The Nutshell Archives
Most ideas can be fitted into a
Nutshell
These Archives contain
1001 idea stuffed Nutshells
Their actual location is on my web site
www.feedingthemindseye.com
Nutshells Nos.
0001-0951 (in monthly folders) can be retrieved by clicking
on the date of a
folder in the list at the bottom of this page.
Comments,
questions to: thenutshell@frontier.com
Social service message:
"The
Nutshell recommends investment in girls."
The last Nutshell (Number 1001)
Thursday, Cinco
de Mayo, 2011
Congratulations on your 1000th
Nutshell!! A true millestone! :-) Not being a numerologist (as far
as I know...) 999 seems like "almost there" (like living to age 99), but 1000 is
"There!!!" (at least until the next "There"). - Richard
Thank you very much... I have indeed
arrived "There" although it turns out to be a place
and circumstance I did not and could not foresee when I
started the Nutshell. I had no idea how it would end. Now I do. - the
Ed
Exit the Nutshell
It took Sheherezade one thousand and one bedtime stories to
convince the sultan she was a keeper. There is no
record of whether, having saved her life by her wit, she ever told another
tale. If she did, none survived. Very likely she lost her inspiration once her
life was assured.
The Nutshell has not run out of things
to say nor has it become bored with itself. Nevertheless, to all things there is a season and
the season of the Nutshell is officially over. On to the Next Big
Thing.
Which turns out to be not so Next, probably not so Big and
actually very familiar having been a chronic feature of the Ed's life
for three quarters of a century. The time has come, the Ed has declared,
to pull all the odd bits together and make something worthwhile of it. We are, of course,
speaking of Photography with capital P. MFRs know all about it.
The Ed is approaching this new phase with considerable
trepidation. For a couple of decades he has lived the life of a
gentleman of absolute leisure by divine right. Now he's
faced with actually having to earn his self-respect. But this is all as it
should be and nothing really new and startling. The main thing is nobody is making him do it, only
himself. With luck (which the Ed has more of than a Leprechaun has gold)
and persistence (that's another story) the Ed is confident he can produce
something that, like Sheherezade, is worth keeping.
MFRs will not
be left high and dry. There was
once a photographer who set himself the task of taking just one
picture a day, every day. Such asceticism and discipline are not in the Ed's nature (rather the
opposite) so he proposes instead to try to take one
good picture a day, a far less ambitious task.
Assuming the Ed can sort out the technology involved a
new item (not necessarily but approximately daily) called "Fresh
Today" will be added to the feedingthemindseye web site (and perhaps also -
horrors! - placed on Facebook) featuring hot-out-of-the-camera images
and possibly a few words (with, no doubt, occasional snarky comments
by Prickles).
A printed collection of selected
Nutshells, under a tentative title
"The Nutshell's Rainbow", is, at the moment, merely a glimmer
in the Ed's eye. It may happen, if he lives long enough. MFRs would be entitled to
a well-deserved copy. Autographed.
In the meantime, to misquote
Thisbe (as presented in "Midsummer Night's Dream"):
farewell my friends,
thus Nutshell ends,
adieu, adieu, adieu.
Paul W. &
Prickles
P.S. I regret that I will never find out what is so special
about #1089.
05/04/11 (#1000)
(Re: TN #999) Sigh... I suppose someone has to set off some
numerological fireworks, if only small ones, on this somewhat remarkable
occasion. Thus:
999
is the minimum sum of pandigital three-digit primes (i.e., all of the digits 1
to 9 are utilised) to wit: 999 = 149 + 263 + 587.
999 x 999 = 998001,
which, if split, provides 998 + 001 which then returns to
999.< BR >
Finally, for
those who regularly ignore the rebuffs of "Who cares?" around them, I leave you
with:
999 = 27 x 37 ["Who cares?" you ask?] and 1/27 =
0.037037037... while [wait for it!] 1/37 =
.027027027...
Wake me up for #1089. And oh, yes... congratulations. - Northern
Observer
Prickles has
got to be impressed by that... and thanks! - the
Ed
I agree - nothing here to rejoice about. At best it is a
politically useful accomplishment for Obama. - the Ed
A dedication
I
dedicate this one thousandth Nutshell to Domenico Scarlatti, son of Alessandro
and a classic late bloomer. For much of his life Domenico was a competent
but undistinguished composer. It was Alessandro who was the renowned and much
admired celebrity of the musical world of his time. When he was forty
five Domenico was appointed to the royal court of Spain in
Madrid where he came under the spell of musically talented Princess Maria
Barbara. He proceeded to write for her over 550 keyboard sonatas, most of
them written between ages of sixty seven and seventy two. They are
considered to this day to be some of the finest and most original keyboard
works ever written. Nowadays, when the name Scarlatti is mentioned alone it
is Domenico that is being referred to.
Far be it from me to compare
my one thousand Nutshells to Scarlatti's 500+ sonatas. I just want to point
to the fact that the Nutshells were all composed after I reached seventy
three so, late bloomer-wise, I beat Scarlatti by half a decade. And
I'm not finished yet. More about this tomorrow.
Here is to late
bloomers everywhere!
Until tomorrow,
Paul W.
05/03/11 (#0999)
Celebrating a
killing
It's hardly a rare situation where we find it
necessary to kill. The meat eaters among us are responsible for millions of
deaths daily. Less common these days is having to kill in self-defence or
to protect our property or honor or faith but common enough. I am excluding
from consideration murder which can never be an occasion for celebration.
I consider revenge killing murder.
Killing
game animals has been a cause for celebration from times immemorial since a kill means we
can eat and live a little longer. The higher quality of life enjoyed by those
higher up the food chain justifies the killing of lower forms of
life.
The case of killing Osama bin Ladin is different. In so far
as it may be viewed as a revenge killing, it's murder. Primarily,
however, it was a killing in self-defence by those whom he has been
terrorizing. His death comes as a relief to millions. It weakens
significantly the terrorrist movement he was inspiring. It's not over but
perhaps we can breathe just a little easier. But is his killing a cause for
celebration?
Perhaps we can
celebrate a technically successful conclusion of a decade-long
manhunt. (Osama finally made the mistake of staying in one place too long giving
the US intelligence people a chance to track him down). Perhaps we can flatter
ourselves by viewing his killing as "good" prevailing over "evil". After
all, the world is a somewhat more viable place without him.
Cause enough to be thankful. But an all out celebration would be premature
and presumptuous.
Musings on
999
Prickles, who is a brilliant mathematician and can
count to three, probably would not find the fact that 999 is 3 times
333 interesting. Or the fact that it is the largest possible three digit
integral number. She is totally unimpressed by numbers bigger than three and she
holds numerology in severe contempt. To her, the accident of the decimal system
of representing numbers having been adopted by humans because they happened
to have ten digits available to count on has no significance. And 999
is just a number which happens to look pseudo-interesting in the
decimal system but not necessarily in any other. In other words, mathematically,
arriving at the Nutshell #999 is a non-event.
Of course, Prickles is a
hedgehog and hedgehogs don't think like humans. We humans wax sentimental and
superstitious about curious configurations no matter how irrelevant. We thrust
significance upon them, based on a multitude of long-standing traditions arising
from ages of counting on our ten fingers. The Ed is, therefore, prepared to
accept congratulations on having made it to #999. He is not getting any from
Prickles.
Until next time,
Paul W.
05/02/11 (#0998) Hedgehog dialogs
XXXVI
This month, Prickles, the hedgehog I live with,
and I will be going on a photographic tour of West Virginia. Prickles is coming
because she does not believe I am capable of taking proper care of my Very
Important Stuff. She keeps track of it for me as part of her regular duties
(the main one being Sunshine Appreciation) and she is not about to
relinquish this office come what may. We had a discussion on the subject last
night.
Me: "Prickles, I don't mind if you
come but I warn you, you will be bored silly. When I do photography I do not
socialize (and vice versa). I'll be totally ignoring you most of the
time. And your cousins won't be coming to keep you company - I can't
have a whole menagerie of rambunctious hedgehogs to worry about. This is a
single-minded, highly focused mission and I can't have any distractions. So
think about it."
Prickles: "### #### ## ### ## ####
#### ## ### ###### # ### ##?" [The nuances of Hedgehogese are totally
lost in translation so there is no point even
trying]
Me: "I have no idea what I'll be
photographing. I may be photographing people and animals if an occasion
arises or I may not. If you come I may be even photographing you. But
I do not belong to the gonzo journalism school of photography - I
limit my influence on the scene to my choice of the point of view and the time
to press the shutter button. If I photograph you it will not be a conversation
between you and me, it will be me observing you without, if at all possible,
influencing you in any way, preferably without you knowing
it."
Prickles: "###?"
Me:
"You really want to know?"
Prickles:
"##."
Me: "Well, OK. It's the difference between
capturing images as they happen and creating images by interacting with or
controlling the scene in front of the camera (in addition to
picking a point of view and a time to shoot, that is). I find I can't
improve on the forms and patterns of the world as it is (actually I can,
in Photoshop, but that's another story). Taking on the responsibility
for rearranging the world - or some part of it - to create an
original image (this would be analogous to painting or
theatre) is a challenge for which I don't have the necessary talent or
resources. Does that make sense to you?"
Prickles:
"### ##. #### ## #### ##."
Me: "Anyway, I'll be
totally preoccupied paying attention to the evolving scene - as a
professional Sushine Appreciator surely you know how the scene is forever
changing - and with choosing my point of view and time to capture it. So I won't
be paying any attention to you, unless you happen to be the
subject."
Prickles: "### ### #### ## #### #
##!"
Me: "Well I certainly would feel better about my
Very Important Stuff not getting lost or messed up with you keeping track of it
as usual. But I can do it myself if I have to. I've managed it before we
met."
Prickles: "### ## #### ## ### ####
# ##!"
Me: "Thanks a lot for the vote of confidence! You
needn't be so snarky!"
Prickles:
"####."
Me: "OK, realistic."
Until next
time,
Paul W.
04/27/11 (#0997) The
discomfort zone
A marine who attends the gym where I go to
do my daily routine usually wears a T-shirt with this sentiment on the back:
"Pain is weakness leaving the body". I disagree with this assertion for
several reasons. Physiologically, pain is the alert signal that something
is wrong, that body is being damaged. Exercises designed to increase
strength may take the body up to the treshold of pain but
crossing it is counterproductive. Psychologically, the idea of needing to
suffer to achieve something is also wrong-headed. Suffering interferes with
rather than promotes accomplishment. It may be sometimes unavoidable but it
certainly is not something any rationally thinking person would seek
out.
It is
true by definition, that a breakthrough (whether physical or
intellectual) cannot be accomplished without breaking some existing limit.
Breaking anything can be a bit traumatic. Hence the discomfort zone where
the unfamiliar meets the unprepared, or at least, less than optimally
equipped.
Breakthroughs require a leap of faith and if that faith is not
strong enough it can be hard on the nerves. Thus skeptics have a harder time
with breakthroughs than believers.
Until next time,
Paul
W.
04/26/11 (#0996) No
miracles!
That was, in effect, my father's plea whenever
he was presented with a grandiose plan for extraordinary action intended to
assure a project's glorious success. His method was to set modest but clearly
achievable goals and reach them by a series of true and tried steps,
none requiring extraordinary measures. He was a civil engineer and his
bridges had to be, above all, safe and functional. He could not afford to have
to rely on miracles.
My images are unlkely to be lethal and their
functionality is purely cerebral. My reason why I can't afford to
take extraordinary measures is that I have only very limited resources
of energy and time at my disposal. I can afford to hope for miracles
(and I do) but I can't afford to wait for them. In the end, I
too necessarily make do without miracles. This has an advantage of keeping
my work unmiraculously real.
However, this is not the end of the
story. From another angle, every event is a miracle. Some are more miraculous
than others. The most miraculous of all are those which are "just right" for the
present needs fulfilling their function with grace and elegance. They actually
occur without extraordinary effort although some extraordinary effort may be
involved in working one's way out of a thicket of unwarranted assumptions into
the clarity of just what is needed.
I can hope (though not
strive) for such miracles in my work. What I don't need (and,
indeed, can't have) are "true miracles" in the sense of the impossible
happening. That will never happen.
Until next time,
Paul
W.
04/25/11 (#0995) Education
Elementary events are not absolutely
random. They are informed by the probability field associated with their
location in space-time. This is the simplest possible form of
education.
For complex organisms education includes adaptation to
local conditions, a process which may take many generations. For highly
complex organisms capable of self-consciousness education involves formation of
that self-consciousness and, at the highest levels,
self-transcendence.
Even at its simplest education is not error
free. The state of the universe is never perfectly defined and the probability
field is fuzzy and mutable. As the complexity of the organism increases the
sources of potentially maladaptive error multiply. At the highest levels of
consciousness the potential for self-transcendence is threatened by an
equal potential for self-destruction.
In other words, there is such a
thing as mis-education or, simply put, bad education which misses its mark
and results in failure to realize the organism's full potential - an
existential tragedy.
However, self-conscious organisms have built-in
defenses against mis-education. They are: attention, reason and historical
experience of others. With attentive guidance by more experienced
individuals it is possible to avoid the worst effects of
mis-education. It's a matter of conscientiously applying the
available resources, which, I am informed by an authority on the subject,
is easier said than done.
Until next time,
Paul W.
04/24/11 (#0994) Hope springs
eternal
It doesn't seem right to rain on anybody's Easter
Parade. On the other hand, this is no time for cheerful platitudes
either. Let's just note that this is the season when the promise of
renewed life is finally fulfilled. What remains to be done is to realize the
refreshed life's potential. This can sometimes be a drag if we
lose sight of the objective which is to enjoy and appreciate our being.
It's just that getting there often follows a tortuous and tortured
path though, with diligent attention, it doesn't have to. But we're only
human.
Still, being human is special, at least on this planet. As part
self-transcendent angels who have not yet shed their animal nature we're in a
difficult but interesting and hopeful and certainly not impossible situation.
Easter reminds us of that. A note to those who look cynically on such
frivolities: yes, the Easter bunnies and the new Easter bonnets
can play a non-trivial role in this.
Wishing you a joyful
Easter,
Paul W.
04/22/11 (#0993) Personas
The plays put on by the ancient
Greeks were highly stylized affairs with no pretention to verité
realism. Method acting had not yet been invented. The actors assumed their
characters by putting on masks representing those characters. They spoke through
the masks hence the Greek word for a mask is "persona" from
"per" - "through" and "sona" - "sound".
Our
personalities are also such assumed masks by means of which our
"I", our unconditioned consciousness, communicates and connects
with others.
We absolutely need our personas. They are our visible,
distinct, recognizable shapes. We pour our undifferentiated selves into the
shape of our either chosen, given or blindly stumbled into personas and
thereby become individuals. And what a variety of individuals!
The
chaos and noise of life are reflected in the extreme variation in personas.
It is often remarked that people seem to have come from different planets. I'd
say even different universes. Variation is particularly extreme among people
with little or no education whose personas had been shaped by
tribal traditions, major life traumas like wars or natural disasters,
existential confusion.or any combination of the above. Such influences, combined
with innate characteristics of the body inhabited by the self can lead
to monstrous distortions of character and understanding, strange and
terifying masks.
And then there are the angelic
personas, full of grace and beauty, for whom everything went right, but
they are few and far between. Numerous enough though to keep
reminding us of the human potential.
Until next time (don't hold your
breath),
Paul W.
04/21/11 (#0992) The state of the photographic
Art
It's well over a century and a half since the
first photograph was taken and things have changed. Here's the Nutshell version
of the history of photography as Art up to the present time.
At first,
nobody thought it could be an Art. But with the coming
of the age of Academic Idealized Realism ("AIR") it became apparent that,
except for color, photography was well suited for doing
AIR. Elaborate Allegories were staged and photographed and sometimes hand
colored. With the collapse of the AIR balloon and the invasion of the
impressionists followed soon by cubists, surrealists and abstractionists,
photography was left in the dust. Once again, nobody thought it could
be Art.
Art or not,
photography was immensely useful for recording scenes, objects, events and faces
(to this day people cannot get enough snapshots of themselves in
various places and situations - a personal photographic history is the
norm except these days instead of going into an album it's on Facebook)
Photojournalism became the most
important genre ("1/100th at f11 and be there" was every starting
photojournalist's No. 1 rule). Other genres were scenics, sports, kids, animals,
cheesecake, advertising, industrial and scientific. None of this was considered
Art until in the Post-Modern Era (which continues to this day) somebody noticed
that a) some photographs were particularly truthful records of life as it
happens, and b) some photographs were striking as images in their own
right whether realistic, impressionistic,
surrealistic or abstract, on par with the best of paintings. Consensus rapidly developed
that, yes, photography could be Art, after all.
Recently, photography has been actually overtaking painting in the esteem of critics
and galleries. A look at the New Yorker reviews of the city's galleries
shows that majority of the important exhibitions are of photographs. And
photographs are selling at Christie's and Sotheby's at prices comparable
to those of paintings.
In the meantime, the digital
revolution vastly expanded the technical capabilities of photography. There
are now virtually no boundaries. No event is unphotographable, no lighting
situation impossible. The camera now exceeds eye/mind in the ability to
see, perceive and record. And the recorded image can be
far more freely manipulated than paint on canvas.
Aye,
there's the rub.
Photography has the potential both for being extremely accurate and precise as a record
of what happened and also for being utterly false and misleading. Or, more innocently,
fantastical and magical. That is its dual personality. It
always had it but now its schizophrenia is absolute. We can never again look
at a photographic image without wondering is this a straight shot
or computer graphics? Artwise, though, the question may be
irrelevant..
Until next time,
Paul W.
04/20/11 (#0991)
(Re: TN #990) Sir, before we get
to what you are missing ...you have too many ffs! But now that molecular biology
has flowered, you know that you are missing a few ACTG chains (probably due
to an ACT of God.). - The Nut
I beg your pardon? Too many ffs? Nonsense. I looked all
around for excess ffs and I couldn't find any. Nary a one. Not here, not
there, not anywhere. And as for ACTG chains, I like being unchained, thank you.
As they say in the Carribean, me like it like that. - the
Ed
The Nuthsell defines "free will" (in uncharacteristically poetic terms) as "consciousness navigating the sea of probability waves towards the object of its desire which is joy". According to the Nutshell doctrine, desire for joy and consciousness are inherent in all particles (a.k.a. "elementary events/observations") and are present in organizations thereof as a complex integral field. This field is capable of conscious choice (intentionality). At the elementary level the choices (degrees of freedom) are very few. They increase with organization and complexity.
Decision which choice to follow is guided absolutely by the transcendental
desire for joy and imperfectly (and often erroneously) by our
incomplete understanding of the present moment. Understanding requires
attention but the attention we pay to here-now is at times merely less
inadequate than at other times. This inevitably results missed marks,
snafus and excess chaos generally. But that's free will for you. Freedom is the
opposite of perfection where there are no choices left (perfection is
unimprovable).
Conscious intentionality works through the quantum
probability by skewing the statistics towards the desired outcome. This is
akin to magic, or, rather, it is magic. By a mere
"fiat!" of the desire the probability of a particular event
happening is enhanced. What actually happens next is still
absolutely unpredictable but over many events the statistical skewing
becomes evident and the future is reshaped according to the intentionality of
the consciousness. The only condition is that the intended outcome must be
possible (i.e. have non-zero original probability).
Until next
time,
Paul W.
[P.S. TN #987 (below) was originally posted as
written while asleep. It has been considerably revised and cleaned up, should
you be interested in revisiting.]
04/15/11 (#0987) If I could have anything I
want
God forbid it should ever happen. But it's getting
there. My wants have actually shrunk to the point where I can have almost
anything I want.
But what do I want? One thing I don't
want is to be someone other than who I am. That means I don't want to be
stronger, handsomer, cleverer, more talented, or even healthier and younger than
I am. Nevertheless, I am
changing and becoming though I have no idea how. It is a continuing surprise to me. Nor do I
want to change the rate at which I am changing because the current rate suits
me.
Since I don't want suddenly and spontaneously to change into
somebody else, what do I want for me , such as
I am? I already have pretty much all I need and want (and more). I am
actually a man who has essentially everything. Ironically, it's
quite common for people to want things when they can't have them then no longer
want them when they can. But three categories of things transcend such fickleness on
part of their owners: Art, tools and true friends.
I have nearly all I
want in way of musical Arts streaming into my space via the
radio. I supplement this by making some music myself. I suppose
I could wish for more energy and time to practice my music
but that would be necessarily a Faustian bargain. I would love to own inspiring objects of
Art as everyday accompaniament to my life and I actually do
own a few such but I can't really afford to collect Art. So I create my own with the added
benefit of the joy of the creative process. Do I wish that I
were rich enough to be an Art collector?
I don't think so - such wealth would place more burdens
on me than I'm prepared to shoulder. Last but not least, my home theatre provides
me with all the theatrical Arts entertainment I can take in and there are
far more than enough books on my shelves to keep my mind occupied for the
rest of my life.
Tools and ability to use them effectively are a necessary
part of life. You gotta have the right tools for whatever it is
you do. Good tools are a great help, bad tools an annoyance and a hindrance. There are
definitely tools that I covet though I question my ability to use them effectively. One
such is a high resolution camera to supplement my present collection of digital
compacts - but we're not getting into that here. Other than that I have
all the tools I need, and more.
Which leaves friends. Allegedly you can't have too
many friends but my Facebook experience suggests that yes, you can. In this
category, a soul mate is what is chiefly wanted. One is lucky to find just
one such and many never do. Well, I'm lucky. And I have a number of genuine friends
besides.
So, supposing I can have anything I want, what
more do
I want? A slightly more rational and less chaotic world, I
suppose. (I did say anything). Otherwise, not much.
Until next
time,
Paul W.
04/13/11 (#0986) Mysteries, cont.
Are some mysteries
sacrosanct, their rational investigation inherently forbidden? Of
course not. Stern warnings against attempts at
intellectual penetration of a "sacred" mystery are a
sure sign of a phony mystery hiding some compromising facts (viz. the
Wizard of Oz). However, there are mysteries the pondering of which is
unquestionably a waste of time (although this may not be immediately
obvious).
One class of mysteries not worth thinking about are those that
have no practical effect whatever on our actions and intentions. For
example, even though the mystery of the "dark" matter and "dark" energy may
be of highest import to a cosmologist whose reputation (and salary) rests
on his/her interpretation as published in a learned journal, for the
average citizen it has zero import and isn't worth half a moment's
thought. (However, it would become of general import if an
understanding of these mysteries leads to new life-affecting
technologies).
Another such class are the mysteries which, even
though they may definitely and in a major way affect our actions and
intentions, yet there is absolutely no way to resolve them. Such as, for
example, whether the universe (and therefore life) has a purpose. That
is a matter of pure faith and as such not worth thinking about (although our
personal reasons for our faith certainly are).
A kind of mystery
that may or may not be worth the effort to solve is the
artificial mystery created without strict reference to reality like the
perennially springing conspiration theories and speculative
fiction. Such synthetic mysteries are often created purposefully as
puzzles to exercise and entertain the mind. It can be argued that too much
of this kind of entertainment is a waste of time considering
that there is no dearth of reality based mysteries to engage our minds
fruitfully. But there's a joy to be found in the intellectual dance of
pure concepts, for example such as required to construct and prove
mathematical theorems. Although whether that qualifies as solving mysteries is
debatable. What is a mystery is that these purely synthetic artifacts
can and often do reflect actual reality - perhaps because they are
creatures of the mind which is indisputably real.
Every true mystery is a
challenge to the human mind as a potential source of new understanding.and
deserves to be tackled unless it involves an absolute unknowable or an
unresolvable paradox. Such ultimate mysteries, like black holes, are
essential to the working of the universe which would grind to a halt (and cease
to exist) if its every action had to be completely transparent and
resolvable to the last detail.
Until next time,
Paul
W.
04/12/11 (#0985) More about
France
Anatole France, that is. I have misread "The
Opinions of Fr. Hieronymus Coignard" (the thinnest volume by France in my
library) because, contrary to my custom, I did not read the preface first.
France was not a devout (or undevout) Catholic, at least not when he
wrote "The Opinions". But he undoubtedly was one in his earlier life and born to
it. And it shows. You can take a boy out of the Church but you can't take
the Church of of a boy.
Frankly, I was not eager to read France. I
did not expect to learn much from him and rather expected to be bored. But I
found myself in surprising agreement with his reasoning, except that France
invariably takes it way over the top. An extremist if ever I met one.
Saved, however, by unremitting and uncompromising kindness towards all - what
Christians might well identify as love of one's neighbor. Except that
France spiced his kindness with contempt. He had a deep contempt for the human
race and did not exclude himself from that contempt. In fact, his
prescribed cure for most of humanity's ills, sorrows and sufferings, which
he attributed primarily to universal stupidity and vainglorious pride
a.k.a. "honor", was for everyone to hold everyone, incuding oneself, in
deepest contempt while being kind to all, including oneself.
If pressed
to characterize the difference between France and myself I'd say that he was a
warm-hearted cynic while I am a cold-hearted optimist. France was passionate in
his views which is why he always went overboard with them, often
throwing the baby out with the bath water. I am merely rational
in my views even though I am always looking for the upside
and the possibility of transcendence. And I tend to pin my hopes on
the babies.
But France was a brilliant and highly erudite analyst. To
argue with him you really have to be on your philosophical and historical
toes. The thing to do is to watch for inconsistencies and paradoxes and catch
him red-handed (he readily acknowledges the presence of
unresolvable antonymies in his thinking). I'd say the central
paradox of France's contemptuous view of humanity is his kindness and
tolerance towards it. It's his Christian heritage which he has been unable
to shake off.
Until next time,
Paul W.
04/10/11 (#0984)
Mysteries
We love a mystery, the delight of not
knowing, the wonder of it. Indeed, mysteries are essential to our enjoyment of
life. We do get a quotidian dose of mystery simply from our
inability to predict exactly what will happen next but in these highly civilized
and orderly times life is often so tame and so highly demystified as
to leave us craving for more, much more. We find ourselves driven to invent
fake mysteries for our own delectation. Hence all the conspiracy theories,
alien sightings, ghost stories and countless anecdotes of mysterious
happenings.
It would seem we hardly need trouble ourselves
with fabrication of synthetic mysteries since the universe is an
inexhaustible source of genuine ones starting with our own existence. Except
that recognition of the real mysteries requires attention to what is actually
the case, something we are not very good at. Far easier to spin something out
of whole cloth of our imagination. Besides, fabricating mysteries
unconstrained by facts is fun. It may well be the origin and the foundation
of Art with capital A.
But there are other, more practical uses for
invented mysteries. Deception is one. Another is to shield
something from inspection or analysis or to hide a secret. Yet another
is to cover up inconsistencies in theories and hypotheses. One of the
favorite uses of fake mystery is to generate a sense of significance and
profundity where there is none. And so on and so forth.
Entertaining as
the synthetic mysteries may be, the genuine ones are fruitful subjects for
contemplation and study. To the extent they are penetrable by
the intellect they are invariably sources of new understanding. And to
the extent they are not they remain objects of wonder and
speculation. Without mysteries life is not merely impoverished - it
becomes inconceivable.
Until next time,
Paul W.
04/09/11 (#0983) The nastiest of
animals?
Started reading at Anatole France. Several
volumes of his works have been gathering dust on my shelves for some years
now. Needing something to read on the train the other day (never made the train
but that's another story) I picked out the slimmest of them to toss into my
bag.
From what I've read so far it seems France viewed homo
sapiens as a degenerate sub-species of the chimpanzee. (And he was a devout
Catholic, too). Humankind, he observed, is not just animal, it's worse than
animal. By far. He did believe in salvation by Jesus Christ but I get
the impression that he must have visualized heaven as a very small
exclusive club with hell the destination of the great bulk of humanity
(including most of the Church hierarchy). On the other hand, while railing
against the mortifying multitude of humanity's perfidious sins, France was
quite tolerant of and rather kindly disposed towards the sins of
the flesh which he considered more misdemeanors than felonies. But then he
was French.
I agree with France that as an animal homo
sapiens is not a very nice one. It's animality is compromised by excess
intelligence which leads to far beastlier behavior than anything less
intelligent beasts would ever engage in. But, unlike France, I see
homo sapiens as evolving toward angelhood. As part angels, humans are
capable of genuine self-transcendence. Mere animals can't do
that.
The problem is that majority of mankind chooses, out of ignorance
and/or inattention, to disregard its angelic side. This is a really
serious problem because without our angelic nature operating we are really
nasty, vicious animals much too clever for our own good. As I see it,
the role of organized religions is to keep reminding us of our angelic nature.
Some religions do a better job of it than others.
France is
outdated in his views of human lack of progress. In his days progress was very
slow compared to the present day full gallop into the uncharted territories. France's
world, the everyday work, eat, fuck, sleep world was not changing appreciably.
He greatly under-estimated the potential of science and technology. And, in
my opinion, he was a little over the top in his assessment of human
nature. I believe in general we are more angelic than he
gave us credit for. But I am an optimist.
Until next time,
Paul
W.
04/08/11 (#0982)
"Enlightening" as in "food for
thought". Which may well lead to fruitful debate. - the
Ed
Lust for
power
Nietzsche tried to make a virtue of it by calling it
"will to power". But it's just a particular distortion of the general desire to
enjoy being to the fullest, a desire shared by all normally functioning
human beings. The question is, how?
Achieving high degree of control
over one's environment, including its inhabitants, seems like the logical path
to making the world of one's experience conform closely to one's desires or,
more accurately, one's preferences and prejudices. Hence "the will to
power". One difficulty with this approach to maximizing one's enjoyment
of life is that one has to maintain control which can be a
bitch. This kind of spoils the joy of having it one's way. One tends
to become a slave to the never-ending need to stay on top of all
potential threats of loss of control.
More to the point, having the power
to make the world conform to one's wishes does not necessarily improve
one's quality of life. Fulfilment of those wishes often turns out
to be disappointing. As a rule one discovers it's not what
one really wanted. But what did one really
want?
Also, exerting power is a high in its own right and some
people seek and wield power for its own sake. Power for power's
sake is addictive yet empty. But there
can be genuine joy in use of power when it is directed to
respond to real needs and to enhance quality of life generally. Such power
comes not from externally imposed control but from attention to and
consensus on what is actually the case. Power in this case becomes
merely a means to an end and not the end.
What we
really want is to enjoy our lives. We need power to bring about
conditions favoring this, and we can enjoy the process of using this
power, but in the end it's not about power. It's about being aware and
appreciative of life's possibilities.
Untl next time,
Paul
W.
Correction: (Re: TN #981) The average gas
consumption of the Prius seems to be closer to about 50 mpg which is still
pretty good. Also, I had been too dainty with the gas pedal. It has longer
travel than Legacy's. If you push it down far enough the Prius
will take off (of course the fuel economy goes out the window).
I'm rather enjoying driving it but I do miss the all wheel drive on the way
out of my driveway.
04/07/11
(#0981)
(Re: TN #980) One of my all time
favourite Shakespeare plays. I have seen it many time myself, and even find
myself quoting the movie in daily conversations! "There's a double meaning in
that.." Back in Highschool a group of friends and I put on a little home movie
that was a farce of Romeo & Juliet, along with parts from Much Ado About
Nothing. Wildly funny and totally embarassing to think back on now. Hey Nonny,
Nonny! - Elisa
Hey Nonny, Nonny! indeed... - the
Ed
Weird...
If you
want a glimpse of the automotive future, drive a Prius. I'm driving one for
a few days while my good old Subaru Legacy is having a transmission
transplant.
The Prius has a brake, an accellerator and a steering wheel
(all of which, incidentally, are about to become obsolete) but there the
resemblance to what we had come to recognize as a "car" ends. The thing has
a dual power source (a gas engine and an electric motor) either or both of
which may be supplying power to the wheels at any particular time according
to the car's own judgement what makes most sense fuel-economy-wise.
The
curious thing is it only takes one kind of fuel - gasoline. It does not
require plugging into an electrical outlet. The battery that powers
the motor is recharged when the gas engine drives the motor (now
acting as a generator). And whenever the car is decelerated its kinetic
energy is converted into electric current (the process is reversed when the car
is accelerated). Recovering the kinetic energy is an obvious booster to fuel
economy. Less clear is how use of the dual drives contributes to fuel
economy. One way is by shutting down the gas engine automatically
whenever the car is stopped. The car can get moving again on the electric power
alone and the engine is restarted after the car is already
moving. This is a more efficient use of the gas engine.
Apart from
its finessed fuel efficiency, Prius bristles with futuristic innovations. It's
yet another electronic gadget to wow the geeks. The doors lock at a touch of the
handle. They also unlock at a touch. The trick is you need a little
transponder somewhere on your person to be able to do this magic. There are
zillions of options - the owner's manual devotes some fifty pages to the
matter of locking and unlocking the car alone. Same with starting. There's just
an on/off push button but it only works if you have the transponder with
you in the car. And no, the car won't let you lock the transponder
inside.
There's no instrument panel. Instead, about half a mile away
out in front there is an electronic display which tells you everything you
ever wanted to know about the state of the car and more. Too bad it's totally
unreadable if you're wearing sunglasses.
Cruise control does not merely
maintain your speed, it also maintains a minimum distance to the car ahead.
Electronic lane keeping assistant keeps you in the centre of your lane as long
as there are readable lane markers. Imminent collision detector warns you and
slams on the brakes. And so on and forth. The next thing will be a car
that drives itself and it is being road tested now.
But the Prius had
trouble climbing out of my fairly steep driveway. Its accelleration is nothing
to write home about. It's perfectly adequate on the road but it's definitely not
for the sporty drivers. My old Legacy has a lot more zip and power at 30
mpg. No information on what Prius can typically do on a gallon but the gas
gauge went down about a quarter of a tank in 150 miles which would make it
roughly 60 mpg.
If you do get a Prius, whatever you do, don't read the
owner's manual. Just put your faith in the renown Toyota reliability
and assume that nothing is going to go wrong with it as long as you own it.
The catalog of things that can go wrong is absolutely horrifing. This
is one complicated gadget.
Until next time,
Paul W.
04/06/11 (#0980) Dept. of theatrical
reviews: Kenneth Branagh's "Much Ado About
Nothing"
This spirited 1993 version
clearly was not made by the BBC. This is no staid, reliable inscenization of
the text but a sunny, boisterous romp through the
Shakespearean landscape.
"Much
Ado" is a tricky play. The dramatic central story of a maiden falsely accused of unchastity on the day of her wedding
merely provides context, contrast and background to the much more gripping and psychologically
insightful "side" story of two true but reluctant lovers who have to be tricked
into discovering that they are in love. The lovers of the central story, Claudio and
Hero (an odd name for a woman) are conventional, socially proper and well matched,
but theirs is not the ecstatic love of high romance - it is rather a mutually agreeable
arrangement. This is important for the play to make sense. Branagh makes
the mistake of over-romanticizing and over-dramatizing Claudio and Hero's love.
This makes Claudio look like an idiot and a cad for falling for the fabrications of
the villain of the piece rather than trusting his beloved.
The
couple that really engage us emotionally, however, are Benedick (Claudio's
comrade-in-arms) and Beatrice (Hero's cousin and confidante), both avowed
singles-for-life, cheerfully cynical about love and marriage. They are actually
a perfect match - witty, wise and warm even though leery of
love and bereft of any romantic illusions. It is their grief over Claudio
and Hero's shocking bust-up that ultimately pushes them into each other's arms. Even so,
they are in for a lifetime of sparring. And happily looking forward to it.
The play includes scenes of high comedy reminiscent of
the play-within-the-play put on by the rustics in "Midsummer Night's Dream".
The vividly rendered master constable Dogberry, his side-kick Verges and
the rest of the Watch (night-shift police
squad) are over-the-top hilarious. But it's not just simple fun and games -
the comedy is woven into the structure of the play to control
precisely its emotional pitch. And the Watch plays a critical if bumbling and largely
accidental role in exposing the vilain's deceitful plot thus ultimately setting all
things aright as indeed they should be in a proper comedy which this
is.
Until next time,
Paul W.
04/05/11 (#0979)
If they ever knew it... - the Ed
FAQs
[It has come
to the attention of some (though by no means all) people that life poses
more questions than it provides answers. For the benefit of those perplexed
souls the Nutshell presents the following incompleat compendium
of enlightening responses. - the Ed]
1. Why me?
Why
not you, you silly twit?
2. Why is there
evil?
Because if nothing ever
went wrong life would be so unendurably dull and utterly predictable
as to be tantamount to non-existence. In fact, if nothing ever went wrong
life would not and could not exist. (P.S. What do you mean
by "evil"?)
3. Is there a God?
No. Not
a God. But if Life, Universe and Everything
is assumed to make sense (i.e. have a purpose) God is what people call the source
of that purpose. Assuming LU&E is purposeless requires no God which may be
more economical conceptually but existentially is perfectly dreadful.
(Conceptual asceticism has no intrinsic value, especially in a purposeless
universe, Occam notwithstanding).
4. What is
time?
The sequential order in
which events are observed. (Note: it is not possible to "unobserve" an event,
or to observe one before it is observed).
5. What
is consciousness?
That which distinguishes between one thing and
another, i.e., what makes observation possible.
6. If
a tree falls in a forest and there is no one to hear it fall, does it make a
sound?
If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one to see it
fall, does it actually fall?
7. How did the world
begin? How will it end?
It didn't. It won't. But it's not static, it keeps
on evolving (why? see 3.
above). (Note: the "Big Bang" was not a unique
event).
8. What happens after we die?
Life
goes on.
9. How can I tell right from
wrong?
Pay attention. (Note: joie
de vivre is a good guide provided it is genuine, not an illusion or
self-deception).
10. What is love?
The most abused word in
human language. In its most socially positive and effective sense it is the
willingness to see and appreciate others as they actually are and to respond to
their real needs to the extent of one's ability to do so. In its lowest
sense: sexual lust. And everything inbetween.
Until next
time,
Paul W.
04/04/11 (#0978) False Gods
Some
Christianist nutcase burns a copy of the Koran and all hell breaks loose
among Islamists resulting in destruction of property and many dead and
wounded. What fun! Such minuscule no-brain effort to produce such a
spectacularly grand effect! It positively begs repetition for the
sheer shadenfreude of it.
To give Christianists their due,
they probably wouldn't riot if some Islamist burned a copy of the New
Testament. But those are slim grounds for feeling morally
superior.
The hate and rage
driving such actions spring from a deep, terrifying insecurity
harbored by both parties: a fear that their God in whom they are so
heavily invested, on whom their self-esteem and identity depend, may
turn out to be only a destructible clay idol of their own making. The God
of their faith must therefore be protected from any insult or attack
with maximum force and at any cost. Of course, this is tantamount to an
admission of their God's feared vulnerability. But the
underlying insecurity is buried deep in the subconscious and the rage
is disguised as righteous anger.
This is nothing new - radical Christians and Muslims have
been inflicting atrocities upon one another for centuries. But the radicals
are not representative of the essence of their respective
religions. The truly religious, of whatever faith, perceive God as a
trustworthy source of love, joy and peace. Such a God does not require
human protection from being harmed. Rather, as instruments of divine will
the truly religious people act to promote joy of being in
themselves and in others with whom they come in contact.
It is the lack
of confidence in an essentially false idea of God upon which one has
nevertheless staked one's whole being that leads to fear, hatred
and violence. This is an even greater evil than mere Godlessness (not to be
confused with "atheism", a meaningless term) which leads to confusion,
frustration and depression (and occasionally rage and violence as
well).
Until next time,
Paul W.
04/02/11 (#0977) Are we getting
smarter or stupider?
Many years ago I noticed a
pattern in the evolution of humanity: a small number of individuals were
reaching never before attained heights in intelectual, social and aesthetic
realms, demonstrating undisputable advancement not just in humankind's
understanding but in its capacity for
understanding. Yet, at the same time, the great bulk of
humanity seemed to be frozen in its capacity for understanding at
the mediaeval levels. Since the population of the planet was growing
exponentially while the number of those in the evolutionary vanguard seemed
to be increasing at a much slower rate, the net progress of humanity appeared to
be about zero or pehaps even negative (I did not have any rigorous statistical
evidence for this, just informal observations). The rapid advances in
technology did not make the bulk of humanity smarter just lazier and fatter.
Yes, there was the potential for people to be better informed but in
actuality they were much more likely to be misinformed.
Things have changed since then. The
onslaught of misinformation has intensified manyfold but so have defences
against misinformation. I believe a genuine democratization of the
evolutionary process is occuring. The age of bullshit appears to be coming to an
end. Nilly-willy, the world is becoming more transparent and people can't help
but see, even if they resist.
Ever an optimist, I am predicting globalization of rational
thought. Technology is finally paying off. We will know that rationality has
become viral when the current world wide trend to obesity is reversed, when
politicians lead people towards a better future instead of blindly
following public opinion however ignorant, and when kids are
eagerly looking forward to school. Watch for it.
Until next time,
Paul W.
04/01/11 (#0976) Hedgehog dialogs XXXV
Prickles (the hedgehog I live with)
and I agree on at least one thing: March is the worst month of the year and the
longest (like about forever). So we were both in a celebratory mood this AM.
Prickles: "### ### ### #### ##!!" [Despite many arduous but ultimately futile attempts
Hedgehogese remains stubbornly untranslateable]
Me: "Yeah,
thank heavens."
Prickles: "### ### ## #### ## # ## ####
##?"
Me: "I
wouldn't count on it, Prickles. There will still be clouds and rain from
time to time, and chilly mornings and evenings. But it's different when the
trees are sprouting leaves and flowers are popping out of the ground.
That's almost as good as sunshine."
Prickles: "### ### #### ## ### ####."
Me: "That's a
very astute observation, Prickles. We can certainly appreciate what sunshine has
wrought even when it's hidden."
Prickles: "## # ## #### ##!"
Me: "Good for
you! I'm still waiting for that spring surge of energy. Maybe what I need is
some spring tonic - what is it, sulphur and molasses or something yucky like
that?"
Prickles: "### ## #### ##."
Me: "Are you
sure? That doesn't sound right."
Prickles: "##! ##! ### #### ## #### ##
####."
Me:
"Your family swore by it? I never heard of ice cream and vinegar!"
Prickles: "### ##
### #### ##### ## ## ####?"
Me: "Really? And that's what keeps you
hopping and dancing with such enthusiasm?"
Prickles: "##! #### ### #### ###!"
Me: "You don't
say! It does that?"
Prickles: "##! ### ##!"
Me: "Well, I
don't know, but OK. Yech... that's terrible!"
Prickles: "Prima
Aprilis!"
Me:
"I'll get you for this!"
Until
next time,
Paul W.
03/31/11 (#0975) Dept. of theatrical reviews: BBC's
"Comedy of Errors"
This is one of BBC's set of dutiful renditions of all
Shakespeare's plays, made for TV, this one in 1983. Like most of BBC's
theatrical productions, it is competent, serviceable, and pedestrian. Except for
the role of Adriana, played by Suzanna Bertish. Bertish is one of the most
strikingly handsome women it has ever been my pleasure to behold and an
excellent actress to boot. She steals the show every time she appears.
"Comedy of Errors" is a far-out
situation farce, totally unbelievable, full of puns, bawdry, slapstick
and utter confusion, to be played strictly for laughs. Any pretension
to realism would seriously damage the sheer fun of it by
precipitating all kinds of unwarranted rational objections. Like, would you
believe a set of identical twin brothers whose servants are also identical twin
brothers, who, after some twenty years' separation and unaware of each other's
existence, find themselves by chance in the same town, looking exactly
alike, dressed exactly alike, and so also their twin servants? Hey, not only
that but they both have the same first name and their two servants
likewise. If you can't believe that you've come to
the wrong play.
Actually,
it's great TV fare except that Shakespearean speech is too splendidly
fulsome and exotic for the contemporary audiences. To enjoy the play
properly you do have to brush up on your Elizabethan English or you'll
miss a lot of the best bits.
The
play is expertly constructed for maximum comedic effect. It has been
given a general carnival atmosphere (Ephesus, where the play takes
place, was known for its charlatans, mountebanks and
magicians - St. Paul remarked on this). This amplifies the bizarreness of
the situations arising from the mistaken identities. Productions of this
play probably should be stylized, even cartoony, to signal
its willful unmooring from reality. However, the BBC
treatment is straight-ahead literal with beautiful Elizabethan period
costumes and scenery (BBC's strength). It's fine though unremarkable
but for the unexpected grace of Suzanna
Bertish.
Until next time,
Paul W.
03/30/11 (#0974)
Here's where it's at
As we poke about the universe as
seen from the vicinity of the Earth we keep coming across ever new wonders.
Those who pay attention to such things find themselves in a never-ending state
of amazement, enchantment and awe. But the most amazing, most enchanting and
most awesome phenomena in the universe are observed right here on
Earth. At the top of the list is our own experience of wonder,
enchantment and awe.
The all but
incomprehensible vastness of the universe holds numberless wonders but as
we encounter them we diligently keep reducing them to neat scientific
explanations. Even though we lack the comprehensive Theory of Everything (good
luck with that!) with a little bit of imaginative stretching and
packing there's damn little that we can't fit into the Standard Model. It
seems the objective of science is to eliminate wonder but, of course, wonder is
what keeps science in business. Besides, science itself is a wonder.
Anyway, as a result of scientific
progress the Big Universe is becoming more and more comprehensible and less
and less wonderful. We're not likely to run out of wonders any time soon but we
have to dig deeper now. On the other hand, life on Earth remains fully as
wonderful as ever.
Here on Earth
human consciousness, desire and intentional action easily defeat all scientific
attempts at defining, explaining and predicting human behavior and destiny.
The mechanisms of mind offer an entire new universe to explore, one even
more complex than the universe of the astronomers and cosmologists. And then
there is the irreducible phenomenon of consciousness - the No. 1 Wonder of the
World.
The human mind contains an
antidote to scientific reductionism: while science is restricted to the realm of
the possible the mind can imagine and travel through the realms of the
impossible. The mind can freely create its own wonders and enchantments.
Indeed, there are far more wonders to be found in the mind than in the
entire universe as observed and described by science.
Until next time,
Paul W.
03/29/11 (#0973) XZ-1
Well, it has happened, as it was bound to, sooner or
later.
Olympus, yes, Olympus (who
knew?) after a long absence from the category has hit one out of the park. If I
were to choose today which high end digital compact camera to buy it would
probably be Olympus XZ-1.
"High
end compact" is a very specific term referring to pocket-sized wonders of
digital imaging technology offering image quality and versatility
that approaches that of the professional cameras (which are
heavy, bulky and expensive monsters). Not quite the same, of
course, but the difference, except to the pros and some finicky
amateurs, is not worth the financial and physical burden that comes with
near perfection. I own not one but two high end
compacts (a Leica D-LUX 4 and a Canon G-11) and up until recently, these two
pretty much represented the top of the heap. No more.
The mere presence of the XZ-1 on the market calls for
a review of my equipment needs. But I also have a major photographic
expedition in the offing. So I had to take a hard look at the situation.
Here is what it is (non-photo-geeks
can skip this paragraph). XZ-1 offers a faster lens of excellent quality
with a longer zoom (f 1.8-2.2, 28mm-112mm) than the D-LUX 4 although the
wide end is not as wide. It has a super brilliant 3" OLED display which can be
supplemented with an excellent clip-on electronic viewfinder (expensive). It has
excellent ergonomics - it is very easy and intuitive to use. In some
reviews it was alleged that it had lower noise at high sensitivities but on
close examination it turned out to be about the same as D-LUX 4 and not as
good as G-11 (which is outstanding in this respect).
Bottom line: yes, the XZ-1 has greater capability for
excellent images in difficult light situations than either D-LUX or the G-11.
Would I trade my D-LUX 4 for an XZ-1? I'd be tempted to, if I could
get a wide angle conversion lens for the XZ-1. Would I trade the G-11 for an
XZ-1? Probably not. In the end, the XZ-1 advantage is not enough to justify
changing my present equipment, especially not if its going to cost
me. Perhaps the XZ-2 will be the one I won't be able to resist. For now,
I'm sticking with what I've got.
Until next time,
Paul W.
03/28/11 (#0972)
With all due respect to His Holiness, "happy" is too sloppy
a word to use in declaratory sentences without explication. Implied in that
opening sentence is the assumption that happiness can be achieved and
maintained. From this follows that "happiness" that cannot be maintained
(e.g. a coke high) is not actually happiness. The sort of maintainable happiness
that the Dalai Lama has in mind is what the Nutshell calls "joy". Unfortunately,
maintenance requires intention, attention and appropriate action. That last bit,
however, can perhaps be some day delegated to intelligent robots to look
after while we go to the gym to work off the flab. Relief is on the way, sir,
but I would not suggest holding your breath... - the Ed
Divinity manifested
No, absolutely not. The Nutshell may
be nuts but not nuts enough to attempt to define "God". So what business has the
Nutshell using the word "divinity", in the title yet? Actually, what
we plan to talk about in this Nutshell is "manifested divinity" which is finite and observable and
thus accessible to human comprehension. We're talking natural phenomena here,
people.
The entire universe is
often proposed as a manifestation of the divine. Of course, we don't know that
much about the universe (even though we think we do) so there's plenty of room
for skepticism. To a determined atheist or even an honest agnostic it's not a
terribly convincing example. The Nutshell intends to be more subtle than
that.
A better choice for an
example of manifested divinity is the homo sapiens,
the alleged Imago Dei, although some will argue this is actually a
perfect counter-example (of course, that's not a proper refutation - a
counter-example implies an example but never mind). However, following the
Nutshell Principle ("look for the simplest possible example") we're going
to keep it real simple, so simple that there is no place to hide and no way
to get confused.
Thus
the Nutshell proposes as a manifestation of divinity the simple, fundamental
action of distinguishing (or differentiating) between one thing and
another, or (which is the same thing) between one state of the universe
and another (on the smallest possible scale, of course). We note in passing
that the universe is actually made up of a countless multitude of such
elementary distinctions.
The
reason we propose this elementary action as an example of manifested divinity is
that its very occurrence immediately raises two
absolutely unanswerable questions: how
and why has the distinction been made?
That absolute unanswerability, claims the Nutshell, is a mark of the
divine. Of course, unanswerability does not prevent us from speculating, which
is why homo sapiens (the only animal on our
planet capable of speculation) is an intrinsically religious
creature.
Until next time,
Paul W.
03/26/11 (#0971) Do you
want to be happy?
Now what sort of an idiotic question is that? Do I seriously expect anyone to answer "no"?
Well, as a matter of fact, yes.
There are people who do not want to be happy.
Actually.
Why, for heaven's sake?
you ask. There are three categories of people who do not want to be happy.
Some feel they do not deserve to be happy - happiness fills them with
guilt. Some are afraid of happiness - they are afraid that it will soon escape
leaving them even more unhappy than before. And some don't believe there is such
a thing as happiness or have no idea what it is and cannot
even imagine it.
One
problem these people share with all the rest of us who do want to be happy is
that actually nobody knows what exactly happiness is. Usually people don't
realize that they are (or were) happy until after the fact. The moment they ask
thamselves the question: "am I happy?" the answer seems to evaporate. People
can't tell if they are happy if they have to think about it.
Happiness, being so completely
subjective, is actually unrelated to facts on the ground and is not necesarily
an indication that all is well with one (although it helps if that is indeed the
case). Happiness is associated with feeling in harmony with the present
moment, feeling that one is in the right place at the right time,
feeling "with it", alert, aware, involved and able to respond to the situation
appropriately with grace and effect. Even though it may be only a drug
induced illusion. The big problem is that happiness is a feeling and
feelings are transitory and change all the time. People may want to be happy but
they do not trust happiness to last.
What everybody, without
exception, actually wants is to be joyful. The Nutshell defines "joy"
as a sense of rightness, of just the right balance of chaos and order in
one's life to be interesting wihout being life-threatening. Joy requires
attention and action but it is sustainable indefinitely. Joy makes sense of
life, it infuses life with meaning. Joy is objective, grounded in facts.
And it is supported by conscious intention. Joy is a state of appreciative
consciousness which is subtler than a visceral feeling such as happiness.
Unfortunately, attentive, conscious
action is rather rare . Most of us are operating most of the time on
automatic, acting by habit, blindly seeking that feeling of happiness by trial
and error or by clinging to a memory of a past instance and trying to
recreate it.
Wishing you joy,
until next time,
Paul W.
03/25/11 (#0970)
(Re: TN
#969) The big downside of low energy is that it makes you totally
dependent on civilization and technology. - the Squirrel
True. I could not survive long in a Darwinian wilderness.
And even in a relatively civilized society I am vulnerable to bullying or
exploitation by some particularly animalistic high energy types.
Fortunately, they are unlikely to covet my most valued possessions. -
the Ed
The
immateriality of the material
First, the definition.
"Material" - adj. & n. (from L. materia - timber, stuff from which things are
constructed, rel. to mater - mother; see
also "matter", "substance") As an adjective, "material" describes the
essential quality of the universe of experience: "tangible" in the sense
of "experienceable, observable". "The material" (meaning "all that
which is material in quality") refers generally to the
experienced universe.
Ancient philosophers postulated a prima materia, the primary stuff from which the
universe of experience is constructed. Of course that begs the question: what is
the primary stuff made of? Modern philosophers have pretty much disposed of
the prima materia but, unfortunately, they have
left dangling the question: what is the universe of experience made
of? In other words, what do we mean by "material"?
The Nutshell notes that the universe
of experience consists of experience, that is, of observations and concludes,
straightforwardly, that observations is what the experienced universe is made
of. The next question is, who or what is making all the observations that
make up the universe? To this the Nutshell offers a radical but simple and
reasonable answer: consciousness.
What is "consciousness"? It's the Nutshell's version of prima materia but subtler. Consciousness, according to
the Nutshell, is the "capacity for making distinctions". A distinction
constitutes an observation. And the universe is made of observations.
The subtle kicker in this view of
how the universe is constructed is that consciousness does not exist apart from
the distinction - the consciousness and the distinction are simultaneous
and inseparable. Together they constitute the elementary atom of the
material reality. We humans are highly complex organisms built up from such
atoms. Our complex consciousness is an artifact of our organic integrity as
individuals. Our observations as integrated individuals are the net sum of
all the observations of which we are made.
There is one other absolutely essential component of
the experienced universe which is responsible for the distinction being made in
the first place and for the evolution of the universe generally and that is desire. But that's another story.
Until next time,
Paul W.
03/24/11 (#0969) In praise of
low energy
There are people in this world, quite a few, in fact,
who in a week accomplish more than I do in a year and in an hour what
would take me a month. That's in terms of direct
personal output, unamplified by a hierarchy of subordinates. These are
the high energy people and I find it exhausting just to talk with one. But
even people of average energy are, in general, much more productive
than I am because I belong to the category of low energy people. That's just the
way it is and there is nothing to be done about it.
Low energy may have physiological or psychological causes or
both. I'm sure that in my case, as in most cases, it's both but as best I can
tell, it's mostly physiological, in part due to marginal
hypothyroidism.
Energy and
intelligence are not necessarily correlated. This occasionally gives me an edge
over people of average to high energy but below average intelligence.
I try to use my energy as intelligently and as
efficiently as I can - I have to.
But there is an upside to being a low energy person and it
is important that I fully appreciate this. Working more slowly brings
opportunities for deeper reflection in course of work and more control over
it - it can produce, potentially, more solid, better thought out results.
On the other hand, some spontaneity of execution is lost (though not the
spontaneity of concept).
Low
energy also means low intensity. While this precludes high passion and strong
feelings it also weakens obsessions leading to a clearer, more
rational view of the world and one's work. It makes for a calmer, more
serene life, a good platform for critical analysis. Last, but not least, it
reduces stress and wear and tear on the body. However, there is the
danger that the stress may drop below the minimum level necessary to keep
the body and mind tuned up and functional. I do have to watch for that.
Low energy life is a good life, an
enjoyable life. What it lacks in accomplishment and intensity it makes up
in peace, harmony and appreciation of beauty. I have learned to be content with
it.
Until next time,
Paul W.
04/23/11 (#0968) Or maybe
not
Yesterday's Nutshell notwithstanding, I don't think
I am ready for angelhood. Not if it involves being permanently plugged
into a universal instantaneous communications device (UICD). There's more to
life than communications.
Let's
get back to basics here. Why do we aspire to angelhood? What are its rewards?
The Nutshell offers a startlingly simple answer: "An intense appreciation
of being with no distractions". Of course, there will always be
distractions such as maintenance of the infrastructure that makes
being and the appreciation of it possible to begin with but we should
be able to relegate that chore to our super-intelligent robotic slaves.
Being an angel is all about
appreciation. And no distractions means no unnecessary noise. It
is not in the angelic nature to be involved in a chaotic
global free-for-all of opinions, beliefs and ideas. Communication among
angels takes form of inspiring symposia where individual ways of
appreciation are shared and refined and new ones contemplated.
For angels, as for humans, chaos,
creativity and the indeterminate (yet malleable) and ever
new future are necessary for appreciation of being. But angels,
unlike humans, are exquisitely sensitive to the right balance of chaos and order
required to create beauty, grace, wonder and awe. They do not get lost or head
out on wild goose chases or waste time on quixotic enterprises. They are focused
on deep appreciation of the evolving here-now and on guiding it in the
direction of ever greater delight in being.
Since we're part angels already we understand all that but
we can't help getting distracted and confused by our animal nature. We miss out
on much of potential appreciation of being by chasing false leads and nutty
notions. We keep making ourselves miserable which only serves to distract
and confuse us more. Some of us go into a tail spin and perish or become
permanently damaged. Given our human situation it's no wonder we
aspire to angelhood. But will universal instantaneous communication help us
achieve it or just drive us completely batty?
Until next time,
Paul W.
03/22/11 (#0967) The coming of the Age of Wisdom?
A
friend of mine, a professional pessimist and
curmudgeon who once wrote a column in the Toronto Globe & Mail under the title "The Churl of the Mortgage Manor", was
chronically convinced that "things are worse than they could possibly be
and rapidly deteriorating". When I, a professional optimist and joymonger, find
myself tempted to agree with him, either the world is truly about to fall apart
or else I need another antacid pill.
I believe it's just a temporary depression - I've had a bad
cold and I haven't yet got over its debilitating effects, is what it is. As soon
as I feel more normal I'll don my sandals (spring is here) and go out to stand
on the corner of Broadway and 42nd with a big sign proclaiming "THE BEGINNING IS
NEAR!". It has to be. I feel it in my bones. "It's always darkest before the
dawn" and so on, and so forth.
Truth to tell, it's not so dark where I am. I could
easily ignore the rest of the world and cocoon here in Possum Hollow out of
reach of terrorists, tsunamis, radioactive plumes and Republicans. I expect
all my bills to continue to be paid until I die by a couple of
heretofore reliable governments and I figure the world economy has a few
years of expansion left in it yet so for the time being I'm not too
concerned about my investments, such as they are. What keeps me paying
attention to the world is that I am increasingly fascinated by the
phenomenon of humanity (of course, being a member helps). I think it may be
on the verge of growing up.
The
alternative is a descent into savagery followed, if we're lucky and
plucky enough, by climbing out of it again perhaps to go through the cycle
again, perhaps to break out of the cycle and complete our
angelification. But I think it may just be possible for us to do that
before the end of the present cycle. Technology may be the game
changer. Maybe the catalyst we need to bootstrap ourselves into full angelhood
is the "artificial" (more accurately "synthetic") intelligence.
A.I. can change the game in two
principal ways: one, by augmenting our wet-ware to improve the quality of our
thinking and, two, by making global communications universal and instantaneous.
With a global view of what is actually the case and capacity for in-depth
analysis we will have the potential for reaching humanity-wide consensus.
Potential, not the actuality. The joker in the deck is that before we can
reach such a consensus we must come to an agreement about what it is
that we want. At present, individuals, families, tribes and nations each have
their own particular beliefs about what constitutes a meaningful
human life, many of them in radical opposition to one another. But with
effective global communications perhaps rationalization of individual
beliefs will become feasible. That would be a giant step towards
increasing mutual trust among peoples of all kinds and a start of a serious and
fruitful conversation about where we're headed as a species.
The one thing I really hate
about dying is that I'll never know how it all comes out. But maybe just as
well.
Until next time,
Paul W.
03/19/11 (#0966) The importance
of being superficial
MFRs know that I am not a
people person. Marvellous animals though they be, people get on my nerves
because of the way their intelligence makes them stupid. They have just enough
awareness and understanding to get themselves totally confused (and in trouble).
And those are the likeable ones. The ones that really raise my hackles are
those who manage to avoid confusion by putting on a set of blinders. That is a gross insult to humanity. But let
me not get started.
My point is,
people are, in general, by and large, for the most part, and as a rule, quite
superficial. They don't see the Big Picture so they get lost in the details. I
have little patience for details.
But then I had this epiphany.
There is no Big Picture. It's
all details. Depth is an illusion - it's
just convoluted surface. Surface is where it's at, where life is lived
and where everything happens. The Big Picture is just a conjecture, an
ex post facto attempt to make sense of the
details of life. It's great entertainment and it can even be useful in making
short term predictions by noticing local patterns in the surface detail. But the
thing is, the Big Picture can only be built from the
ground up. It does not exist out there somewhere, ready-made and complete.
We make it up as we go along.
In
fact, if we don't live life at the level of its details we have
nothing to go on. We cannot live in the Big Picture. All we know, all we can know of reality is the details. And we cannot
avoid getting lost in the details because whatever maps we may draw of the
territory we find ourselves in the map is not
the territory. And maps keep going out of date even as we draw
them.
That said, it's still
a fact that most people have more brain power than they can handle. My
sincere advice to one and all: do not think unless
absolutely necessary. And take time to enjoy the details 'cause that's all there is..
Until next time,
Paul W.
03/18/11 (#0965)
(Re: TN
#964) You neglected to mention the planetary magnetic field which is
needed to deflect the solar wind, the stream of hot charged particles emitted by
the sun which, if it reached the Earth's surface, would promptly fry any life
there. - the Squirrel
Yeah, that too. I was deliberately
keeping the picture simple for sake of clarity. - the Ed
Energy defined
The challenge was irresistible.
Besides, we can't have the Nutshell bandying about undefined terms. It would
lose all credibility (assuming it has any to lose). So here is the Nutshell's
official definition of energy.
Energy is that which makes a
difference (or drives a change [in the state of the universe] - which
means exactly the same thing).
Wherever there is a difference, there is energy. The
smallest observable difference is the quantum which
is also the smallest possible quantity of energy. (There are no
differences smaller than the smallest observable difference because observation
is what brings a difference into existence -but that's another
and rather old story).
Energy is a characteristic of an event, that is, of an observed difference or
change. It is descriptive of the difference/change, particularly its magnitude
and direction. (Note that all magnitudes are relative - there are no
absolute magnitudes. Also, magnitudes are necessarily finite, zero or
infinity are not possible.) At the level of elementary events, the
difference/change is always a quantum
difference (i.e., smallest observable under the circumstances) regardless
of its relative magnitude.
Since the elementary events constitute the absolute
units of the space-time framework, their energy represents energy
density per unit of space-time. This has all sorts of interesting ramifications
but we won't pursue them here. We've done our job of defining "energy" and we'll
leave it at that before we lose all the readers. (Oh, we lost them all already? Oh well...)
Until next time,
Paul W.
03/17/11 (#0964)
"May you live a hundred years and one more to
repent!" (An old Irish blessing)
Energy
For once the Nutshell chooses to
refrain from beginning with a definition. Defining energy is too daunting a task
to encompass within a mere Nutshell. Besides, I doubt it can be done at all
(other than as MC2). However, whatever energy may
be we know a lot about what it does. For
one it makes life as we know it possible.
Life needs a certain amount of energy to sustain
itself. This amount has to be just right - not too little and not too much.
Insufficiency or excess are both lethal. (Hence planets capable of sustaining
life are a rarity in the universe).
The primary source of energy in the universe are the stars
(or, more fundamentally, gravitation, but that's another story). Of course,
the stars themselves cannot support life - their energy is far too intense. Life
needs a platform that is sufficiently far away from a star for the energy
flux to fall in the "just right" range. This, by the way, also requires the
right kind of atmosphere density and chemistry to filter out the hottest
and most harmful rays. Which happens to be the case
with the Earth.
The Sun's energy
is delivered to the Earth in an approximately steady stream. Some of it is used
to drive the weather system. Some of it is used to support life. Some of it is
stored in various forms. And some is radiated back out into space. To
maintain the status quo all these energy flows have to add up to a net zero.
Otherwise the Earth would be getting either hotter or colder with time,
eventually becoming unsuitable as a platform for life.
Civilized life uses far more energy
than primitive life. We had to find supplementary sources of energy to
support our civilized ways and our growing numbers. We could extract some more
solar energy out of the weather system (as wind energy, for example) or gather
it directly where it is underutilized or reflected back out into space (as in
deserts or on rooftops). But the easiest way turned out to be recovering energy
stored over millions of years in the form of various carbon compounds.
Unfortunately, that route
involves changing the composition and chemistry of the atmosphere which in
turn reduces the rate at which energy is radiated out so that the net
effect is accumulation of solar energy, i.e. the planet is growing warmer. Which
is where we are.
Now
another star-made source of energy available to us is in form of heavy,
unstable atoms which can be smashed into smaller atoms releasing quite a bit of
energy in the process. In fact, way too much all at once, making harnessing
it into useable forms tricky and dangerous. It can be done, but there
is always the chance the genie will escape from the bottle and wreak havoc on
life.
Our problem turns out to be
not insufficiency but, in fact, surfeit of energy - we are generating and
using more energy that we can properly manage. We have to get a grip on the
global energy flows and rebalance them. Can we do it? Sure. Will we?
Until next time,
Paul W.
03/16/11 (#0963)
Good job, Northern Observer, for a first try. No,
really. But what exactly is your problem with the
little bird that observed the event? Actually, it was not only the bird but also
the ionized air through which the bolt passed, and the branch itself or,
rather, those molecules and atoms of it that came in contact with the noggin of
the victim, the said noggin itself observing the event, at least on the
molecular and individual organ level. There were, indeed, witnesses
aplenty to the event that temporarily knocked apart the higher cosciousness
structure associated with the possessor of the noggin so that at this highest
level he was absent for a short time after the event. And the reason his
first words on rebooting were "What happened?" is because his
intended observation and the actual one were so widely diverse. It
happens. It's a statistical world. Intentionality only improves the odds, it
doesn't guarantee the results... - the Ed
P.S. No, you can't significantly improve your chances
of rolling sixes by intending anymore than you can add an inch to your stature
by intending. There are far too many chaotic factors involved. The
improvement in odds is lost in the overwhelming system noise. In the latter
case there may be other, possibly opposing intentionalities
involved - e.g. your spinal cord might be interested in keeping the status
quo for reasons of its own.
Freedom of belief
The Nutshell has oft noted that we
are all believers by sheer necessity. We are only set apart by the content of
our belief.
The thing about
belief is that it is absolute. Unlike knowledge, belief is not based on
inaccurate observations or questionable facts. It is what it is, sui generis, beyond questioning. It is, like love, an
act of will. Beliefs fall into two classes: rational, which do not contradict
experience, and irrational, which may be partly or wholly out of touch with
observed reality.
Standing
in for the knowledge we lack and can't (or do not wish to) obtain, beliefs,
along with what knowledge we may posess, form the basis of our intentions and
decisions. Indeed they provide a far firmer basis than knowledge. We act on
our beliefs in full assurance that we are right, a luxury not afforded by mere
facts. Such conviction pays off, certainly where there is no conflict
between belief and facts on the ground but sometimes also in face of
"impossible" odds, overriding facts with sheer faith.
The practical proof of belief
is in the results it produces when applied to real life problems. The Nutshell
has a simple way of sorting the good and the bad results: the good ones enhance
our enjoyment of being, the bad ones do the opposite. To the beliefs which
enhance our enjoyment of life we may well apply the honorific of "faith". To
those which result in degradation and destruction of life we can apply the
label of "fanaticism". In either case it is a matter of acting on
something we are absolutely sure of. You can see that kind of absolute assurance
in the eyes of a tiger about to pounce on his prey or in the eyes of a
martyr being led to a stake or about to blow himself up.
Technically, in a democracy, no
attempt may be made to control what people believe. We can use powers
of rhetoric to influence what people freely choose to believe and we can
use demonstrable facts to correct irrational belief. We can teach
people methods of rational thought. But ultimately people will believe what
they will believe, much of it without any rational grounds. Often, belief
is an emotional, highly subjective response to a psychic trauma. The
partitions dividing faith from fanaticism can be thin indeed. It is critical
that we pay close attention to the fruits of our beliefs.
But how, in a country that professes
freedom of belief, do we stop someone who acts destructively (in our
view) out of profound faith?
Until next time,
Paul W.
03/15/11 (#0962) How to create practically
anything
Things are brought into being by observation. (Unobserved
things do not exist.) Observation is a function of consciousness.
The interesting question is, how is
it determined what is observed? Experience suggests
that intention (that is, informed
desire) plays a role but that intention is not the sole
determinant of what is observed. In fact, what is actually observed is always at some variance with what was
intended.
This variance has
two components: a systematic error due to intrinsic
uncertainly as to the relative location and magnitude of what has
been observed; and a statistical error due to the number of possible
alternative observations and their individual probabilities.
It is important to note at this
point that the probability distribution for all possible observations is
weighted in favor of the intended observation (proportionately to the
clarity and intensity of intention) but this weighting is
statistical. In any particular instance any one of all possible
observations might be made. However, provided the intended observation
is in the realm of possible, a sufficiently large number of
observations should yield a "close enough" result.
So go and have fun creating stuff.
Hint: for your first creation try to pick something that is not too
improbable.
Until next time,
Paul W.
03/14/11 (#0961) Dept. of movie
reviews: "Fantasia"
I sympathise with Walt Disney. He
was, more so than Norman Rockwell who often transcended that
derogatory label, an "illustrator", a commercial artist (with a small a). Disney
turned out to be a much better businessman than Artist but he had his Artistic
aspirations which were never fully realized. He remained a wannabe
Artist.
He hired people to
create his animated movies some of whom were
unquestionably Artists. An interesting factoid: for a time Salvador Dalí worked
for Disney on production of the "world's first surrealist animated cartoon". It
was, in fact, considered for inclusion in "Fantasia". This never happened
and the whole project was shelved and buried with no reasons given. I
believe Disney felt he lost creative control - it wasn't a Disney product. Fifty years later, after Disney's
death, the materials were rescued from oblivion and the short film was
completed with the help of the Disney Artist who had originally worked
on it with Dalí. But that's another story.
What actually went into "Fantasia" were some hokey attempts
at illustrating "absolute" music (Bach's Toccata and
Fugue in D), an engaging and quite
beautiful semi-abstract graphic interpretation of Tchaikovski's Nutcracker Suite, a hilarious Disney comic cartoon
with a score by Ponticelli (Dance of the
Hours), a graphically innovative piece of New York nostalgia set to
Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue and, of course, the Sorcerer's Apprentice , a straightforward cartoon set
to Paul Ducas' music, the most renown piece of the set, starring
Mickey Mouse himself. There's certainly enough here to invite repeat
viewings.
Also included but
forgettable are Stravinsky's Rite of
Spring dressed up in somber, plodding, uninspired graphics and a
kitschy illustration of Beethoven's Pastoral
Symphony featuring topless "centaurettes". The set concludes with
Moussorgsky's A night on the Bald Mountain which
segueys into Gounod's Ave Maria. The graphics,
semi-abstract, now look unremarkable although, for their time, they were
probably quite avant guarde.
"Fantasia" was Disney's
attempt to break into the world of Art with capital A. As such, it
fails. Nevertheless it is a groundbreaking piece of animation art, as
witnessed by the fact that when first released it was a commercial flop (Disney
was sincere in trying to distance himself from his commercial
instincts). Since then it has become a national treasure and a money maker for
the Disney empire. In 2000, "Fantasia 2000" was released to cash in on the fame
of the original. It is primarily distinguished by another hilarious Disney
cartoon answering the question what happens when you mix a bunch of flamingos
and a yoyo. But that's another story.
Until next time,
Paul W.
03/13/11 (#0960)
(Re: TN #959) Thank you so much
for the wonderful tribute. Here are details of Claire's last days - please feel
free to poublish trhem in the Nutshell. Claire was in hospital for the past
seven weeks because her normal feeding tube could not be used until a hole in
her stomach healed up. Nutrition via intravenous catheter could not be
easily administered at home. Although the surgeon in charge felt that the hole
should close in 6 to 8 weeks, by the 7th week it still showed no signs of
closing, so he was going to schedule surgery to close it on the week of March
5-12. It was not a life-threatening issue, and no one expected her to die. On
the night between Friday and Saturday, March 4-5, she was, according to
Oudone, the lady attending on her at night, complaining of discomfort and
calling for me. Oudone asked her to let me sleep, since if I did not get sleep I
would not be able to come and attend to her during the day as I always did with
a break between 6 pm and 9 pm to go home for dinner and be with the children.
Eventually, Oudone reports, Claire said: "Yes, let him sleep." On Saturday I
came to the hospital as usual at around 9:30 am, and found her sleeping
peacefully. At noon I turned her over to administer her medication and to enable
the nurse to take her vital signs; they were okay. She was a little incoherent
when asked questions, but she often was incoherent when sleepy, so I did not
think much of it. A doctor happened to be in attendance at that time too, and
observed her with great diligence. So I resumed work on my computer, and didn't
think much of it. The nurse came to check on her at around 2:30 pm and she was
blue around the lips and cold! I was so scared. Doctors rushed in, and some
nurses took me out of the room, because I was screaming with anguish so loudly
they had to put me into a small room at the back of the nursing station to
prevent me from disturbing others. They let me back into the room with her a
while later when I had calmed down a bit, and told me she was dead. I felt so
guilty that I had not got up from the chair to check on her periodically, but
the doctor who had been there at noon, and who had returned as soon as he heard,
told me that there would have been nothing I could could have done even if I had
checked. The suspicion is that she underwent a pulmonary embolism or a stroke,
i.e., a blood clot must have migrated from where it had formed and into some
vital organ like a lung or the brain. I orderd an autopsy to find out the
cause of the death.
Her
death is so unfortunate because her long-standing pain had finally, after
about 20 years, come under almost total control with two drugs which had brought
it down to almost negligible levels. Had she lived she would have lived an
almost pain-free life. I always believed she would live a normal life span.
People with her condition, which is called "Spinal Muscular Atrophy type 3"
normally do live a normal life span. I don't think it was her underlying
condition that was the cause of her death, even secondarily. But perhaps
she was borderline between SMA types 2 and 3. People with SMA type 2 die early,
typically before reaching adulthood. Nevertheless, if it was a blood clot or
stroke that killed her, it can't have been the SMA and in that sense she did
indeed live a "normal life span".
She, like Moneca [my daughter who
had been Claire's close friend - the Ed] donated her organs. She was
cremated on Tuesday, March 7. I have her ashes in an urn which I keep in the
living room in a book case full of her books, with an old Bible next to the urn.
The Memorial Service was held March 11 at 11:00 AM at Rideau Park United Church.
It was a beautiful Service, including scripture readings taken from the Gospel
according to John, Chapters 14 and 15, and a hymn adapted from Psalm 90.
I totally understand that you could
not be here for the Memorial Service. Please accept for yourself, and pass on to
all our mutual friends, my apologies for not having been in touch with all of
you more often; I shall try to rectify all my faults as soon as I become aware
of them. With my sincerest love and regard, - Ardeshir.
[Per Ardeshir's wishes and with his permission,
I publish the text of his comment in full (with minor editing). - the
Ed]
My personal values
Now that the Nutshell has disposed of the Great No. 1
Existential Question ("WHY?" - the Nutshell's answer: "to
maximize universal enjoyment of being" which is 21st-century-speak
for "Ad Majoram Gloriam Dei") there only
remain No. 2 ("WHAT?") and No. 3 ("HOW?") to deal with. So let's deal
with them.
Unlike No. 1 which is
absolutely general and non-specific and applies to all of Creation, Nos. 2 &
3 are specific and personal. They are where the nuts & bolts of creation
reside, "where the rubber meets the road" as the saying goes, and they
apply differently to each identifiably individual creature, such as me and you.
And I am only interested in my WHAT and my HOW. I can't possibly help you with yours - the best I can do is to cheer you on
and listen to you without commenting. Also, you're welcome to
borrow my logic tool kit.
This is
important. The fact that my WHAT and my HOW are unique to me takes a huge,
impossible load off my mind. There are no standards set up by anyone
else by which I must measure myself (except in so far as it may
be part of my personal Goal
(WHAT) or my personal Strategy
(HOW) to meet some particular other one's standards).
My WHAT and my HOW are delimited by
my personal resources and my personality. So what have I got to work with and
what do I enjoy? My physical and social resources are well below
average. This makes certain choices of WHAT and HOW impractical or
self-defeating. E.g., I am not destined to be an athlete or
a performer of any sort. On the other hand, I can deal with ideas, words
and images more effectively than an average joe. In the world of ideas I may not
be a genius but neither am I a klutz. More important than that, ideas interest me intensely.
That's the key. Natural facility is a welcome grace but
desire and energy are crucial to success. Energy is the heartbreaker
issue for me. My energy and endurance are low and not improving with age.
I can't keep up with the pace of the world - I am forever lagging
behind everybody else. This may be daunting but it's not a stopper. In
choosing my WHAT and HOW I need to choose tasks which do not need to be
accomplished in "real time", all at once, but rather find those whose value is
timeless, that can be completed a little at a time with little or no
deadline pressure. I can then compensate for low energy by taking more
time to complete my tasks.
There's one other factor I need to be mindful of: my WHAT
must be Something New Under the Sun. This means I never know what my
WHAT will actually turn out to be. My enjoyment of being comes from
creation/discovery of never before seen patterns, ideas, images,
of new beauty to make an
even greater appreciation of the world possible. Ad Majoram Gloriam Dei. That's my ultimate personal
value. The rest is details.
Until
next time,
Paul W.
03/12/11 (#0959)
(Re: TN
#958) Weighing in here where angels fear to tread! About your
"rant" on Art reviews: put your mind/eyes to rest, dear man/my dear bro., and
just enjoy the deliberate obfuscation, otherwise known as Art Babel, for what it
usually is: pure entertainment, pure 'n simple! Emperor's New Clothes
comes to mind, one of my all time favourite childhood stories. From a
fellow artist who, like you, is NOT a "sheeple". - c
What strikes me in virtually all the reviews I read (and it
is something I am particularly sensitive to since I do it myself all the time)
is how the reviewer's very subjective and/or very
fanciful impressions are presented to the
reader unironically as the self-evident, carved-in-marble Truth. I am
amazed that even the top names in Art Criticism do it, apparently
with total lack of self-consciousness. - the Ed
In memoriam Claire Mehta
It has been my fortune to meet a number of remarkable people
and of these one of the most remarkable was Claire Mehta of Ottawa,
Canada who died last Saturday at age 55, leaving the world a better place
for having lived in it.
I
don't know what finally cut the thread of her life which, according
to medical expertise, was not expected to stretch beyond her
twenties. Born with a severely disabling disease Claire refused to let
that limit her potential. I'm sure she went down fighting - she was not yet
finished with her business here. Even so, she leaves a rich legacy
widely cast among all who were touched or inspired by her generous
spirit, from her husband and their three children, her many friends and
family, to all those who have benefitted from her public fight, both
as a lawyer and as plaintiff, for the rights of the disempowered and
the disabled.
I
don't think many people knew that Claire was a talented artist. It was one of
her potentials never fully realized because her chosen direction in life was to
help others live better. She never sought glory or appreciation for
herself - knowing that she had made others' lives happier was reward
enough for her. A true real life hero, she leaves a hole which, as a
tribute to her, we, left behind, need to fill in.
Until next time,
Paul W.
P.S.
I never made it to Claire's memorial service after all - but that's another
story.
03/10/11
(Re TN
#958) I've never read an art review, believing that good art is totally
subjective. All I know is that I am grateful daily for your and your
sister's art that graces my house. Your work has been appreciated by all
who have seen them. - Rhoda
You are
wise. I keep reading art reviews in hope of learning something but to the best
of my knowledge that has never happened. Don't take my over-the-top rant too
seriously - it's just an ironic hyperbole (excuse my French). - the Ed.
As you are reading this I am en route to a memorial service
for a very dear friend. The next Nutshell is scheduled for Monday, March
14th.
Until then.
Paul W.
03/08/11 (#0958) Art
mis-appreciation
The Nutshell has oft waxed eloquent on the subject of
Art with capital A, one of my favorite hobby horses. I thought we had it pretty much wrestled down to the
ground and under control. Then I read current Art reviews (by the
most respectable Art critics - I read none other) and I wind up tossing
them in the air in total frustration. I really must quit reading Art
reviews - it's very bad for my nerves.
The only rational conclusion I can draw is that either
the Art critics are all complete idiots, the whole lot of them, or I
am. Since the latter seems more likely, let's work with that. I am
a complete idiot. Fine. What am I doing then pretending to be an Artist? My
understanding of Art (going by the reviews I read) is about on par with that of
an ant. Maybe not quite so sophisticated as
that.
I have not the
slightest idea what these people are talking about in their
reviews. They appear to be using English
but it's 100% incomprehensible. I recognize individual words but all
together they make no sense whatever. I can't make anything out. Total blank.
Maybe it's because I have no formal
education in Art, Art history, Art philosophy and, above all, Art
speak. Evidently, I am a profound Art illiterate and the language of the
Art critics is hermetically closed to me. Curiously, Art itself, much of it
anyway, is not. I look at Art and I actually appreciate and enjoy it - it
actually makes aesthetic sense to me (granted, not all of it, but most). In any
case, it makes infinitely more sense to me than the critical reviews. But
perhaps - indeed, almost certainly - I am deluded. What I appreciate
about Art is undoubtedly Artistically irrelevant and not in the
least what it is really about, not even close. After all, I am a complete idiot.
As for creating Art myself - that is, clearly, a wholly
pathetic and laughable idea. I might as well try flying to the moon using
my ears for wings.
Until next
time,
Paul W.
03/07/11 (#0957) What saves America from
democracy
Democracy is based on an act of faith in the essential
goodness of mankind, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Actually, we
have no choice (or, rather, we do, but the alternative is too horrible to
contemplate). We have to make that act of faith and
we have to make it true or perish. It's a bootstrapping operation whereby
we yank ourselves out of our animal natures and into angelhood. Currently we're
in that awkward stage where we're half in half out and tripping all over
ourselves.
The Nutshell defines
"goodness" as "that which enhances enjoyment of being". (Of course, the Nutshell
did not invent that definition. The credit for that goes to Epicurus.) The
problem is that most people don't know how to enjoy being. There are many
who are actually afraid to enjoy being and then there are some who positively
refuse to. Even those who are more than willing to give it a try too
often have no clue how to go about it and wind up screwing up horribly and
becoming cynical pessimists (assuming they survive).
The problem is rooted in the
confusion about what we are, what is the source of our joy. Much of this
confusion comes from the social environment we are born into and raised in. We
are taught imperfectly, incompletely and confusingly about what is good and bad
in life and eventually we have to sort it out for ourselves through direct
experience and such rational analysis as we are capable of. But democrats count
on one other factor to improve our education: our inherent
goodness, that innate ability to recognize right from wrong if we pay attention. It is the only thing that justifies faith in democracy.
The Nutshell believes that we humans
do have the potential for that innate
knowledge of good and evil but that in many of us this remains stunted or
distorted by deprivation, disease or deliberate deception. The Nutshell has
no statistics on this, but it is our impression that those of us who have
the grace of an unfettered capacity for enjoyment of being are a
distinct minority. We therefore conclude that to the extent that America has
prospered and thrived, it is no democracy. Rather, our success as a nation is
the doing of a minority of special individuals who have carried us
through the democratic noise and confusion by the strength of their
grace.
Until next time.
Paul W.
03/05/11 (#0956)
(Re" TN #955) There is a third
possibility which you did not mention: that the economic topping out will
be followed by a decline and disintegration of civilization with perhaps a
phoenix-like rebirth when things get bad enough. That is actually the most
likely scenario and one which may have already been enacted in our mythical
past, perhaps more than once. Also: you left out a potentially significant part
of the earth-moon-sun system namely the nearby comets and asteroids
which could, with little notice, radically change the course of events here
on earth. - the Squirrel
I am an
optimist. Ever onwards and upwards, I say. And we now have ways
of dealing with wayward asteroids. - the Ed
Why
I have no intention of writing a novel
Novels belong essentially to the
same category of literature as plays, movies, comics (including "graphic
novels") and video games. They have the advantage of being purely
verbal leaving it to the reader to supply the visualization in his/her
mind. To people with rich imaginations this is a major advantage. To
them a good novel can feel much more real and immersive than a
movie. Not being limited by time and space considerations a
novel can offer fuller detail and greater scope and,
unlike a movie whose pace is set by the director, a novel can be
savored at the reader's own pace. But I digress.
Even though my dominant mode of appreciation of the
world is visual, my principal creative medium is ideas rather than
images. More specifically, ideas expressed in a formal language. I
rarely use metaphors, allegories,
hyperboles, similes or other such poetical paraphernalia. My
preferred style is straight ahead clear logic with an occasional bit
of irony thrown in. This is not such stuff as
novels are made on.
Making
a novel requires verbal artistry, a feeling for the architecture of drama,
and a detailed, in-depth familiarity with and caring for its characters. Whereas all I
can offer is good grammar. As for characters, I have known a few
but never identified with any of them sufficiently to be able
to recreate their authentic voices. If I were to write a novel, my
characters would all speak clearly in gramatically correct sentences
and logically constructed paragraphs. Not only that, they would all think
and act rationally and avoid saying or doing anything stupid. That's because I
would only be interested in writing about human interactions as I
think they could be rather than as they are.
Instead of a novel I might be able to pull off some
short satyrical pieces. That's because I see things in a literal way
which often produces hilarity without my doing anything other
than recording what I see and hear. The first and best piece of that sort came
into being when I was in the sixth grade. I was in a math class and
bored out of my mind as the teacher tried to make the class dummy
understand some mathematical concept. So I just wrote down verbatim what the
teacher said and what the dummy said. I got caught at this and the teacher took
my scribblings and read them aloud to the class. The kids were helpless
with laughter.
Until next
time,
Paul W.
03/04/11 (#0955) What next?
Some statistics from Wm. Bernstein's "The Birth of Plenty":
World poverty
- reduced in the last 50 years more than in the previous 500.
Average life expectancy - increased in
the last 50 years
a) in "developing" countries from 44 to 64
b) in "developed" countries from 66 to 78
Average per capita gross domestic
product annual increase worldwide
a) since
1820: 2%
b) from
the fall of the Roman Empire until 1820 - 0% or negative
Clearly, we're roaring
ahead. The world's prosperity is in the process of unprecedented
expansion despite occasional minor set backs like the recent recession. So
what happened in 1820 that made it possible for the world economy to take off?
According to Bernstein, four items reached critical mass: effective protection
of property rights and civil liberties, scientific rationalism, efficient
capital markets, and fast and cheap transportation and communications. And we
never looked back since.
So are
we having fun yet? Matt Ridley ("The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity
Evolves") is convinced the best is yet to come. We just have to find that
sweet spot of "sustainable growth". The key word is "growth". It
is accepted as self-evident that the world economy must and will continue
to grow indefinitely.
I don't
see how. Not unless we find a way to expand our world beyond the surface of
this planet. We live in an essentially closed system (consisting primarily
of the earth, the moon and the sun) whose evolution is a zero sum game.
Growth in one aspect is balanced by decline in another. We can optimize the efficiency with which we bring about
change. In fact, most of our progress to date has been the result of
increasing efficiencies which enabled us to extract much more bang
from each erg of work. There's still plenty of room left for
further fine tuning of our interaction with the world so prospects for
continued economic growth in the foreseeable future are good. But eventually we
will come to the point where no further economic growth is possible
without giving up something in return. We will have reached the optimal quality
of life that the system can support. And then what?
Then we can either settle down to enjoy our
as-good-as-it-can-ever-get life, or turn to exploration of non-economic values
to enhance our lives further such as interpersonal relationships, arts and
mathematics. Perhaps our next challenge will be to achieve full angelhood
and thus evolve beyond mere humanity.
Until next time,
Paul W.
03/03/11 (#0954)
Oh, the Nutshell would never say anything like that. If A',
A'', A''' ... all seem to fit the facts on the ground equally well it's your
choice, sir, and good luck with it. This is where the leap of faith comes
in. But if there is An which does not fit all the facts but you like it better than all
the others which do (perhaps it's especially elegant and you have this
hunch...) then unless your facts are wrong (which they just might
be) choosing An
would not be rational (though not necessarily incorrect - you may have
just had a paradigm changing epiphany which will bring you fame
and untold riches). - the Ed.
Dept. of movie reviews: "The Beggar's
Opera"
John Gay, an Englishman whose life spanned seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, wrote several plays and one "opera" for which he is
remembered to this day with a bit of help from Brecht and Weil who based their
"Three Penny Opera" on Gay's "The Beggar's Opera". Gay was one of those
pessimistic nihilists who came to the conclusion that life is a
meaningless joke (probably had a lousy childhood). "The Beggar's
Opera" is a viciously comical and grittily realistic
study of London's low life. For the music Gay borrowed (or stole) a
few dozen contemporary ditties. It was different and it was a huge
success.
In 1981 BBC produced its
version of "The Beggar's Opera". Opulently costumed, with a cast of
astonishingly abominable rogues that only BBC could have dug up, with
splendid acting, the only thing this version lacks is action. The production is
a series of well composed static images in which nothing happens other
than the dialog. The actors hit their marks, deliver their speeches or
sing, and on to the next still picture. If it wasn't for the marvellous
expressiveness of their faces there would be nothing to watch. Nobody moves at
faster than a stately pace. There is only one scene which involves anything like
cinematic action - the fight between Polly and Lucy, MacHeath's two wives.
That's it. Even the bawdy play between MacHeath and his wives and whores
languishes on verge of boredom.
That, and the fact that I could not understand a word (my
fancy speakers and optical audio cables notwithstanding) was why I fell
asleep several times while watching this movie. But I managed to see it
to its doubly perverse end. In the original the end is made
artificially "happy" by a completely arbitrary last moment reprieve
for MacHeath (who is about to be well-deservedly hanged) because, as it is
explained to the audience, an opera ought have a happy ending. In the BBC
version, the reprieve arrives just a split second too late, as MacHeath falls
through the trap door.
Until next
time,
Paul W.
03/02/11 (#0953) Real time
We synchronize our clocks to create a standard, universal
time grid to which we agree to conform, at least as far as our collective
communal activities are concerned. But our actual individual experience of
time is variable and independent of this grid. Which is "real"? The experienced
time? The standard time? Neither? Both?
Because the space-time locations of events cannot be pinned
down exactly the conventional time grid
is an approximation though it is precise enough for almost
all practical purposes. It is more than just a
social convenience: it is an essential part of
the infrastructure of a civilization that leads to a huge
expansion of opportunities for enjoyment of life. Whether or not that
synthetic time grid is "real" it has real consequences.
We arrange much (though not
all) of our life around the standard time grid. At the same time we are
aware of the discrepancy between the standard and the experienced time as
we check our watches. The time we live
in, the time that feels real to us, is the
experienced time.
The Nutshell
holds to the opinion that if it feels real it is real. The Nutshell defines "reality" as "that which
is observed", i.e., experienced or felt. Thus, hallucinations, dreams, etc. are
real mental events, as real as any of our "normal" perceptions. The problem
lies in cognitive interpretation of these events, a problem we
have to a greater or lesser degree with all of our
perceptions. On the one hand, there is our actual experience - the
reality - and on the other, there is our interpretation or
explanation of it which can range from rigorously logical,
self-consistent and verifiable to wildly fanciful and irrational.
But in no case should we ever mistake the interpretation
for reality.
Until next
time,
Paul W.
03/01/11
(#0952) Unfair
Who said it had to be fair?
Apparently, the angels. Nobody said it had to be fair until the angelification
(so far only partial) of homo sapiens . With the
angelification came the notion of fairness and the attempts (largely futile) to
ensure it. These days, at least in the civilized regions of the planet, it is
actually possible to take one's claim of unfairness to a court and maybe
even get it acknowledged and redressed (inevitably more or less unfairly).
There
is fundamental justice in the universe without which existence would
not be possible. A necessary balancing of order and chaos that allows the
universe to evolve. It's a dynamic process, maintained by repeated excursions
from the optimal balance and subsequent corrections. At the edges of this
process there's plenty of room for unfairness and nowhere is fairness
guaranteed. Not what the angels would like to see but that's the
way it is. Fairness is an angelic ideal and, like all ideals, in real life it
manifests only as a rough approximation.
Now some people jump on this as proof of
life's intrinsic unfairness and worthlessness and justification for
existential despair. It is no such thing. To begin with, unfairness is never
absolute and frequently exists only in the eye of the beholder. Just
because you can't have what you want is not necessarily unfair. Bad luck is no
more unfair than good luck is. Besides, life needs its ups and downs to keep it
interesting and to remind us we're slackening off and not paying attention. Most
bad luck is of our own making as is most suffering.
Some things are blatantly unfair, like exploitation of
the weak by the strong. In the long run it makes no economic sense and
eventually will be corrected by cosmic justice but in the short run
(which can span generations) it can wreak social havoc. (Weakness and
strength, by the way, are relative terms. Finding oneself "weak" or
"strong" in particular circumstances is not in itself unfair.) Sometimes
the exploitees are opressed to the point of loosing their life or
their humanity (already lost to the opressors) and that is tragically
unfair. But this is not what life is about. These are the accidents of life not
it's main theme which is enjoyment of being. The mere fact of the joy
of being denies all claims of life's worthlessness. The occasional
unfairness (where it is not merely imagined) in no way invalidates life's
potential for joy.
Until next
time,
Paul W.