time utterly wasted. Still I don't want to be a drop in the ocean. And I still have a high enough self opinion to think I can be more than a drop. Despite all the incredibly negative things I've seen.

The Amen Break

Too full of fear to care
Too out of practice to know how
Too short term to think much at all

You're closeminded because you're afraid
You're closeminded because the only thing that matters is now
And right now you've staked out a sliver of happiness upon which you precariously balance
Upon which you desperately cling

You are the lack which is all that's left
Like magic you forever turn
Seeing or not seeing?
Instantaneous selective forgetting
98 percent unconscious
The new evolutionary edge
The new and improved insanity

Skipping back and forth along the rocks as they fall away

Colin Wilson's The Outsider

I still haven't actually finished this one. I really haven't had time to do much reading for many months. I fear I'm going to forget what I've thought of this one before I make it to the end.

I think it boils down to being intelligent makes you nihilistic. To a large extent I think Wilson is vague and oversimplifies. When he tries to then divide things up into three types of outsiders (mental, emotional and physical) he's just going way too simplistic. I can't help but remember that he was only 24 when he wrote this book... But I like the ambition of it. And it goes on about a lot of writers. It's interesting.

I've got plenty of nihilism in me and as such it's a good book to me. It's existentialist, like Camus. Why bother doing anything? An important question to me. Ultimately he's just showing how many great writers were nihilistic. But he's maybe really oversimplifying... but then the attempt to understand means trying to simplify, so I just don't know. It is though a rich book.

Curtis White's The Spirit of Civil Disobediance

This was a bit ranty and some ranting that has already been done over and over. But he did point out that atheism's "reason" is ultimately based just on an assertion no different than NT christianity. His critique of Office Space combined with some discussion n the Dysamoria blog made me ponder if humor maybe unfortunately takes all the air out of "revolutionary" talk while at the same time making it possible to stand watching/reading highly negative critiques of society. In other words being able to laugh at how effed up this world is makes us too complacent to bother changing it at the same time that being able to laugh is the only way most people will bother giving attention to anything being critical in the first place.

Change my life? He did interview Kunstler who wrote The Geography of Nowhere which I'm now reading. That is causing me to seriously reconsider my criteria for buying a house.

Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent

Capitivating? Well, not really. Not a single character is such that you are able to care what happens to them.

Mere survival? Of course everything is eventually mere survival. Somehow the question seems to not make sense with regards to this novel. And that is good.

If it had been me, could I ever have bothered writing this? I don't know. And that's just gushing praise coming from me.

Plot, characters or setting? Characters. And a damm good job of that.

Will I remember this book at all? I seem to think about the secret agent here and there as I ponder whether a very few bizarre people in real life perhaps are secret agents. Why is this guy a secret agent anyway? For being such a good job of characters it's really not clear at all. But then people in real life, ultimately have such unexamined motivations quite often. Where if they ever bothered to look at themselves they might just disintegrate and blow away into nothingness.

Then there is the ending. The typical inability to comprehend one another. It could stick with me.

Lots of points for being an incredibly negative story. Conrad's most negative I've heard. He actually apologized for it being so damm negative.

But it would be nice if some of these characters were such that people referred to them with regards to the real world. They aren't quite such that that can really happen. Some things are touched upon too subtly. Other things aren't quite talked about really. Perhaps they would get in the way of primarily telling a story.

I guess it has that worry of being preachy. So instead to an extent that which could be of long term use just slips by unnoticed.

William Golding's The Inheritors

Capitivating? No. You pretty much know they're all going to die. Sooner or later.

Mere survival? Yes.

If it had been me, could I ever have bothered writing this? No.

Plot, characters or setting? Mostly setting. 99.9% of this book seems to just be supplying detail about the uninteresting wilderness and I guess somewhat about the characters which... the insights about his imaginary neanderthals aren't really that interesting. A ton of writing about uninteresting stuff to just make it all feel as if it were real. So that we manage to care a bit as the neanderthals are killed.

Will I remember this book at all? Am I changed at all by it? I probably read it ten years ago and just don't remember having done so.

Still I like Golding for being such a negative guy. I guess.

Fiction Book Criteria

Capitivating?

Mere survival?

If it had been me, could I ever have bothered writing this?

Plot, characters or setting?

Will I remember this book at all? Am I changed at all by it?



(subject to change...)

I think back to the most unbelievable episodes in my life where I was treated just awfully by people and I suppose it was primarily the result of people mistakenly judging me very negatively.

I've been treated like a criminal a few times. But without a trial, without ever being told what I even supposedly did wrong. I had my scientific career destroyed on this basis. Escorted out without explanation and blacklisted without ever finding out why.

I recall an episode that happened to me when I was 13 where the way an adult treated me just boggles the mind (a school teacher). In both cases, I guess what happened is these people got some evil notion into their heads about me. And were absolutely sure they were right.

With respect to the just about uniform indifference I've received in my life (such as everyone gets) I figure it's a matter of caution. Every person is a potential danger. Who knows, maybe I'm an awful person?

This is how it is for everyone. We're all not very good at judging the character of people and so we err on the side of assuming the worst. You may not survive being wrong even a single time about someone. So we err towards the worst assumptions. We view people with suspicion. We aren't open with them. Most often we give them indifference at best. Guilty till proven innocent, (and why bother proving that?)

I walk towards a dog to pet it and stumble, suddenly this dog (which was previously friendly) thinks I'm attacking and bites me on the knee. Ever after it barks and growls viciously when I walk by.

People default to racism because they're so bad at judging who's really a threat to them.

We keep our shields up and keep people out. Some people go their whole lives this way unable to really let anyone in, some get married and still manage to stay this way.

And when we do mistakenly assume some negative thing, the ugliness just bounces back and forth growing with each bounce. Personally I think most of my negative thoughts about people are the direct result of them jumping to awful conclusions about me.

This awful awful article: http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/life/8-toxic-personalities-to-avoid-461078/
which I think was written by Satan himself, is urging people to go ahead and assume the worst of people. It says they're probably too closeminded for you to even bother talking about whatever it is they're doing that bothers you. So don't even bother. Just dismiss them as toxic human beings.

I suppose there is a point where you've got to give up on someone. I too have done so. But that point of course should be after you've repeatedly attempted to talk to them about such issues. My personal experience has been almost without exception that people instead just dismiss the person as "toxic" without ever talking about the disagreement; just like that article advocates.

I suppose there are certainly endless closeminded people in this world. And people are less likely to talk to an imposing, intimidating man when they've got differences. Perhaps I just can never really understand how full of fear people are and how attacked they feel if someone criticizes them?