The Nutshell

While deliciousness of sex, the most universally accessible high, is unquestionable, some enjoy it more than others and some don't at all. Some find having power over others or a deep understanding and appreciation of the world even more delicious than sex. And then there are the chemically induced experiences which some prefer to sex. Myself, these days I tend to get more excited about ideas than about sex. As for angels, they are indeed fantasy creatures as popularly thought of but I, ever the contrarian, go by two quite different definitions of "angel". One is a direct translation from the Greek "angelos" which simply means "a messenger", and the other is "the end-point of human evolution" where we are no longer evolution driven creatures but true masters of our own destiny. As such we would no doubt have a far greater potential for enjoyment of our being but sex, which is one of the fundamental evolutionary drives, would no longer have its present significance and importance. - the Ed

P.S. What do you mean a cigar is just a cigar? A cigar is this whole fantasy world of sex, power and drugs (nicotine, anyway).

(Re TN #493) Why is sex so damn important? It isn't to me - not any more. - Ardeshir

And you are in good company... - the Ed

Believing is seeing (and hearing)

I have two hearing aids. They don't match for reasons I will not go into here. When I first put them in, my subjective impression is that one gives me a full range amplification of the ambient sound while the other is selective, leaving out much of the middle and lower part of the aural spectrum. I can't bring them into a balance no matter how I adjust them. But within minutes after putting them in I cease being aware of the difference between my left and right sound input. I have the impression that I am hearing the world normally with both ears.

When I listen to music with stereo earphones I have the sensation of hearing the full stereo effect even though I know I am getting only part of the sound in my right ear. And listening to the surround sound of my home theatre I am not aware that I am missing anything in the right channel.

My brain compensates for for the difference in hearing between the two ears to create a subjective illusion of equality. That's because the brain insists that my perception of reality must match what I believe it to be. It fills in imaginary values for the non-existent data so that the combined input fits my expectations. On an incomplete foundation of the actual input data my brain erects the complete edifice of my aural experience.

A similar phenomenon occurs with visual experience, as when watching a video. Again, the brain automatically tries to supply what may be missing in the optical input data according to what I expect to see. It interpolates and extrapolates and even downright creates parts of the image out of nothing in order to make sense of the whole based on what I think I should be seeing. I don't even notice anything is amiss.

Also, moving images may appear sharper and clearer than they actually are because their purposeful motion supplies additional information which the brain uses to create the illusion. The semantic content of the image, its significance, helps the brain to clarify the image. My subjective visual experience ends up being much more lucid than can be accounted for by the actual pixels on the screen.

Only when the final credits start rolling after the end of the video do I become aware, as I try to make out the fine print, that the screen image is not as super-sharp as I was fully convinced it was.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

P.S. I may be upgrading to Blue Ray just so I can read the friggin' fine print...

03/25/09 (#0493) Why is sex so damn important?

OK, so I'm not a teenager with a raging libido so maybe I'm not the authority this question should be referred to. On the other hand, a somewhat dispassionate look at the importance of sex may not be out of order.

I don't propose to encroach on the territory already extremely well covered by psychologists, physiologists and other serious students of human sexuality. Their great numbers suggest that sex is a very interesting field of study. So interesting, in fact, that I sometimes wonder about the objectivity of the vast volume of reportage on the subject.

Since the great Sexual Revolution of the nineteen sixties and seventies, we, the inhabitants of the Great Satanland, have become rather candid about sexuality and more relaxed in our attitudes to it as, for example, in our acceptance of porn and casual sex as social norm. And "sexually deviant" is no longer a politically correct term. Tolerance of sexual diversity is in. So some sexual issues at least have become less pressing.

But of course, as long as we remain sexually reproducing animals, sex will never loose its grip on us. It's a fundamentally critical feature of the architecture of our psyche as Dr. Freud recognized long ago. My question, though, is whether sexuality is the most important feature of our lives? Freudians would say yes. Everything we do, they claim, is sexually motivated, whether consciously or unconsciously, including the will to live. A cigar is never just a cigar.

In so far as we are animals, that assessment is probably correct. But we are blessed (or cursed) with the angelic aspects of our nature which often rebel against its animal aspects. Hence all the sexual taboos. In our striving for angelhood we want to unsex ourselves, to free ourselves from the bondage to the sex drive. Angels have no sex. Which prompts many to ask why would anybody want to be an angel thus proving their animalhood.

On the other hand, in "Angels in America", a play about homosexual love and sex, angels are portrayed as females equipped with wings and multiple vaginas and superhuman orgasmic capacities. But that's just the author's fancy. (For some reason sex seems to be even more important to gays than to straights.)

I suggest that what further magnifies the importance of sex in our lives, over and above its biological tyranny over us, is this animal/angel dichotomy and the resulting struggle. Perhaps if we ceased to struggle so hard to become pure angels (a futile effort, in any case) the importance of sex would not be so overwhelming.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

03/24/09 (#0492) Waiting for the critical mass

Back in the early biblical times, after Adam but before Moses, God was apparently willing to save the world for sake of a just few righteous men (women didn't count then and in some parts of the biblical lands they still don't). Later, Jewish tradition expanded that to a minimum of 36.

That was then. These days, with six billion of us infesting the surface of this planet, I'm quite sure finding 36 righteous persons is not a problem. Not only that but we - or at least some of us - have made tremendous strides in understanding of the world and our place and functionality in it. We - or at least some of us - are much better equipped now, intellectually and technically to survive and thrive, come what may. And we - or at least some of us - have a much better grip on both our potential and the limits of sustainable growth.

Nevertheless, we still need absolute values and we - or at least some of us - know it. Absolute theocracy, once the necessary and the only available source of absolute values, these days is desperately fighting for its life. But as we approach the fuzzy edges of science, wisdom - the pragmatic recognition of what really matters most in life - is poised to become the ruling force in our lives. Perhaps.

It depends on whether we can reach the critical mass of the wise among us. They have always been among us in small numbers and they have been growing in wisdom over the ages. Not so the general population. Even as the wise grow wiser, the "lowest common social denominator" is probably descending to new lows made possible by technology and information explosion. With our growing potential for effective action we have become more dangerous than ever as chaos and ignorance continue to run rampant among us. The critical question is, is the number of the wise among us increasing in proportion to the population? That would give us hope of eventually reaching that critical mass.

As an optimist I believe this is the case. I sense subtle shifts in self- and world-awareness even among the general population. The same information explosion that makes us more dangerous makes us also potentially wiser. The "lowest common denominator" may actually become the point of coherence, where we begin to perceive the world and ourselves as one entity composed of many individuals, a true global society.

I don't think twittering will do it but it's a portent of things to come.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

03/23/09 (#0491)

According to my paper napkin calculation using rough numbers (1 second = 2.56 x 10^10 cm), 0.441504 x 10^18 seconds is equivalent to 1.13024 x 10^28 cm. Allowing for the margin of error, that looks pretty interchangeable to me. (There may be some other factors that need to be factored in here but this is close enough for engineers). - the Ed

Sandalia II: Crocs

It's spring and madness is in the air. And I did leave myself a loophole. But I'm getting ahead of my story so let's go back to the beginning.

Couple of years ago or so a fashion phenom appeared: wildly colored plastic clogs with holes in them. They looked super cheap but they were not. They were called Crocs (for the crocodile featured in the logo). I couldn't fathom why anybody would want to wear them but zillions of people did - it was a fad. Of course, there were plenty of cheap knock-offs - it was easy to imitate something that looked cheap to begin with. In any case, I wasn't interested in Crocs except as a social phenomenon.

Well, it appears Crocs have diversified. They have come out with a flip-flop thong version in even wilder, two-tone color combinations. Still plastic but actually not cheap looking and well constructed. However, marketwise they are probably not the success that the clogs were because Costco has them on sale. Although the choice of colors and sizes was very limited I managed to find a pair my size that I actually liked - light beige with a light violet insole, a remarkably tame combination. Definitely wearable.

Last year I had decided I had enough sandals and resolved to stop collecting them. Unless, of course, something came up that was really different, exceptionally comfortable for walking, and aesthetically pleasing. These Crocs do meet the criteria. Besides, they were cheap. And they were not made in China.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

03/21/09 (#0490)

(Re: TN #487) So, where were you and this beast? Sounds like an incredible sight! Are there any pictures? - Elisa

This fairly credible sight brightens the hallway of a Sunday school at probably the prettiest church in Bethesda, MD, a DC burb. Here's a picture of it. - the Ed

Shock and awe

Impossible! We're heading for disaster. This will never work. He's trying to do way too much way too fast and he's spending us into huge debt that will take decades to pay off. Such are the prevailing sentiments after fifty some days of the Obama administration. The Congress, the States and the People have never before been asked to tackle so much all at once and they are shell-shocked.

So whatever happened to "Yes, we can!"?

Here's my prediction. Yes, Obama is making waves on all fronts and making changes with unprecedented speed and the people and the Congress are having trouble keeping up. This is just not the way things are done, certainly not in Washington. Correction: this is not the way things have been done in Washington. Times have changed. Old ways are no longer adequate to meet the present needs. Washington will have to change - even though kicking and screaming all the way. I predict Obama will prevail, I predict his programs, all of them, national and global, will succeed, at least well enough to turn things around and establish a solid basis for long term prosperity, and I predict that by his second term he will be regarded as one of our greatest Presidents.

There is, however, one thing Obama cannot do much about (though he's trying) and that's the weather. It's a-changing.

Until Monday,

Paul W.

03/20/09 (#0489) Traveling in space and time

The Nutshell and Einstein agree that space and time are interchangeable and essentially indistinguishable. This runs counter to experience since we clearly distinguish between our perception of the distance from now to then and our perception of the distance from here to there. There's no confusion in our minds between minutes and miles. Space seems to be fixed but time is constantly "passing". We perceive time as change and we measure it in numbers of apparently regular changes (events) such as sunsets and sunrises or the ticks of a clock.

That seemingly clear distinction between time and space is an illusion caused by our particular habitual frame of reference, namely the apparently solid and stable surface of the planet Earth where nothing that our senses can perceive directly is moving at speeds greater than some infinitesimal fraction of the speed of light. But never mind all that. You can get some idea of the relationship between space and time by considering that you can no more travel in space alone than you can travel in time alone. You can only travel in space and time simultaneously. Traveling from A to B not only moves you in space by the distance between A and B but it also inevitably moves you in time by how long it took to get there.

If you had the bright idea that you could travel in time alone by just staying put in one place you are forgetting that you are sitting on a rotating sphere hurling in an elliptical orbit around the sun which is itself orbiting the galactic centre which is majestically sailing toward the Great Attractor. And the answer to your next question is: no, you can't go back to where you were in space any more than you can go back to where you were in time. As the Zen masters observe: "You can't step into the same river twice".

There is a good reason for it. This is a probabilistic universe - what happens next is always to some degree indeterminate. There is no inevitable connection between cause and effect. A sequence of events cannot be undone simply by running the sequence backwards. The next event, no matter the direction in time and space, is inherently unpredictable. Running the sequence backwards is impossible since you can't get back even to the next to last state of the universe - the probability of returning to the exactly the same conditions that pre-existed the last event is essentially zero. In effect, every next event is necessarily the next new event and cannot be undone.

In the Nutshell theory of space-time as well as in Einstein's theory of relativity it is possible to warp space-time (through interaction with energy) in strange and radical ways and one apparently possible configuration loops space-time back on itself to form a continuous loop which would cause all kinds of paradoxes by allowing future to determine the past, even if only probabilistically. But the probability of that happening, like the probability of undoing a sequence of events, is essentially zero. (If the all but impossible did happen, and an event loop formed, I suspect the resuting feedback would break up the loop the instant it formed).

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

03/19/09 (#0488) Everybody's got it bass ackwards (except me)

I listen occasionally to the NPR's program "Speaking of Faith" which explores from various angles the "spiritual" dimension of [human] life. The other day a professional neurologist and an amateur philosopher and theologian explained how his observations of the human brain and psyche led him to believe that the "spirit" (as in "spiritual") is rooted in the biological structure and function of the brain. Sigh...

To his credit, the gentleman in question did not think this diminished in any way either the significance of the spiritual or the glory of God. He was in awe of God who, rather than micromanaging the universe, caused this amazing world including the humankind to create itself. He was, in fact, just short of recognizing that it is the body and the brain that are rooted in the "spirit", not the other way around.

The confounding factor here is the undefined word "spirit". As generally understood, it actually conflates two distinct concepts. One is the personality, the physical manifestation of the brain's activity. Obviously, personality is rooted in the structure and function of the brain and dies with it. The other, and distinctly different concept is the conscious "I" , the experience of being. This "I", splintered into innumerable "points of view", accounts for the universe of experience. It is the prima materia, the root of all being. The body and the brain (and the personality) are ultimately its creation.

The learned gentleman also recognized the importance of the interaction between order (cosmos in Greek) and chaos (same in Greek) but got only halfway towards seeing the whole picture. Fear of chaos, he said, makes us seek order. True, but he failed to note that fear of order makes us seek chaos. The goodness of life, the joy of being, the beauty and the grace, lie not in order nor in chaos but in the right balance of the two.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

03/18/09 (#0487) Man painting rainbow

I spent thirteen hours last Sunday and Monday painting a rainbow. The rainbow is seven feet tall, twenty some feet long, and just under two feet wide. I do wish the wall I painted it on were sky blue, but it isn't. It's a slightly greenish yellow. C'est la vie.

The preparation took more than half this time. It was done late afternoon and evening and much of that time I was alone with the ghost. The ghost made no comments contenting itself with occasional noncommittal rustles, clicks or sighs. The cleaning woman came in for a while but she busied herself elsewhere and I only saw her occasionally as she went by barefoot and competent, carrying her implements. She said "Hi!" once but otherwise also made no comments.

Working in virtual silence (except for the ghost's mild noises) I grew weary in spirit and stopped short of my goal for the day. I had hopes of at least getting two or three colors laid down but one (red) was all I managed before my will to go on was drained.

Next day was very different. I had slept well and felt rested. I got to work right away and kept at it steadily, with just a fifteen minute break for lunch, until the rainbow (the seven colors named Roy G. Biv) was completed. It took six hours, but I never felt tired. The work was actually relaxing.

As I painted, people came and went, observing the work in progress. "It's beautiful" they said even though the red stripe was all there was. As I was laying down the orange stripe the pastor came by, asked if it was salmon. "Orange" I said, though it did look more like salmon. "Will there be a pot of gold at the end?" he asked. I assured him there would be. I did not tell him that usually nothing good comes of that gold, found and unearned. I figured he would know.

The sexton came by. "It's crooked" he said. "Just kidding."

Then several fresh bouquets of little kids came by shepherded by their teachers. "What is he painting?" teachers asked the kids. "A rainbow!" - everybody knew. One boy accidentally kicked over my bucket of water. The teachers cleaned it up.

A lady came by with a camera. "Can I take a picture of you?" She could and did.

In the afternoon things quieted down. In the last hour it was just me and the lady who comissioned the rainbow. We chatted about the problems of teaching kids theology (the horror of the flood etc.). And then the rainbow was done and I cleaned up, packed up and hit the road before the rush hour got really bad.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

03/17/09 (#0486)

(Re: TN #485) As erudite and as clear an explanation of the price of Art as I have ever read. My compliments. - Martin Bruce

Just telling it like I see it. - the Ed

American ethics

Republicans have a vested interest in failure of Obama's economic recovery plan. Drug manufacturers have a vested interest in illness, especially of the chronic kind. Health care providers have a vested interest in supressing preventive medical care. Insurance companies have a vested interest in excluding those likely to need insurance. Oil companies have a vested interest in keeping mpg ratings low and research into alternative fuels slow. Car manufacturers have a vested interest in traffic accidents, especially those where the vehicles are totalled. Weapons manufacturers have a vested interest in war. Etc., etc., etc.

All this is perfectly understandable. However, some Republicans and good many health care providers actually put the public good above their self interest (this is known as "ethical behavior"). Why? Because we're all in the same boat and if we sink it neither Republicans nor health care providers nor anyone else, guilty or innocent, will be exempt from the dire consequences.

In the case of the health care providers the recognition of this wisdom is enforced by government regulations. There are no goverment controls on Republicans, therefore their merit is greater should they come to this realization on their own. In fact, Republicans have always professed great trust in the intrinsic ethicality of American people regardless of ethnic origin or personal history (with the possible exception of Democrats and homosexuals). The standard Republican line is "we trust the people more than the government" (never mind that the government is elected by the people).

Republicans as well as Democrats do recognize that civilized society is necessarily subject to governmental regulation (law) which is itself regulated by a declared set of social ideals subscribed to by every member of the society, in our case, the Constitution. The trick, of course, is to find the right balance between regulation, personal freedom and public prosperity. Nor is this balance static. As recent events show, the kind and the degree of governmental regulation needed varies with circumstances. Strict adherence to party ideology is self-defeating, as recently demonstrated by the Republicans.

The Republican trust in people is misapplied in the case of for profit corporations. Corporations are not people. It is unreasonable to expect ethical behavior from entities whose sole raison d'etre is to maximize the ROI. Nevertheless, some corporations exhibit ethical-like behavior because it happens to contribute to the bottom line. In some cases, government regulation forces ethical behavior (e.g. peanut butter manufacturers). But in many cases corporations just keep grinding out ROI regardless of any potential or actual harm to the socierty, especially if such harm is invisible, unrecognized or even sold as public good (e.g. sub-prime mortgages).

This is not a matter of capitalism vs. socialism. What is needed is a symbiotic blend of the two where the society shares in the wealth generated by capitalism in proportion to the society's contribution to the generation of that wealth. This is known as "economic justice" and it is not easily arrived at or maintained without a great deal of ethical behavior by all parties. Let's hope that the Republican confidence in the ethics of the American people is justified.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

03/14/09 (#0485) Selling Art

You can sell Art (with capital A) as

      decoration,
      illustration,
      investment,
      status symbol.
      collectible,
      historical document,
      rarity,
      sentimental souvenir,
      space filler,
      door stop

or as an object suitable for any number of other incidental purposes, practical and impractical.

What you can't sell Art as is Art.

The reason is simple: Art, unlike art, is intrinsically priceless. Its true value is more elusive than the value of mortgage collateralized debt derivatives. Generally it is arrived at by consensus among Artists themselves, using such terms as "this is good" or "this is crap". Art critics may then bloviate at length on why this is good and that is crap, usually leaving the listener more benighted than before. With a little bit of luck and some fast talk by the dealer, somebody will decide, for whatever obscure reasons, to plunk down some sum for the privilege of owning a work of Art thus establishing a Market Price for it.

If you're famous you can create a work of Art and name a price commensurate with your fame (which may or may not be proportional to the quality of your Art). If you're a nobody, your Art is unsalable (not the same as worthless). And so it goes.

Being neither famous nor nobody I simply assume the value of my Art in monetary terms is essentially zero. So I price it as if it were art, i.e. I charge for materials, labor and overhead. That's it. If you like it, it's a bargain. If you don't you don't have to buy it. I'm happy if I break even and I sleep well at night.

Until Tuesday (the Ed is doing an Art comission over the weekend - cost of materials plus glory; labor and overhead donated),

Paul W.

Home theatre

OK, it's possible to live without TV. And it's getting easier what with TV rapidly loosing its status as the prime AV medium to the computer. But is it possible to live without theatre? After all, as somebody famously noted, all the world's a stage. We're surrounded by theatre every moment of our lives and we all have our bit or major parts in it.

But what I have in mind is "the play within the play" - the tales, true or invented (or both), told in words, sounds and images. These represent a distillation of the great global drama of all our collected lives. As such, they may be instructive, inspiring, amusing, amazing, and, at their best, profoundly moving. I think we owe it to ourselves to witness at least some of these tales, not just near the beginning of our lives when we need to be shown the possibilities of life but throughout our years to put a perspective on where and what we are and what challenges yet remain. But over and above all that stands the sheer artistry of some of those tales, the great aesthetic pleasure to be had not from their informational content but from the way they are made.

Literature is a rich yet cheap and easily accessible source of these tales and I do avail myself of the pleasures of the best. Regrettably, live theatre is not so easily accessible to me. Fortunately, this is the golden age of cinema, a truly democratic audio-visual art form which brings even the most elaborately produced theatrical experience within everyone's reach. There are great riches to be found here, especially now that hundreds of thousands of recorded films can be accessed with negligible effort and expense. And these films can now be experienced at home exactly as they were intended to be experienced in public theatres, with exactly the same quality of audio and video. All that is missing is the public, something I am prepared to bear with gladly.

So I am investing some of the money I saved by not being able to subscribe to sattelite TV in a home theatre. I have decided I owe it to myself.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

93/12/09 (#0483)