The Nutshell
                    Number 0281

Most ideas will fit into a nutshell - this is the nutshell.  
Send comments, ideas, questions, images to thenutshell@comcast.net .
Selected items will be edited and posted here for all to admire.
For Nutshells Nos. 0001-0266 see Archives below.
To visit my web gallery go to artystoid.imagekind,com



Thursday, July 3, 2008

(Re TN 280)  It seems to me some people experience mere reduction in their pain and anxiety as enjoyment of life. - the Squirrel

Conversely, some people experience a reduction in their pleasure and delight as suffering. "Joy" and "suffering" are relative terms referring to opposite directions on the same spectrum of human experience. It's not just our relative position on the joy-suffering spectrum that determines how much we're enjoying life (or suffering) but also our movement along the spectrum. As long as we're moving (on the average) away from suffering towards joy we feel that we are enjoying life. Remaining in the same place on the spectrum, however, no matter how exalted, soon grows stale. But the joy-suffering spectrum is not one-dimensional. There are many different ways we can appreciate life. We can shift from a dimension where we are stalled or pushed back to another where progress is still possible. - the Ed


Hold the Hitchcock!


OK, so I have a weak constitution. I'm your 97 lb (I wish...) weakling from the Charles Atlas ads (you people probably don't know what I'm talking about, you're all too young to remember Charles Atlas). I'm a classic anti-athlete with aversion to any kind of physical effort. Body building has never been on my short, long or any list of things I'd touch with a ten foot pole. Lacking a chick magnet type body I compensated with "inner values" with decidedly mixed results but that's another story. (Curiously, I'm probably more fit now than I had ever been - which isn't saying much - thanks to doctor ordered regular gym workouts).

But it's not just my muscles that are weak - so are my nerves. And childhood experiences with bombs probably left me with a bit of a permanent PTSS.  The bottom line is I cannot deal with high suspense or realistic violence in movies. I can't deal with war movies, I can't deal with gore-fests and horror movies, and above all I can't deal with Alfred Hitchcock's movies. This is a compliment to Hitchckock, to his high mastery of suspense. He has my greatest admiration for his craftsmanship but I will not watch his movies. Ever. Period. I am still haunted by the memories of a couple of his movies I did inadvertently see.

I stick to comedies, intellectual dramas, visual extravaganzas (love old Hollywood musicals), science fiction space operas (but not those verging on horror, such as "The Alien"), happy fantasy films and fairy tales. I do, however, enjoy an occasional film noir or a mystery. when it is very well done.

Also hard on my nerves (and my patience) are films whose stories are based on cruelty or stupidity of the characters. Give me something inspiring or admirable - I don't need to watch sickos or morons screwing up. I find it neither instructive nor entertaining, merely irritating.

By the way, Prickles agrees with me.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.



07/02/08 (#0280)  How do I know I am enjoying my life?


This, actually, is not a stupid question. In fact, it is such a profound question the answer may not fit into a Nutshell, but we'll have a go anyway.

What does it mean "to enjoy life", anyway? Well, to put it as simply as possible it's to feel good, mentally and physically, as we go about doing what we do. Of course, I cannot explain what "feeling good" is like any more than I can explain what the color red looks like. But we all know the feeling. It's a sensation of rightness, satisfaction, pleasure, of everything going as we think it should. It's being pleased with ourselves, with what we are doing, experiencing and expecting. A sense of being in the right place at the right time doing the right thing. A sense of worth, of significance and importance. A sense of meaningfulness. of purpose, of knowing where we are going and why, and of confidence that we can and will get there.

How do we come by such a positive feeling? And how can we maximize it? That is the big question. Feeling good is a complex, multilevel and dynamic process and a great many factors contribute to it. There are the basics like good health, good information, pleasant environment, no imminent danger of any kind. Then there are weightier considerations like social approval, power, control, effectiveness. And, above all, the ultimate purpose of our actions and their appropriateness.

These last two are fundamental - it's where we begin. Once we know the what and the why, we can work out the rest according to our abilities and opportunities. So the question "am I enjoying my life?" reduces to "am I achieving my objectives?", "my objectives" being "what my heart desires".

We're still not out of the woods. For most of us, what our heart desires is not at all obvious because it is obscured by environmental noise. And it's in the process of discovering what we truly desire as opposed to what we may have been made to believe we should desire that we often make costly and even fatal mistakes. The terrorist bomber believes she is fulfilling her purpose in life, that her enjoyment of life is measured in the numbers of killed and injured. The sadist believes his enjoyment of life is measured by the amount of pain and horror he can inflict on his victim. The bully believes that enjoyment of life consists of being able to push people around. Collectors believe that enjoyment of life is proportional to the number and preciousness of the objects in their collection.

And then there are people who work hard with minimal resources against great difficulties who seem to derive great joy from life.

So what is it that we truly desire and how do we discover it? How can we know we are truly enjoying life? Most of us experience moments when we simply know but these are usually fleeting moments quickly overcome by our habitual, pre-programmed mode of seeking satisfaction in life. A few of us know from the beginning and, undeterred by world's distractions, go for it directly and wholeheartedly. I envy them. For the rest of us it's a matter of trial and error. If we're lucky we may find a guide and a mentor to help us along the way. Most of us are still looking, prey to false prophets and quick buck artists (who believe that enjoyment of life is in taking advantage of others' confusion). We take refuge in established religions and other respected sources of practical wisdom. Eventually, many of us do find our way to at least partial knowledge of our heart's desire. We call it maturity.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.



07/01/08 (#0279)  Idealism, cynicism and pragmatism


Hey, you're a day late! - the Squirrel

So sue me. Actually I have an excellent excuse: the day before we arrived back at Possum Hollow where Prickles and I live it had been savaged by a violent storm with near hurricane winds. The Chalet is OK, no trees were downed on our lot, but the power and phone lines were down. It could have been worse and was for some residents whose houses were damaged or destroyed. - the Ed.


Happy Birthday to the creative soul of this lively blog. I hope Prickles is providing cake and candles or at least a verse of "For he’s a jolly good fellow" in keeping with the occasion. May the festivities find you dancing naked in the woods with champagne and the goblins whistling "Je ne regret rien" or the Spanish equivalent. Best returns of the day.  - TABS

It was a good birthday and Prickles was there as were my family and friends in spirit and in person. I do appreciate my blessings. - the Ed


We are, as frequently noted in the Nutshell, animals with angelic aspirations.

Now, being an animal is a wonderful thing. Yes, hunger and mortal danger are everyday facts of animal consciousness (except for domesticated animals under human care) but the joy of being alive makes life unquestionably worth living. No animal, with sole exception of homo sapiens, has any doubts about it. 

Although in h. sapiens the tools of high intelligence and rational thought were evolved to improve its chances of survival and to enhance its quality (i.e. enjoyment) of life, this has turned out to be a mixed blessing. Among other things, the potential for suffering has been equally enhanced. To be or not to be, that is the question raised on this planet exclusively by h. sapiens.

Our imagination allows us to extrapolate from the experience of the joy of being an ideal of good life without suffering to which we aspire even though we can neither describe it rationally nor attain because it does not and cannot exist. Nevertheless, we actually feel deprived and often strive mightily to approach that ideal as closely as possible. "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a Heaven for?" mused Andrea del Sarto in Browning's poetic portrait of him.

Of course, we fail. Man's inhumanity to man remains an ironic fact. We continue to commit horrendous crimes in the name of humanity, for the sake of our ideals. We see this. We are not stupid, we are h. sapiens and our reason tells us this is bullshit. The temptation is to react by shedding all "angelic" aspirations and to accept the hard fact of our animalhood and be content with it. To deny all ideals as worse than worthless and live a simple animal life albeit enhanced by application of rational thought "as nature intended" (though your classical cynic would deny any intent on the part of nature).

The problem is, try as we may, we are not and will never be content with being mere rational animals. This is our curse and perhaps our blessing. There is a middle way. We need our ideals, but we must recognize them for what they are: unattainable and unreal. The moment we start believing in them as absolute necessities we become unreal ourselves. As long as they remain moveable visionary guideposts always subject to reality check - am I really enjoying life more? - our ideals reflect our heart's desire for ever greater joy and our faith and hope that it is possible.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.



06/14/08 (#0278) Communicating the incommunicable


(Re TN 277) YEA!!! I am very excited and will wait with great anticipation for the final product! I too have always been interested in my family trees. Blessings of creativity and health as you venture into the past!  - Elisa

It may be a quixotic venture but I am comitted now - will need all the blessings that come my way. - the Ed


What are you conscious of right now? You can try, if you wish, describing the current content of your consciousness but you will fail. Whatever you say about your present experience will not be your present experience. It will be a statement, in English or some other language, about what is already a fading memory of the experience. Nor can you put into words what red looks like to you or what sweet tastes like, in short, what your experience feels like, what's it like to be you.

Experience is essentially incommunicable. The world of our experience and the world of statements are parallel but separate universes. Their basic building blocks are intrinsically different - one is made up of direct observations, the other of symbols freighted with standardized definitions (statements in themselves). The world of consciousness consists of what is actually being observed now, the world of statements is static and timeless and consists of such verbal constructs as can be properly formed under the rules of logic and grammar.

Not to worry. Fortunately, it is not necessary to communicate our experience in order to survive. We need only communicate roughly our intent or desire as in "hand me that hammer". Our actual experience of the hammer and the act of handing it over is irrelevant. It is enough that our intent has been sufficiently understood and adequately carried out. Of course, when it comes to more subtle matters such as justice, beauty and goodness, it becomes much more difficult to communicate adequately. In those cases we rely on lawyers, art critics and theologians to create social consensus allowing certain verbal constructs to stand in for the real thing. Thus we have law, aesthetics (art theory), and formal religious creeds, all of them attempts to deal with subtle experience on the verbal level. The assumption here is that even though we cannot communicate what we feel, we nevertheless all feel essentially the same, only the mix and intensity of feelings varies from individual to individual and from time to time. Indeed, behavioral studies suggest this is the case. But if, as I propose, consciousness is a universal property of all that exists, this assumption becomes what must necessarily be the case.

The Nutshell is taking a vacation. Back Monday, June 30. Until then, stay real,

Paul W.



06/13/08 (#0277)  I've been chosen


I'm coughing, sneezing and weeping, all at the same time, as if someone had tossed in a tear gas canister through the window. But it's not gas I'm dealing with here - it's dust and mildew from 5000 miles away and a century ago. I went through the family photo archives. A large grocery bagful of ancient photos survived both world wars and eventually found its way into my possession. A few years back I dumped the lot into my daughter's lap (she was - by choice - the official family genealogist). She added some notes and then departed leaving me holding the bag once again. 

I foud another victim to pass the bag to - my nephew in Texas & his family. They happen to be interested in family roots and history so I figured they are most likely to get something of value out of the archives. But before delivering the bag I thought I should review the contents and do at least a rough sort by people, places and dates, with the help of my daughter's notes and diagrams based on her extensive and diligent research into the family tree.

As I went through these images spanning a full century from 1850s to 1950s I realized that, besides being violently alergic to them, I am the only one left who can still make some sense of them. Like it or not, it's up to me to carry out the task of putting all these images into a historical context before passing them on because I'm the only one who has slightly better than a snowball's chance in hell of pulling it off. And it will allow me the satisfaction of completing what my daughter had started. Also, I happen to have professional facilities for restoring some of the images before they fade away altogether.

So my next project is to create a historical family photo album spanning the century and a half to the present time. I will prune the bagful to leave only images of historical significance and/or artistic merit. I'll clean up and restore the images and add a historical narrative. If I can manage to do that over the next few months it will be time well spent. Then I can turn the archives over to the next generation knowing I did my bit.

And I may even get my next art exhibition out of it as a byproduct...

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.



06/12/08 (#0276)  From my 60th birthday speech (June 19, 1994)


"The Ten Most Important Things I have learned between 1934 and 1994:

No. 10  -  You can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (see me for the recipe).
No. 9  -  Poison ivy can be better than sex.  
              (Contemporary note: I'm having some now. Poison ivy, that is. - the Ed)
No. 8  -  All things do not, repeat, do not come to him who waits. (Believe me, I've waited long enough).
No. 7  -  Wherever the wind may be blowing you can always use it to get to where you want to be.
              Just trim your sails to the wind and watch for the rocks.
No. 6  -  I am a creature of my past and the co-creator of my future. The world is my home,
              my resource and my bible, but I am the principal author of the meaning and the
              quality of my life.
No. 5  -  Imagination is more important than knowledge, energy is more important than intelligence,
              and most important of all is enthusiasm.
No. 4  -  We have nothing to fear but fear itself. (I used to believe that but now I know).
No. 3  -  I can claim as truly my own only that which I have given to others.
No. 2  -  Never say die - you're not dead until you're dead.

And the No. 1 most important thing I have learned:
          -  There is only one reason for my being here that makes any sense to me at all and that is
              to enjoy the world and help others enjoy it too. So ENJOY!"

Have I learned anything since 1994? That is a subject for another Nutshell.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.



06/11/08 (#0275)  Hang on to your hat!


For about a century and a half the world has been enjoying if not a free then certainly a very cheap lunch. Or so it seemed. I am talking about our dependence on the fossil fuels to supply us with what we have come to believe and continue to expect to be an inexhaustible source of cheap energy. The consequences of releasing into the atmosphere millions of years' worth of sequestered carbon dioxide over the span of a single century were not even imagined nor are they yet, "Inconvenient Truth" notwithstanding. Nor has the $4/gallon gas (soon to be $5/gallon) substantially changed our beliefs. We believe it to be merely an anomaly, a temporary if aggravating condition. 

Is anybody seriously looking for alternative clean and sustainable sources of energy? T. Boone PIckens, the oil magnate, is (he's building world's largest wind turbine generator "farm") but he's practically unique. Oil companies (who certainly have little incentive to change anything anytime soon), car manufacturers, energy producers, governments and a growing majority of regular citizens are creating a lot of optimistic noise about working on new clean energy sources, conserving energy and reducing the "carbon footprint" but all that amounts to is politically correct nibbling at the edges. In fact, nothing of great significance is likely to occur for at least another half a century other than possibly the welcome demise of gas guzzling SUVs and the return of smaller, more fuel efficient cars. We may also see a couple of other near future benefits: general slowing down of the highway traffic (to save gas) and possibly some reduction in car traffic congestion. This is all good but insufficient.

We are in an unsustainable and unstable situation which will resolve itself one way or another whether we act or not and sooner than we think. We are already late with an appropriate response and we are still not psychologically prepared to start dealing with the situation rationally and effectively. People may be concerned but there is no sense of crisis or urgency. Eco-activism is still just a fun game. We fully expect the world to go on as usual. But it won't.

The price of gas may well come down for a while once the Arabs open the spigot, But this will not last. We can stave off the end of the fossil fuel era by many decades by exploiting every last available oil and gas field on the planet regardless of the environmental cost - but this would be suicidal foolishness. It's not the supply of fossil fuels that is the problem - it's their use. The solution lies not in extending the status quo but in radically changing it - starting now.  Such rapid and radical change will inevitably bring about a period of economic instability until the new techno-economic paradigm establishes itself. But the alternative is worse.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.



06/10/08 (#0274)  Sex and the Nutshell


(Re: TN 273) It seems rather obvious that if vegetarians eat vegetables, humanitarians eat humanitables. Doesn't it? - the Squirrel

I suppose... I must remember to look up "humanitables" in the OED. - the Ed.


Contrary to a widespread belief (one of my favorite opening phrases) sex is not a means of creating new life. It is a part of the evolutionary mechanism for propagating (i.e. growing and extending) life. Its original and primary function is to introduce genetic diversity into the process making evolution possible.

There are asexual ways of merely propagating life, but evolution is about adapting life to changing conditions and improving the quality of the experience of being alive. (I am assuming that the only conceivable reason - if there is any - for existence of anything to begin with is the maximal enjoyment of being and that this is the transcendental objective of evolution). Natural evolution depends on continuous generation of new possibilities by introducing random variations into the genetic code. Hence sexual reproduction, a system that requires more than one individual to contribute to the genetic code of the offspring.  This, by the way, can be accomplished in a myriad different ways, some of them quite imaginative (vis. sexual practices of spiders).

Natural evolution is blind, relying on real life experience to weed out the non-viable or functionally inferior variants. We humans now have the tools of genetic engineering with which we can inject conscious intent into the evolutionary process. Because we can't predict the future exactly, we still have to rely on the cut and try method, but we can substantially reduce potential errors and therefore the number of unsuccessful trials necessary to achieve the desired result (the desired result being increased enjoyment of life). We can, in effect, speed up the evolution, hopefully without perverting its transcendental intent. However, by taking control of the evolutionary process we eliminate the need for sex. Oops.

For us humans, sex is much more than a matter of evolutionary mechanics. With its intense pleasure reward it is a major source of enjoyment of life. More significantly it is a means of breaking down synthetic psychosocial barriers between participating individuals leading to exceptional levels of intimacy and bonding not otherwise achievable. It is also the traditional and unambiguous means of establishing a genetic family unit involving commitment of at least a couple of decades of life to nurturing and educating of the offspring. This in itself offers potential for enhancement of enjoyment of life by providing a meaning and a direction and a sense of greater self as a member of the family unit. But now, sex and family formation are, in effect, divorced. Genetic engineering is about to take over the primary function of sex in the evolutionary scheme.

So are we going to give up sex, now that we don't need it anymore?

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.



06/09/08 (#0273)  English, the language


(Re TN 272) ### #### ## ## ####!! ## #### # ##? #### ## ### ### # #####! ##! - Prickles (as dictated to the Ed)

OK, OK, I misspoke. I'm sorry already. Of course I don't live alone. I grovel at your paws in abject apology. And I know you have a very low opinion of my housekeeping. But I also know that in hedgehog culture no distinction is made between skin and clothing so your other complaint is really disingenuous. You're just trying to act human and it doesn't become you.  - the Ed.


(Re TN 272) Isn't it more a matter of distinguishing between what's unnecessary and what's unimportant? It may be totally unnecessary to save a human life, for example, (especially on an overpopulated planet like ours), but surely it's not unimportant. - Ardeshir

I quote from TN 271: "Nothing is necessary and everything is important". Of course, the degree of subjective importance we attach to events varies a lot for good reasons, bad reasons and no reasons at all. But whether we think it important or unimportant, everything has consequences. - the Ed


Among the numerous examples of the oddities, incongruities and plain folly to be found in the ramshackle construction of the English language (I mean in addition to its notoriously inconsistent spelling) sent to me recently by a friend, this one grabbed my attention: if vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?

Good question, which I am going to leave unanswered for the time being while I ponder the alleged uniqueness of English. I guess a lot of the the credit for the oddness of the language has to go to the English, the people, who are some of the oddest on the planet although rapidly becoming less so under the influence of globalization, which, as it happens, they practically invented.

English emerged from a mash-up of several unrelated languages notably Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Frisian  and French and over the ages grew like topsy without rhyme or reason (though not without much rhyming and reasoning). In the era of the British Empire it borrowed freely and abundantly from hundreds of other languages while becoming the world's lingua franca, a role which it not merely continues to play but has now claimed authoritatively - the world is learning English as the universal language. In the meanwhile, other languages of the world absorbed vast quantities of Englishisms (notably Japanese, though you'd never know it because they can't pronounce it, hence "miruku" - milk and "teburu" - table, etc.). Practically all of the world's technical language, which used to be dominated by German, is now English (except, of course, in France where a "computer" - pretty much a global word now - is "ordinateur". Actually, "computer" is of Latin origin, but never mind). 

Curiously, English is not especially suitable for a universal language. It might not have reached that status if it wasn't for the British who inflicted it on the natives wherever they went. It does seem to have the largest vocabulary (over 600,000 words of which about 100,000 are in actual current use and about 10,000 are used in the vernacular speech). Also, it is capable of great precision in reporting of facts. Where it tends to fall short is in concise, pithy succintness (Latin is king in this department), formal flexibility and emotional expressiveness. Not that it can't be done in English (there is such a thing as great English poetry, including the romantic kind) it's just that it can't be done quite so effortlessly, gracefully and compactly as, for example, in Latin, Spanish or Russian. Cursing is much more satisfying in Italian than it is in English.

But we're past the tipping point now. English is it. In view of that fact, isn't it high time we did something about the spelling? Not as long as England is England.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.



06/07/08 (#0272)  In praise of not doing anything unnecessary


(Re: TN#0269)  "The only thing I can be absolutely sure of is my own experience right now." How can you be absolutely sure that that's the only thing you can be absolutely sure of? (I think you'll easily see, upon reflection, the inherent contradiction in your statement). - Ardeshir

To be logically rigorous I would have to split "experience right now" into several "tiers" (noting that "now" brackets a finite amount of time). On one tier there are sensations, including emotions. On another tier there are analytical processes. On yet another tier there are synthetic processes, including linguistic (symbolic) processing. All of these constitute my indubitable "now" experience, the "content" of my consciousness, and this includes my verbalized deductions and inductions, however dubious in themselves as symbolic expressions. In other words, how and what I think about my experience is part of my experience even though being absolutely sure what I'm thinking about does not mean I am sure about what I'm thinking. - the Ed


TN #271 notwithstanding, I am very much in favor of not doing anything unnecessary (and if nothing is really necessary, so much the better). I feel sorry for people whose lives are burdened by all kinds of tasks merely because they believe them to be necessary. Myself, with my low energy resources, I couldn't survive long in this world if I did not diligently avoid any unnecessary effort.

Which is one reason I love hot days of summer. They make wearing clothes superfluous so I can just get up in the morning and get right to "work" (as I like to call my play) without having to give a thought to what I'm going to wear today. That's one unnecessary effort less. Besides, wearing nothing but my skin feels delightful. Living by myself in the woods I can do that. Unfortunately, if I have to venture into public venues, for purely aesthetic reasons (I am very vain) I feel obliged to cover up my inadequacies. Also, it's the law (though why is not entirely clear to me - surely not aesthetics?).

Incidentally, living in the woods saves a huge lot of work: no lawn to mow, no flower beds to tend, no leaves to sweep. That leaves shoveling snow but I choose to live at a latitutde where this task becomes necessary not more than twice a year. Also, I only shovel the uphill half of the driveway - the downhill half doesn't need it, I use gravity to plow through what snow there may be.

I also save a lot of effort by using only one plate, one bowl, two spoons, one fork, and three knives which I keep in the dish drainer. Cleaning up only when guests are coming, however, is not actually a work saver as I keep rediscovering. On the other hand, having a room reserved for stashing stuff out of sight definitely is, at least until it fills up so that no more can be shoved in. At that point a yard sale or a trip to the Good Will store becomes necessary.

Of course I never make up the bed. What's the point? Leaving it open to fresh air is good for the bed anyway.

Until Monday,

Paul W.



06/06/08 (#0271)  Practical philosophy


When I was a student (disciple?) at the School of Practical Philosophy, one of the tenets I was taught struck me at the time as particularly brilliant and profound. It was this: "Do nothing unnecessary". The implied corollary is "do only what is necessary" but not, perhaps, "do all that is necessary".

This may (or may not) be good advice, but it is not sufficient as it stands. What is necessary? What isn't? SPP teaches that the answer is inherent in the present situation and will become evident if the situation is observed attentively with a silent mind. Thus, two actions are, in any case, always necessary: to silence the mind and to pay attention. I fully agree.

However, in view of the inherent uncertainty of observation (see TN #268) the present situation can never be completely understood. Also, what needs to be done depends, in part, on our intent (a critical part of the situation). But is what we intend absolutely necessary? It is, it might be argued, if it coincides with God's intent. Short of direct revelation, how do we extract God's will from our experience of the world? As I see it, God's intent is to maximize the world's joy but you may well disagree.

On further reflection over many years I conclude that following the "do nothing unnecessary" dictum is not simple if, indeed, possible.There's another dictum that floats up in my mind from the dim past. Its author may have been Konstanty Ildefons Galczynski (real name), a poet-philosopher of the first rank, but I'm not sure. I may have thought it up myself (KIG had major influence on my thinking). I'm not even sure I have it right but I think I do. It is: "nothing is necessary and everything is important".

That rings true...

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.



06/05/08 (#0270)  The idea of God as good


(Re TN #269) Consciousness = existence?! Do you mean only conscious things exist? - the Squirrel

In a word, yes. Which means all things that exist are conscious but, of course, their consciousness may not be at the level of complexity and organization of human consciousness (the most highly evolved consciousness we know of). At the level of elementary particles consciousness is no more than awareness (knowledge or experience) of the force fields relating the particle to the rest of the universe. This knowledge is manifested as the probability distribution among all possible next events involving the particle. - the Ed


I think it is a sign of definite progress that great majority of humankind now accepts as a given the idea that God is good. It was not ever so. Ancient gods were as likely to be evil, or at least capricious, as good. Of course, the idea of a good God has raised the problem of "evil" and "suffering" and the discussion on this subject has been voluminous and endless.

To address this problem I offer my usual arguments a) that most suffering is self-inflicted, and b) that existence requires dynamic balancing of chaos and order, and I add the following ex nihilo postulate: that the essence of the idea of God is a Transcendental Desire for Good (in my terminology: Joy ). I propose TDFJ as the new Tetragrammaton.

In my theology TDFJ is what drives the process of the universe from the Big Bang (zero Joy) towards a state of maximal Joy via the evolution of consciousness to its highest realizable levels. This is a project of, well, cosmic proportions and colossal complexity, which cannot be instantly and painlessly executed by a miraculous fiat. TDFJ does not possess that kind of paradoxical and meaningless omnipotence. It is the difficult struggle toward the greatest Joy that gives the universe and all its inhabitants a meaning and the ultimate value. 

But, of course, I can't prove this. It's just my irrational belief which I justify by the fact that the alternative is dismally pessimistic and devoid of hope. And, no, hope, as distinct from wishful self-delusion, is not a crime, not even in science.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.



06/04/08 (#0269)  What I am sure of


The hazy and shifting world we live in where nothing can be known with absolute precision, is, nevertheless, founded on at least one absolute certainty: consciousness, a.k.a. "existence" or "being".

I have absolutely no doubt about my existence (except when I'm unconscious and then I have no opinion about it). My existence consists of that which I am experiencing right now, be it sensual, intellectual or emotional. The fact that I am experiencing something is beyond dispute, at least to me.

In the sensual range I have absolute knowledge of what the color of red is like when I actually see it or visualize it. Ditto for all the other hues of the spectrum. I know absolutely what the sounds and noises being perceived by my brain right now sound like. And as I'm tasting it, I know exactly what the taste of salt is like. All these experiences and the absolute knowledge they bring are mine alone. I know nothing about what the color red looks like to you. Indeed, we may disagree about such things as whether a particular shade of red harmonizes with a particular shade of blue. Or whether a particular musical chord is pleasing or unpleasant. The only thing I can be absolutely sure of is my own experience right now. And I cannot describe it to you at all. I have no way of conveying to you my experience of the red I'm seeing. I cannot make you see it exactly as I see it.

Similarly, in the intellectual range, I have absolute (though perhaps incomplete) knowledge of the patterns of what I am thinking or remembering in the moment. In the emotional range I know what fear, desire, and joy are like as I experience them.

All these things I truly know only at the moment of my experiencing them. This absolute knowledge cannot be expressed or transmitted by any means. Not even to myself. As soon as the experience is in the past, my absolute knowledge of it is gone. I am left only with an imprecise memory that I cannot be absolutely sure of.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.



06/03/08 (#0268)  No, I'm not sure and that's good enough


Look, if I took the time and the energy to fully analyse what it is I do and why and whether it is what I should be doing or whether there is a better way to occupy myself or at least a better way to do what I do do - I might as well shoot myself dead right now. It would  certainly be more efficient and far less aggravating to all whom it may concern, including myself. Nothing can be analysed fully, completely and finally. There is always room for doubt.

We do what we do either mechanically, by rote, as learned through training and practice, or impulsively, either by "natural" inclination or because of an aroused desire. We do impose upon our behavior a reference grid  worked out in advance (by ourselves or some external authority) and based on stated objectives to which we have committed by an act of faith and will, and on our current concept of how the world works. As we go we can test results of our actions against this reference grid and make required course corrections. Of course, our stated objectives can and will change in time and so will our concept of how the world works. In any case, there is always a gap between what we intend to do and what we actually wind up doing. This gap may widen or narrow for a host of reasons not immediately (or ever) apparent. There is no such thing as absolute accuracy and precision. Whatever we do, error is inevitable, the only question being how large and even to that there can be no precise answer.

We can only make a quick and rough assessment of the present situation and guesstimate the actions it seems to require, and that's all we can do if we are to act at all. We'll never know if we acted "as correctly as possible". We will never achieve exactly what we intended. Indeed, we'll never know exactly what our intentions or our actions were.

Does this mean we should all lie down and die because we don't and can't know exactly what to do or how or why? Hardly! We should rejoice in the imprecision of our lives because it is the source of all surprise and variety and hope. It is this imprecision that actually makes life worth living as a hopeful adventure. We are not helpless, we are merely imperfect and vive la imperfection! What a dull world this would be without it! Indeed, without it the world could not be - it would vanish into terminal, impossible dullness.

So don't give me this "are you sure?" nonsense. Of course I'm not sure. Nevertheless, I'm fascinated by my rough perception of what seems to be happening even though I'm not exactly sure what it is. I delight in my necessarily inaccurate experience of the evolving world. Besides, I'm not without influence over it, however imprecise, and that is more than good enough to justify my wanting to continue to live. It suits me (imperfectly) and I do enjoy not knowing exactly what will happen next. And if my enjoyment of life is less than perfect it is infinitely greater than none at all which would be the case in a perfectly determined world (if such a thing were possible).

In other words, don't sweat the small stuff.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.



06/02/08 (#0267)  We are, we are, we are, we are, we are the engineers


Unquestionably, the high point of the jubilee journey to TO (as Torontonians refer to their city) (see TN #266) was the appearance of the Lady Godiva Memorial Band. and the firing of the Engineering Cannon. There have been changes since I have last witnessed these rituals fifty years ago, and generally for the better, but the horse was missing, and for that matter, as far as I could tell, so was Lady Godiva.

And yet the LGMB is definitely sexier than it was fifty years ago and the reason for this is not hard to see. In 1958 women represented 2% of the graduating class in Engineering; in 2008 nearly half of the graduates are women, and this change is also reflected in the composition of the LGMB version 2008. And it is an even more spirited band than the one I remember, hard to believe as this may be.

The Cannon was chained with heavy chains to four engineers. This was new to me but it makes sense - the Cannon is in constant danger of being stolen by other faculties. Somebody actually succeeded once long time ago, before my time. I don't believe this has ever been repeated though not for lack of trying. Four more grim engineers, all in black and equipped with mean looking clubs, guarded the periphery. In due time, the Cannon was fired with a deafening bang, far louder than what one might expect from a piece of its size (the cannon is only about a foot long). There were, I believe, no casualties.

Of my 71 classmates in Chemical Engineering 5T8 only seven attended the reunion (although there were several hundred engineers from other years and other departments attending altogether). As might be expected, it took me a while to recognize these gentlemen. What was disconcerting was that numerous people, who were not even my classmates, recognized me.

I had forgotten all about it, but I was quickly reminded that in my freshman year my mug appeared on the front page of the University newspaper with the caption identifying me as the presumed leader of the gang of engineers who wrought havoc in the Victoria College, an arts college and longstanding enemy of the Engineering faculty. Raiding Victoria College had been a  tradition with the Engineers but that year it got out of hand. This was a fine piece of irony as I have always strongly objected to the artificial rift between liberal arts and engineering which, unfortunately, is being perpetuated to this day (although, perhaps, with women now fully represented in the profession, more as a joke than in earnest). By the way, that was the last engineering raid on Victoria College. The Powers that Be stepped in.

Of the seven Chem Eng 5T8s who gathered for the fiftieth anniversary of our graduation, two were of a different stripe. I was one and the other was my friend Walter who had talked me into attending. I am particularly glad to have renewed our friendship. He is also one of those engineers for whom engineering is not only not inimical to the liberal arts but actually enriched by them. I dig that.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.