Labouring in Unkind Kindness.

A day I play like Cool Hand Luke.

If you labo(u)r, you probably do not have Labor Day off.

You are probably extra busy with your labor, in fact,

because of all those non-physical labourers who do have the day off.

No judgement, just observation derived from experience as someone who has been on both sides.

This is pure assumption: I can tell if you have ever worked on your feet, by how you interact with me when I am running a waiting list for the restaurant.

Open secret x: I am the hostess. I want you happy.

Open secret x’: you will not piss me off nor will I say anything unkind.

You know why?

Because, nothing pisses cranky people off more than someone who will not take your anger bait.

Killing you with kindness quite literally, you silly folks.

This is where the Tao of Cool Hand Luke comes into play.

You trying to put me down on the ground?

I just keeping getting back up with a giggle and a smile.

I have been through far worse.

I can do it until you are uncomfortable.

Every now and then, I can even make you smile.

Score.

I appear daft. Too stupid to realize I am being insulted.

I appear sugary sweet, but I speak in a calm, deep, resonant voice.

Just so you get a grip on the power of my gravity.

Unkindly kind.

Cartesian-ism

I’ll see it when I believe it : I think therefore I am.

I’ll believe when I see it : I’m seen therefore I am.

_____________________________________________

“I’ll believe it when I see it,” say the lesser apes.

“You’ll see it when you believe it,” you said.

Cogito, ergo sum.

What René Descartes is remembered as saying.

Je pense, donc je suis.

How Descartes first wrote it.

I think therefore I am.

(tautological?)

“Whatever I have up until now accepted as most true I have acquired either from the senses or through the senses.” (7:18 Principles)

But Descartes feared a deceptive God or an evil eternal deceiver.

Could he trust the apprehensions of his physical senses?

He could not disprove that his sensations were not the result of deception; so he dove into doubt. How is sensation different from perception?

“We have a true or genuine perception of something if, when we consider it, we cannot doubt it…In the face of genuine clear and distinct perception, our affirmation of it is so firm that it cannot be shaken, even by a concerted effort to call those observed things into doubt. (7:145 Meditations)

Descartes tried to free us from “I’ll believe it when I see it.” He tried to disavow the authority and immediacy of knowing the world through sense and sensations. He did not believe that his five senses could apprehend truth in a way that overcame his doubt.

He found doubt and did not believe.

His belief was not dependent on sensual stimulation.

I’ll see it when I believe it.

I think therefore I am.

Perceptions that I cannot find a scrap of a reason to doubt, may be genuine.

So, we doubt the hell out of everything; and, if we exhaust every doubt of which we may conceive, we firm up our grasp of reality. Through dint of doubt, all doubt is removed. This is intellect.

“I think.” He couldn’t find a doubt about it, so he allowed his capacity for thought and doubt to validate his existence- that he “is.”

His sensations could be virtual reality, so he doubted what he saw.

When he had no doubt that he “thought”, he then believed he truly “was.”

—————————————————-

Empiricism resists and refuses the subjective realm, and is founded on a principle of obtaining information via senses and standardized measurements.

Science, empiricism, and Western culture say, “I’ll believe it when I see it.”

I got a (dumb) cell phone in 2002.

My family got dial up internet in our home around 1998.

Before the mid-1990’s, we could not be in two places at once (physical, say, a restaurant, and cyberspace).

The advent of Facebook, Instagram, selfies, social media and internet culture creates a condition for, “I’m seen therefore I am.” I validate myself and reality by reproducing images of myself digitally which I post to get views online. I act the role of myself in a construction that I calculate. I show what I want when I want to in the hopes others will come to know me as I have shown myself to be.

My sister’s generation operates on “I’m seen therefore I am.”

Little digitally savvy savages.

Groups eating together and everyone has a screen. Silicon is always in hand. Take it away and they sweat.

The viewpoint of this age group: I am capable of being observed by others, this validates that I “am.”

The desire to be seen, get friended, followed, liked, hits is the want of confirming and calculable feedback that digital you has been observed and accepted by others. The cyber persona may be chosen moment to moment, so to speak. Day to day personas are less so chosen.

They’ll believe it when they see it.

Yeah, we’ll cure cancer,

And pigs can fly,

God exists,

Well, that is, I’ll believe it when I see it’s already been done.

The more individuals who say likewise, then the less individuals we have working to solve these problems. Presumably, the people waiting to see it will not be trying to manifest it. Why would they?

To them it is impossible until somebody else says, “I’m going to believe it is a possibility to cure cancer, and then I will find out if I can realize that possibility, perceive it.”

There is a lovely lack of cynicism in “I’ll see when I believe it.” There is a proper dash of humility regarding our own self-awareness.

————————————————————–

“I’ll believe when I see.”

This, however, indicates an inherent incredulity and it absolves the self of accountability.

That which cannot be seen or sensed stands on unbelievable ground.

“I’m seen therefore I am.” I see myself and receive systematic, calculable feedback that others have seen me. This validates that I am. I can show it you, point at it.

Alternatively, “I think so I am” puts the onus of doubt back on any given individual. She talks of what can or cannot be seen/perceived at this time. She does not have to state a belief position. This frees the mind in the sense that here belief follows one’s own perceptions, and, perceptions may be addressed through the process of doubt. I do not choose my beliefs as much as I become aware of them. I do not choose to believe based on what I have or have not perceived.

My beliefs are revealed to me by the things I perceive and then I am unable to doubt them. What I see allows me to come to know my beliefs and tweak them. My belief in the possibility of things does not necessitate their appearance.

I’ll see less things on earth than things I will see in this lifetime. Shall I really constrain myself to such a small set of experiential data?

I’ll see it when I believe it : I think therefore I am.

I’ll believe when I see it : I’m seen therefore I am.

This is Numberwang?

This is Numberwang?

(Kindly let me know if my math does not tally below. I tried to check and recheck it, but…)

<◇>

Q: When was 120 minutes ago from now?

A: It was two hours ago.

<◇>

When was one hundred and sixty four billion (164,000,000,000) minutes ago?

Hum, huh?

~

My illiteracy with numbers occurs at a certain threshold.

Numerical literacy*? Not my strong suit. So, I play with numbers, with what I can imagine.

For example, I can imagine a triangle, a square, a pentagram, a hexagon, a septagon, an octagon. But, I cannot imagine, or see in my mind’s eye what a 25 sided polygon would look like. I would have to try to draw it.

There is a 10,000 sided polygon, called a myriagon, according to geometry.

I will take their word for it because I cannot imagine being able to imagine what that would actually like.

~

I am not monied. The difference between one million dollars and one billion dollars? Well, sure, ‘orders of magnitude’, but I only understand that in the abstracted sense. The practical difference between such huge numbers is not immediately obvious to me. But, the news, scientific research, and governments, regularly inundate us with such large numbers.

~

Do a thought experiment with me? I wanna know:

Q1. How far could the millions of dollars, comprising a billion dollars, go?

Q2. If I had one hundred and sixty four billion dollars (as I hear someone in America truly does) and I gave away one million dollars per day, how many days before I am broke? Let’s pretend I keep my $164,000,000,000.00 in cash in a safe. That means my money is not making more money via interest, returns, dividends.

If I have one billion dollars in cash, let’s imagine it’s kept in one million dollar bills. I would have one thousand of these million dollar bills.

I could give one of the $1,000,000 bills everyday for 1,000 days before running out of money.

If there are 365 days a year, 1,000 days is about 2.75 years.

The difference between a million and a billion, practically speaking?

A1. You can give away $1,000,000.00 everyday for almost three years before exhausting $1,000,000,000.00

So, how much more than 1 billion dollars is 164 billion dollars, practically speaking?

Well, if it takes 1,000 days, of giving away 1 million dollars each day, to get rid of a billion dollars;

It would take 164 times longer to give away $164,000,000,000.00 than it would take to give away $1,000,000,000.00

1,000 x 164 = 164,000 days

164,000 days = 449 years and a few months.

If I had $164,000,000,000 ($164 billion), I could give away $1,000,000 ($1 million) everyday for 449 years.?

Fuck.

Now that I see it this way it only raises more, honest questions from an ignorant me.

How much money do people need?

And why? To what end and what do they intend?

______________

*My own numerical illiteracy was introduced to me by a slim, charming book called Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos which I found tucked away in the statistician’s, my father, bookcase.

The idea is wittily conveyed in the sixth chapter of the second section of Douglas R. Hofstader’s book Meta Magical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern.

The chapter is called Number Numbness.

Both are written for non-math-savvy folks and both pieces manage to entertain with humor.

Improudst (a fake word)

Improudst: to be proud (without being prideful) and impressed at the same time. Remove any context of patronizing condescension. A sub-sense of glad.


Perhaps, the distinction is

arbitrary.

Arbiters and arbitration.

You know the contract only allows for third-party mediation.

No civil,

state, or federal matter.

Signed away for re-insurance.

A contract written in favor of the contractor.

Write.

Rite.

Right.

The locals always laugh at the outfits of outsiders.

Shutter speed unable to

capture the insider’s view.

Lurid does not mean illicit,

Nor does it imply morbidity.

Fecundity. Gestational periods are not

sette in stone.

A set containing itself is self-referential.

A sette that sings itself.

So, I ask myself: can you tell me something good?

Howl, yes: I think.

“Thanks, that means a lot coming from myself.”

I can chop like a master. Slowly.

The vivisection of a tomato

is proof of magic.

Oranges grow on trees whether

you have a personal savior

or not.

Howl-lelujah: say mavericks.

Please, do not be cross with me, kindly.

God does not speak to me directly.

Don’t take pity; take patience in exposition?

That of which you have proof

alludes us.

So, let’s

Come Together

To Talk?

Quote Like Song Lyrix Stuck in my Head

Eclecticism is self-defeating not because there is only one direction in which it is useful to move, but because there are so many: it is necessary to choose.

THE INTERPRETATION OF CULTURES: Selected Essays. Geertz, Clifford. Basic Books, Inc., Publishers. New York, 1973.

A Dose of Culture Theory Cut with Anthropology

The concept of ‘nationality’ is myth institutionalized. Culture-plus.

Culture is a myth existing in the subtleties of our everyday lives. Known by everyone, taught by everyone; and, yet it remains a bit invisible to those very ones who know and teach it. Nationality is is an institutionalized mythological narrative taught publicly, in a systematic fashion. Simple things like reciting a pledge of allegiance at the start of every school day.

Three types of nations may be distinguished. Old, natural nations like Britain, France, Spain, etc. New nations that emulated the nationalistic practices of others; and, the third kind are forced into nationhood by virtue of being ex-colonial states granted independence. Forced nations are those nations founded on the assumption that immemorial antiquity can be constructed, taught, and ultimately naturalized into a population.

America is a unique case.

american flag architecture blur bright
Photo by Kai Pilger on Pexels.com

“The soil of America absolutely rejected a territorial aristocracy.” The inhabitants “hardly know one another, and each man is ignorant of his nearest neighbor’s history…Wealth circulates with incredible rapidity, and experience shows that two successive generations seldom enjoy its favors.”

Alexis de Tocqueville (French diplomat; b. 1805 – 1859)

The circulation of wealth is not a condition common to forced nations. Americans enjoyed a bourgeois liberty, “not the aristocratic freedom of their motherland, but a middle-class and democratic freedom.”

They had learned to combine democracy and liberty as the French had not. The French had to suffer a democratic revolution. Americans did not and thus “were born equal instead of becoming so.” This ignores the slave-holding practices of America at that time, but the idea is that your bloodline does not determine your life. There was no landed gentry or fiefdoms in America.

There is an absence of an American socialist or militant-working class tradition. The white immigrants could pursue their middle-class goals freely, unencumbered by a feudal tradition. Social homogeneity kept most Americans from systematically thinking about class differences. The American political culture lacked the European social categories which may be necessary to allow for the expression of such antagonism.

 

Hartz even argues that the failure of the bourgeois to develop class consciousness left American workers ideologically crippled. Because, there were no feudal institutions to attack, U.S. liberals, unlike European liberals, could entirely reject the idea of powerful government. America did not have it as a weapon because they never had to use against an older order.

*The Liberal Tradition in America: An Interpretation of American Political Thought since the Revolution; Louis Hartz, 1955.

Widespread economic wealth had a major role in sustaining the liberal character of U.S. political thought. Social pluralism and separation of residence from workplace can be attributed, at least in part, to the openness and fluidity of a liberal society.

The American liberal tradition has been very effective in limiting U.S. political development because ideas and behaviors, words and deeds, have mutually constrained one another.

ancient antique antique map atlas
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com


 

The New England Calvinist Jeremiad made a contribution to the dominance of a liberal consensus. It pointed out New England’s and, later, America’s failings: the sins of the people. The more often the preachers named the nation’s sins and punishment, the more strongly they asserted that the nation’s special mission as “god’s chosen instruments.”  This mission was essentially individualist and capitalistic.

“New England evolved into a middle-class culture…a commercially-oriented economy…sustained by the prospect of personal advancement.”

The American Jeremiad; Sacvan Bercovitch, 1978.

Here is a cultural foundation for the American social order (the ‘spiritual cohesion’ that comes only from a ‘social ideal’) which such a purely secular concern with ‘personal aggrandizement’ could not provide.

Through the Jeremiad, Americans came to see a special place for their country in the world, as well as envision it having a sacred history.  As a result, the Puritan rhetoric of social criticism re-affirmed a belief in the legitimacy of the American regime by promising to purge it of its defects.


Gellner’s discussion of nationalism revolves around the transition from Agrarian to Industrial. Industrial civilization is based on the explosion of economic/scientific growth rather than stable technology. Population growth in the industrialized world is no longer Malthusian.

 

The two principles of political legitimacy in industrialized societies are 1) economic growth and 2) nationalism. Regimes are acceptable if they can, over a period, engender growth, if not they lost authority.

We are egalitarian because we are mobile (as a society); we are not mobile because we are egalitarian. Mobility is imposed on us by social circumstance. Growth entails innovations and new technologies, creating and relinquishing jobs.  Growth societies cannot have a stable occupational structure. These societies acquiesce members by giving confident, justified expectations of moral improvements as opposed to inciting terror or superstition. Everyone climbs the ladder, gets a promotion.

The modern occupational structure professes to be egalitarian, within a upwardly mobile professional sphere.  Within that sphere, however, we are to be anonymous, per se.  Leave your personal problems at home, right?

adult auto automobile automotive
Photo by Fancycrave.com on Pexels.com

The person you are at work must censor and behave differently than the person you are at home. Well, at least for many of this surely remains true. Remove a subsistence economy and you stop people from procuring their own foods and goods. Replace that economy with a cash economy and now people hold jobs to be paid a wage that they may use to purchase the things they need.  This is the counter-intuitive, semantic nature of work in industrial societies.

All this reduces to the capacity to articulate and/or comprehend context-free messages. This is the metaphorical antithesis of what are brain does, particularly when interpreting meaning from words.  Context provides meaning. Personal context can become a moot point in modern, professional environments as the implication is that professionalism is not the same as authenticity. Professionalism involves carrying oneself in a posture: posturing. Authenticity is the posture you take when no one is looking. Crossing your legs at work versus going spread-eagle on the couch to get comfy.

One is a panto and one is what it is.

Nations and Nationalism; Ernest Gellner, 1983

Disambiguation…

The line is not: You pay for what you get.


The steganographia is not the encryption is not the transcryption,

Nor is it the ostensible coding.


Encoding=scribing.


The poison is the dose.

The doz>s>e is the poison.

The map is not the region.

“Here I do have a theory: Perhaps we got across because we sailed on the ocean and not on a map.”

THE RA EXPEDITIONS

Thor Heyerdahl

DOUBLEDAY publishing

Page (ostensibly) 341 aka M(42)

Imagine that ( x ) = x in subSCRIPT

Here you find (sub)SCrypçione


The lyric is: you get what you pay for.