The Nutshell

04/29/08 (#0253) Interim report on the state of FTME IX

(Re TN #252) For those of you not lucky enough to own a non-staining tea mug like mine (that's about all of you) Rhoda reports that the effervescent tablets used for cleaning dentures are effective in removing the tea stain from mugs and teapots. - the Ed

Today I reached an important milestone in the FTME IX program: I have provisionally hung the show. I have a maquette of the show (7/8" = 1' scale) and I have scaled miniatures of all images to be exhibited. These are now hung on the maquette. I have finally some idea of the look of the show and how it all fits together. I have already spent some hours revising and re-revising the arrangement, adding or subtracting images, etc. and I will spend many hours more at it, but the backbone of the show is in place - the rest is details.

I am disappointed that I don't have more new works in the show. With approximately fifty images hung, this year's crop of seven paintings (painted in approximately seven weeks - a record for me) represents a pretty small percentage of the total. I do have also several new prints, but even so about 70% of the show is "old" stuff. But that's OK because the show is in a new venue and I'm hoping that some new people will show up besides family & friends. In any case, this is a newly curated show - the images are presented in a new context and this time I'm providing backstories which I have come to realize are an important part of an exhibition.

What remains to be done in the next 17 days is matting and framing the new prints and reprints, printing, assembling and framing a few additional prints, framing the new paintings, making up lists and information sheets, printing and mounting various signs, printing the title and backstory cards, finishing the catalog of available prints, printing updated business cards, making sure my web publicity is refreshed and updated, testing the hanging walls and hardware, checking the capacity of the Art Cart II to cart all the art and hardware in two loads, planning the reception menu, buying the food and drinks, making sure I have enough fresh tablecloths, plates, cups, napkins, putting all my show assembly tools and supplies together as well as my business forms, hiring an able body to help me set up and take down the show, delivering the two (hopefully) Art Cart loads to the exhibition hall, setting up the hanging walls, tables, and signs, hanging everything up and labelling, setting out the food and literature and opening the doors at 2PM. What happens after that I don't know and don't care. My job will have been done, except for being pleasant to the visitors (if any) for the next seven hours.

Until Thursday (the Nutshell is taking Wednesday off),

Paul W.

04/28/08 (#0252) My tea mug

There is something transcendentally comforting, relaxing and refreshing about sipping freshly brewed hot tea. In my own case, it's instant meditation. My being is reduced to the present moment and there is nothing but the sipping of the tea and peace that passeth all understanding.

As always, there are potential distractions lurking in the moment. The Japanese (and many others along the Silk Road) have recognized the importance of removing the distractions and balancing the mind before sipping of the tea. The Japanese particularly make of it a deeply soothing and graceful ritual.

One distraction that has plagued me in the past is of chemical origin. The phenolic based compounds in black tea react with minerals in the water and with oxygen in the air to form deep colored and deeply staining compounds. They give the tea its amber color and they are responsible for the practically permanent brown stain in your tea mug. Strong chlorine bleach treatment usually will make the stain invisible for a short while but it will also affect the taste of the tea. Adding lemon to the tea helps to reduce the stain. That, too, affects the taste of the tea, but many people like lemony tea and some even prefer it. (I can take it or leave it but prefer to leave it.) However, lemon doesn't completely cure the problem, merely reduces it.

Quality of water affects the severity of the problem. In some areas, where water has high mineral content, a heavy brown scum forms almost immediately making for a most unappetizing drink. Use of demineralizing filters is absolutely necessary in those areas. Buit even with best water, over the years your favorite tea mug tends to acquire a brown patina which you may or may not learn to ignore.

Last year, in course of my perpetual search for the perfect tea mug (size, volume, colors, design - all are important) I came across an unimposing plain white mug in a thrift store which I bought for something like 69 cents plus tax. I bought it because it was very close to being the perfect size and shape though aesthetically it left something to be desired. At least it wasn't ugly.

Well, sir, this mug took me by surprise. I have no idea who made it or what materials were used in the glaze. There are no markings on it at all but like most everything else it was probably made in China. It is the only mug I have ever owned in my entire life that is not stained by tea. Impossible, you say. Well I have the proof, right here, that it is possible. A light stain may form, depending on the quality of water, but this comes off immediately with just a light rub of the wash cloth, leaving the original pristine white absolutely unchanged. This mug is unique and it has made my enjoyment of tea deeper and completely free of the distraction of the stain.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

04/26/08 (#0251) The most important sense of all

(Re TN #250) What's to dissipate, won't hang. [A correction to an old proverb; hanging rescues.] - Charles

Not true, sir. We all shall dissipate yet some of us will surely hang before we dissipate. Worse yet, some of us will dissipate and then hang, a fate your truly truly wishes to avoid. In any case, I don't trust fate. Luck is more reliable, especially if you make your own. - the Ed

Of all our senses the most important one is the sense of proportion. It's critical to our well being, indeed, to our survival. In all our endeavors, whether raising kids or skyscrapers, throwing a discus or a party, making art or the grade, success depends on our sense of proportion. It's a sine qua non of a good and effective life.

My well known (to friends & family) maxim "moderation in everything, especially in moderation" is an example of applied sense of proportion. Some other examples: not killing a good tree to save a sick sapling; not biting off more than one can chew; making sure one's liabilities don't exceed one's assets; not lifting pins with a crane or boulders with tweezers; putting your own oxygen mask on before helping others; not seeking happiness in the misery of others or making oneself miserable to make others happy. And so forth.

Particularly, one can't hope to help others be happy unless one is happy oneself. Sense of proportion suggests we can't fill even the smallest can from an empty bucket, however large. First we must look to our own joie de vivre (this calls for a sense of proportion). Then we can share it with others.

Until Monday,

Paul W.

04/25/08 (#0250) My Karma

Here's Karma in a Nutshell:

1. There is consciousness (experiencing).

2. There is desire.

3. The two are integrated in intent.

4. Here-now is where changeoccurs.

5. At every here-now there is a range of possible changes varying in probability. The sum of their probabilities is 1, meaning that a change is absolutely certain though what the actual change will be is not.

6. Exerting intent in the here-now influences which of the possible changes will actually occur by increasing its probability . This is called action. Action chooses from a range of possible changes and promotes its choice as the preferred one.

7. Every action changes the future irrevocably by changing the range of possible changes at the next here-now.

8. If no action is taken the change that actually occurs will reflect the unmodified set of probabilities at the here-now. This also changes the future irrevocably but without the influence of conscious intent.

9. To sum up: every action (or inaction) changes the future irrevocably. There is always a choice of actions. Consciousness and desire can guide the choice. This is the essence of Karma.

So, my present situation as I sit here and type this is the culmination of all the actions (intentional or not) from the Big Bang forward. This is my Karma. To some extent I have to thank all my ancestors, and myself, for finding myself in this privileged position. But note that results of actions are probabilistic and not absolutely certain. To some extent my stuation is also due to statistical fluctuations in the evolution of the universe, i.e. luck. I know that well. I have gotten away with choices of actions and (mostly) inactions that others have been hung for. More on this subject later.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

04/24/08 (#0249) The answer

I was working out a fairly complex answer to all the questions I posed in yesterday's Nutshell, sweating to keep it lucid and concise, when I checked my e-mail and found a two word answer supplied by Ardeshir: "Your Karma". Thank you, Ardeshir. There it is, folks.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

P.S. So as not to waste my efforts, tomorrow I'll deconstruct my Karma in some detail. Stay tuned.

04/23/08 (#0248) Why me?

Why do I have everything I need while others are deprived? Why am I healthy while others are sick? Why is life a joy to me while it is a burden to others? Why do I see beauty where others see ugliness, or worse, nothing? Why am I comfortable and well provided for without any effort on my part while others struggle desperately for much less? Why am I happy while others are miserable?

Why me? What did I do to deserve this? And will it be taken away from me? I mean before I die?

Answers tomorrow,

Paul W.

04/22/08 (#0247) Political is personal

"There is no such thing as art for art's sake" said Chairman Mao and I heartily agree. He probably meant that everything we do must be (for better or worse) socially conscious, a sentiment I embrace somewhat less than wholeheartedly. But there's no doubt in my mind that art cannot exist by itself in a vacuum. Art is a human product created for human consumption. It can only exist in the context of humanity. Art can be amusing, amazing, inspiring, depressing, charming, challenging, sentimental, provocative, evocative, but whatever it is it is by virtue of the interaction between it and the people. There is no platonic ideal of "Art" independent of its human creators and consumers. Art is by the people, of the people and for the people, saecula saeculorum, amen.

I think the same can be said of religion (and I believe somebody also said it of American government). And here lies my disagreement with Chairman Mao who, curiously, claimed to have no use for religion even though he was a man of great faith. He called righteously for social responsibility in our thoughts, words and deeds. Of course, such an exhortation is empty of significance unless social responsibility is clearly defined. To his credit, the Chairman provided a detailed definition. But where did this creed come from? Mostly from musings of economic philosophers such as Marx, Engels, Lenin & al. adapted to suit the Chairman's own particular agenda. But religion is not a creature of philosophy or economics or science. It cannot be mandated by either state or church, nor instilled by education, nor inherited by birth. It arises not just from a practical need to know what is right ("correct" was the Chairman's preferred term) but from a desire for what is good (which is inherent in all consciousness). For all the prior thinking and teaching on the subject of what is good, ultimately every one must discover it for oneself.

Once discovered, it provides the underpinning for all our thoughts, words and deeds, personal and political. Anything else would be self-delusion or hypocrisy.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

04/21/08 (#0246) Copernicus was wrong

(Re: TN #0245) How can any country NOT be a democracy? Is not the government of every country the result of the actions AS WELL AS the inactions of the people of that country? And do not the people, individually, CHOOSE what actions they will take, and what actions they will NOT take? - Ardeshir

I can think of a hypothetical case where the entire population of a country, except for a small ruling class, is imprisoned in high security labor camps where it produces goods for the use of the ruling class plus just enough to feed itself. Admittedly, this is not a stable situation, but actual scenarios taken from history of humankind suggest that it could last for generations. More common these days is the American model where people choose not to act as long as they are not excessively provoked. - the Ed.

I rise to the bait: what makes McC so [like most] American[s] ? - mzq

Well, for one, hero-wise he's as American as pecan pie. He has no exceptional intelect or imagination. He's a regular guy somebody from DesMoines or Peoria can talk to without feeling outclassed. And he is not suspected of having a hidden agenda or being in somebody's pay (he sincerely believes in the neo-con agenda). Clinton & Obama have the disadvantage of being highly intelligent and not really truly believing the oversimplified political pablum they're obliged to serve. - the Ed.

The Nutshell has suggested some time ago that it may take all of the unimaginable vastness of the entire universe to support the very rare and wonderful phenomenon of self-conscious life in which the divine will to joy achieves it's highest (known) realization. Recently, a respected cosmologist took the time to do some serious math and calculated the probability of self-conscious life evolving somewhere in the universe in course of its 20 billion year lifetime. It turns out that the probability is extremely small. We, the human race, are indeed a great rarity and the chances of us ever finding another intelligent life somewhere out there are essentially zero.

This represents an anti-Copernican revolution: in a sense, we are the center of the universe after all, perhaps the very raison d'etre of the universe. In any case, we are extremely, critically important. We are not insignificant specks on an insignificant speck of a planet in an insignificant speck of a stellar system on the outskirts of an insignificant speck of a galaxy that we were made seem to be by the discovery of the grandeur of the universe. Actually, Earth is where it's cosmically at consciousness-wise. We are the incredibly tiny yet fundamentally all-important culmination of all that has happened since the Big Bang. We are the blooming flower of the universe.

It would be a pity if we were to become prematurely extinct.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

04/19/08 (#0245) American dilemma

I am not breaking any news in stating that in a democracy people always get a government they deserve. This is a worrisome thought, however, in the U.S.A. it's not a problem since we do not have a democracy. What we do have is a pseudo-democratic crypto-plutocracy. Yes, it is possible for the people to influence the actions of the government, at least in theory and occasionally in practice. This is important and not to be sneezed at. Some real power, however little, is infinitely better than no power at all. In general, though, the country is governed by those who actually have the power (i.e. the money) to govern. This system is aided and abetted by the American belief that if you're so rich you must be smart. Actually, not a bad guess.

The problem is that being smart is not a sufficient qualification for running the world's greatest (waning but still the greatest) economic and military power. It takes nothing short of greatness and greatness is in short supply. Plutocrats are not. Don't get me wrong - the wealthy are not the bad guys and some may even be great and wise patriots. Plutocracy is not necessarily evil but it dispenses with the idea (so beloved by Americans) that the people, in their collective wisdom, know best. What plutocrats know is what is best for plutocrats, and no one can blame them for that. Besides, what is best for the plutocrats is not necessarily bad for America, but, of course, it is not necessarily best for America either.

In any case, as things stand, we need a wise and great president to represent our collective aspirations and translate them into a credible program, someone who can resist becoming plutocrats' puppet. Unfortunately, people want to be represented by someone they can identify with and anyone who qualifies for presidency is so unlike an average American that the chances of his or her being elected are next to nil unless he or she succeeds in disguising her/himself as an average American. Which is what Hillary and Barack are trying to do. But their extraordinariness keeps showing through and they take the opportunity to accuse each other of the crime of not being like most Americans. Which leaves McCain, who is.

Until Monday,

Paul W.

04/18/08 (#0244) Sandalia

If there is one thing about me that makes my friends, family and acquaintances shake their heads in pitying wonder it's my sandal collection. The origins of it go back, perhaps not surprisingly, to the '60s. It was a significant time of my life - my midlife crisis collided with the psychedelic movement and I went barefoot. Or as close to it as was practicable.

Ever since then I have been on the quest for the Perfect Sandal. I thought I found one at the Vancouver Expo, in the Australian Pavillion. The "Sole Suckers", demonstrated by a comely Sheila, consisted of soles exclusively - no straps at all. I acquired a pair and wore them throughout my time at the Expo but they turned out not to be perfect. The problem was the adhesive which was the secret of their sticking to one's feet. It only lasted so long and after a while it just got too icky to contemplate.

I have developed a set of precise specifications for the Perfect Sandal. Of course I haven't found it but in course of my quest I have acquired many pairs of near perfect sandals. Something around fifty to be inexact. In the early days of sandals, when hippies were making them by hand, I invariably modified my new sandals and improved on their design. Nowadays, they are manufactured in China in ways which make modifications impossible. On the other hand, after a long draught of good looking and comfortable men's sandals that lasted decades (all men's sandals were heavy macho clunkers - no exceptions) there are now many near perfect sandals to be had. So for a while I was buying several pairs annually because of the sudden wealth of choice and the variety of styles that appeared on the market. But I think I have pretty much exhausted the possibilities for a near perfect sandal and anyway I have no place to put any new sandals, even after tossing all the loosers.

So I stopped collecting sandals (along with several other items, like pipes, movies, and most notoriously, books). But with the proviso that if I come across a truly amazing sandal that meets my specifications within acceptable limits I will consider replacing a pair already in my collection with the more nearly perfect one.

Which I just did.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

04/17/08 (#0243) Politics of morality

Due to a deficiency in my education, I don't know what "morality" is. So I looked it up in a pretty good dictionairy which defined morality as "conformity to ideals of right human conduct". This phrase is chockful of hot button words: "conformity", "ideals", "right conduct" and "human" leaving "to" and "of" as the only two words with a clear meaning and I'm not sure about that. In any case, I still don't know what "morality" is. So there's no point in my discussing "relative morality" or "moral relativism" or the dictatorship thereof currently in the news.

Instead, let me address myself to the matter of having a particular shape (intellectually and emotionally as well as physically). We can't avoid having a shape (one of the absolutes of existence) but we do have some limited say about what our particular shape may be. The reason for this is that our shape is not fixed but mutable, and our actions, conscious or not, influence how our shape changes. Other factors, hereditary and environmental, also affect how our shape changes, but it is the fact that we can consciously participate in how our shape changes that makes us humans uniquely distinct from all other forms of life on this planet.

Since we have this power to choose (within limits) our own shape, the embarassing question comes up: what should our shape be? Some point out, quite correctly, that there is no "should" involved. We're free to choose any possible shape we fancy for whatever reason. However, some shapes make more sense than others, depending on our objective in life. That's another embarassment - what should our objective be? As the Nutshell has already discussed at length (well, at the diameter of the Nutshell anyway) the only objective that makes sense is maximizing enjoyment of life. Which also leaves a lot of questions on the table but at least offers a compass for checking if we're moving in the right direction, i.e. in the direction of greatest possible joy in our lives.

Life is an organization of many individual entities harmoniously and maybe even synergistically moving in a particular direction relative to the metaphorical landscape. Without such harmony what we have is a traffic jam. However, harmony is not enough. There's no traffic jam when lemmings all in step go over the cliff. The consensus must be based on experience and reason. Some individuals are more experienced and reasonable than others. Some are better at rhetoric than others. These are not always the same people. The question arises: can people sort out among themselves the right direction to move (using the maximum joy compas) or not?

If we are manifestations of the divine will to joy, the answer has to be yes. With many errors and mistakes along the way (at least some of them necessarily unavoidable) but ultimately heading generally in the right direction. I don't think that would be moral relativism. In any case, it's the evolutionary way.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

04/16/08 (#0242) The shortest Nutshell to date

Actually, the Higgs boson is the particle by means of which the hypothetical Higgs field (which hypothetically permeates the whole universe and interacts with all massive particles) would propagate if it existed. In other words, Higgs boson is to the Higgs field what a photon is to the electromagnetic field or a graviton to the gravitational field. It is the job of the LHC to make waves in the hypothetical Higgs field (this takes cosmic class energy) and observe the bosons propagating the wave. Now you know.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

04/15/08 (#0241) Neverending story

The only missing thing in the Standard Model, the mathematical model of the total universe that makes our i-Pods and nuclear weapons possible, is the Higgs boson. Yeah, I know. Everybody has heard of it, no one has a clue what it is. Very soon now, the ultimate search for the abovementioned Higgs boson will begin with the switching on of the LHC (Large Hadron Collider), the most humongous scientific instrument ever built, designed to reproduce conditions that existed right after the Big Bang if not the Big Bang itself. Naturally, there's some aprehension about that. Especially since the scientists really don't know what will happen if and when the Higgs boson actually shows up. There will be surprises. There's also the possibility that the machine will self-destruct, however, that is a low probability event.

This is all well and good (we hope) but there is one niggling problem: we now know that the Standard Model, with or without the Higgs boson, does not, in fact, describe the universe as it actually is. Not with 90% of it unaccounted for. Higgs boson may be a fiction after all. Better models are under construction though as yet incomplete. Whatever happens, LHC will very likely prove useful in providing data to support a new, improved Standard Model.

A little over a hundred years ago, we had a nearly perfect model of the total universe - it only required some minor detail work to perfect it. The devil that turned up in the details totally changed our understanding of the world. Now, once again, our understanding is approaching perfection except for a few details.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

04/14/08 (#0240) Confounded by the Web

Back in the good old days when the Web was mainly for the cognoscenti, or even further back when it wasn't even there, when my exhibitions were held in a private home temporarily converted into a gallery, publicity consisted of mailing printed invitations to family, friends and aquaintances and maybe some VIPs in the world of Art. I had a fairly good idea how many people would show up with a definite maximum.

Later, when I took the show abroad, I could no longer count on people I knew or who knew me to fill out the room. I had to appeal to the wider public via notices in local media, posters and large scale shotgun mailings aimed at a wide variety of groups and individuals in hopes of scoring a hit with some small percentage of them or maybe starting a word of mouth campaign. I had no idea what sort of attendance to expect. I did have estimates for upper and lower limits but they were too far apart to be meaningful. (In the end, the lower limit proved to be more accurate).

This year, I really don't know what to expect. For the first time the exhibition is being advertised on the Web, on several advertising websites and in some local or special interest bulletins/calendars. At least potentially, millions of people might see the notices and the ads. Of course, my fears of being overwhelmed by visitors had never materialized in the past and I fully expect this to be the case in 2008 as well. But the Web is an awesome tool and it makes me nervous to use it.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

04/12/08 (#0239) Something new

Should we aspire for something new under the sun? The answers vary depending on whom you ask. Stick to your last. Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp!

There are two ways (at least) to be useful. One is to be a provider of life's necessities: bread, soap, roofing shingles, refrigerators, medical services, etc. Entertainment also belongs in this category - laughter and distraction from concerns about the future are also necessities of life. The objective is primarily to support continued existence and well-being of humanity as we know it.

The other way is to conribute to the growth of understanding and appreciation of the world we live in, including ourselves. Into this category of services fall the arts, science and philosophy. The objective (in the case of science and philosophy unintended but inevitable) is to produce a change in the experience of being human, i.e. something actually new under the sun. Whether such a change supports continued existence of humanity or endangers it is not readily ascertainable but if it increases understanding as intended the hope is the former is the case. (It should be noted that change is in any case inevitable - it's just a matter of whether it is consciously directed or left to chance. Opinions vary which is preferable.)

Religion and education, services that help form our character, may fall into either category depending on whether they are conservative (let's not rock the boat) or progressive (let's transcend ourselves). However, note that politics (a category one service) transcends the meaning of "conservative" and "progressive", redefining these terms as required to suit the situation (i.e. the particular voter block's misinformed notions).

Until Monday,

Paul W.

04/11/08 (#0238) Working

A story I tell those incautious enough to inquire about my italian baroque harpsichord is that I built it over a long weekend. This is only partly true - stringing, voicing and tuning took much much longer. But I did put it together from a kit in about three days and two nights. I was too excited to sleep. That had to be the most fun I ever had in a weekend. It certainly wasn't work. I have never put more than a couple of hours of work together in my life.

Until now.

I claim to be an artist and this may even be true. It is also true that artists work at the edge of what is possible struggling to move beyond it, not just pushing the envelope but breaking out of it. A vast majority of artists start out with a gift of natural facility for visual expression which is further enhanced by study and practice. I do not have it. For that facility I have to substitute rational analysis and plain, tedious labor. I can get there but it costs me far far more time and effort than it would a talented draughtsman who can spontaneously draw with speed and accuracy.

So for the first time in my life I am working steadily to get a few new paintings done for the exhibition on May 17th. I am cranking out in a few weeks what normally would take me a year to complete. I do it simply by keeping going. The creative process is in no way impaired by steady work, it may even be enhanced because of fewer distractions and the continuity of the process. And I certainly don't lack inspiration. What is hard is the tedium of consciously and with premeditation applying one brush stroke after another. A natural drughtsman does not have to think about the brush strokes - she just places them precisely where they belong. I must think each brush stroke through and apply it with great care because I can't trust my hand to do it spontaneously. It is like trying to dance while consciously previsualising and preplanning each step, yet without loosing the natural grace of spontaneity. I often do loose it and have to struggle to get it back, by trial and error. In fact, torturing the image into a state of grace is my normal modus operandi. In the end it looks effortlessly graceful - but it's a sham.

I love painting. I hate painting. I'm not sure which I do more.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

04/10/08 (#0237) Owning vs. possessing

Should people own people? Absolutely! But possession of one person by another is a crime of violence just short of murder. Here's the difference.

To own is to expand one's self to include the object or person owned. The object or the person owned becomes an integral part of oneself, to be cherished, loved and protected exactly the same as oneself. In the case of owning a person one is no longer one but two. And the two are greater than their sum. As e. e. cummings put it

   one's not half two. It's two are halves of one:
   which halves reintegrating,shall occur
   no death and any quantity;but than
   all numerable mosts the actual more

Oooh, that's so good! Couldn't have said it better myself. But I digress.

Possession involves no self-expansion. Possession is merely tying something or someone to oneself. In the case of someone, usually without that person's consent - few people are willing to be tied to someone and dragged along with him/her. Everything we possess is tied to us and constitutes a burden we carry. Some stuff we possess may be light to carry and useful. Some may be necessary. But rarely all of it.

What we own may or may not be a burden - we are sometimes a burden to ourselves. But in general we don't feel our self to be a burden and that includes everything we actually own (rather than merely possess). On the contrary, ownership is a source of joy and enrichment. That which we own makes us greater. That which we possess drags us down.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

04/09/08 (#0236) Hedgehog dialogs II

Prickles, the hedgehog I live with, is in a grumpy mood these days as witnesseth the following exchange we had last night:

Prickles: "## ###" (not translatable and just as well)
Me: "What's the matter with you, Prickles?"
Prickles: "## ## ####!"
Me: "Nothing's the matter with me. I'm just busy. You know, the show."
Prickles: "# ## ##"
Me: "You can't mean that - you know the show must go on. People are expecting to see something and I must make something for them to see. You know that."
Prickles: "## ## ###?"
Me: "Come on, perk up! Just a few more weeks and you'll have my undivided attention once again. Hang in there!"
Prickles: "###?"
Me: "Cross my heart and hope to die."
Prickles: "##"

But she is still moping around looking or pretending to look forlorn.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

04/08/08 (#0235) I love I hate

(Re: TN #233 ) Being an independent thinker, a non-conformist, or even eccentric does not make one abnormal. I do not think there can be one definitition of "normal", but I think people such as you and me are normal, and much of the rest of the world is abnormal. (Re: TN #234) Take one step at a time for your show, and everything will get done. - Rhoda

Yes, as Bill Clinton might say, it depends on the meaning of "abnormal". I was being a little perverse. I used the word in the mathematical sense of "more than three sigmas from the median" (meaning way out in the horns of the Bell curve) knowing well that most people would take it as meaning "outside the limits of what is acceptable and desirable". Using this last definition I agree with you. And I'm following your advice. - the Ed

I love flaws, I hate perfection.
I love grace, I hate klutziness.
I love imbalance, I hate stability.
I love rot and decay, I hate immaculateness.
I love romance, I hate tragedy.
I love becoming, I hate habitual behavior.
I love being still, I hate being rushed.
I love going places, I hate being stuck.
I love building, I hate wrecking.
I love energy, I hate violence.
I love intensity, I hate blandness.
I love nymphs, I hate satyrs.
I love fecho, I hate macho.
I love learning, I hate forgetting.
I love thinking, I hate working.
I love blathering on and on, I hate blathering on and on.

Time to stop.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

04/07/08 (#0234) Possible interruptions or loss of signal quality ahead

No, I have not yet pushed the panic button. But I have just entered the critical phase of preparations for the May 17th show. From now until after the show the Nutshell will run in the minimalized mode. The Single Overriding Objective in the coming weeks is to pull the show together. This involves much more than getting a few more paintings done - there's the overall design of the show, organization of the logistics, hardware check and maintenance, framing and labelling, publicity, publicity, publicity (did I mention publicity?) each of which requires a significant amount of time and effort. At the moment I don't even know how many pieces I will have in the show. (The rock bottom minimum number is 30 and I can put up as many as 60 pieces so it will be some number in between).

The Nutshells may get a little sketchy for a while. And brief. Like this one.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

04/06/08 (#0233) The joy of being abnormal

(Re TN #232) You write: "A rational belief is one that does not contradict one's experience. Since we all have different experiences, it is possible for one person's rational belief to be another's irrational one." The trouble with assigning so much weight to 'experience' is that 1) while an experience sounds like simple thing, and is often described simply, it is so extremely complex - consider yet again the 'butterfly effect' - that we often (usually?) apply but a part (the bit we are conscious of) toward thinking about our world view, and 2) for those who accept some formal codex for life and living, it is too often the case that they try to interpret the codex in light of their experiences instead of interpreting their experiences in light of the codex. If the codex is legitimate, this 'bass ackward' approach leads to instability and all of its appurtenant consequences for the rest of society. - Charles

It is true that experience (and by that I mean conscious experience) is our contact with the rest of the world and not the world. The inferences we draw about the world from our contact with it are inherently and necessarily imprecise, inaccurate and incomplete (but usually close enough to make useful predictions about the near future). Hence I agree that a well-established codex is to be trusted more than individual experience. Nevertheless, it would be irresponsible to ignore any contradictions with experience. The preponderance of evidence may well be on the side of the codex but this should not be assumed without a reasonable investigation, especially since any verbal document offers room for interpretation. Also, unless the codex is of the "living document" type (i.e. growing exegetically with expanding human experience) its applicability may be time-sensitive. - the Ed

I am not normal. But in my case, my abnormality is a source of joy to me. (It may well be a source of annoyance to others, but there's no point apologizing. One might as well apologize for the weather).

Being abnormal does not keep me from belonging to the hoi polloi. The two categories are not mutually exclusive. Along with most of the normals I am part of the great anonymous crowd of the unfamous and unremarkable (except, of course, to my friends and family). There's no dishonor in that, and many advantages that I won't go into here except to note that it's a good way to hide my abnormality.

One result of my abnormality is that I make my judgements in isolation from social influences. I am not anti-social but rather asocial. I am very happy by myself. I can entertain myself indefinitely without any input from the society at large. (Although being thrown into solitary confinement is not my idea of fun. I have to have my toys - at the very minimum an endless supply of pencils and blank paper). However, I am not a disinterested observer of the world. On the contrary, I am extremely interested in the world. Studying the world and appreciating it is my first and foremost source of joy. I believe I have a special talent for appreciation (this may be a delusion).

People are, of course, part of the world and they have not escaped my attention. But they are extremely complicated organisms which are difficult to analyze. I am actually a great admirer of people (wonderful creatures!) but I am rather clueless when it comes to particulars of their behavior. I have some understanding of people in general but I get lost in the details. My natural preference is to consider the simplest possible things and processes. I figure if one can understand the most basic basics, the rest will fall in place as and when necessary.

So I have thought and thought about the elementary nature of what we call "existence" and "consciousness". After a few years of fruitless thinking I had an Einsteinian moment of insight which, as they say, changed the paradigm. I was finally able to formulate a self-consistent atomic theory of existence and consciousness which seems to account for all that I know about the world (admittedly, not much). The interesting and unexpected fall out from this exercise was that it became evident that there is a way to make sense of Life, Universe and Everything. All one needs to do is postulate a transcendental desire to be and enjoy. There is nothing in experience to contradict this and it has a huge explanatory power. Not only that but the alternative (that the universe has no purpose and makes no sense) though it may be simpler is positively dreary. To hell with Occam's razor. The choice could not be clearer.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

04/05/08 (#0232) Why do we believe?

In a free country (a hypothetical concept but let's assume there is such a thing) the citizens are not required either to believe or not to believe anything. They are merely required, for sake of public peace and order, not to cheat or murder each other. (Admittedly this is an infringement on personal liberty but true freedom is a myth). In such a country what you believe or not believe is your own private business. In the public domain well observed facts are the only admissible informational currency. Your beliefs don't count.

Why would a citizen of this hypothetical country choose to believe something? I can think of three reasons. Reason one: it makes her happy. Reason two: to justify an action in face of lack of evidence that it is justified. Reason three: to create a meaning for Life, Universe and Everything.

Fact is, we can't do without beliefs unless we're content to live a perfectly aimless life (not a good formula for personal accomplishment and probably not helpful in maximizing one's enjoyment of life). A note of caution, however: irrational beliefs can be dangerous to your health and wellbeing.

A rational belief is one that does not contradict one's experience. Since we all have different experiences, it is possible for one person's rational belief to be another's irrational one. A problem arises when we act on our various beliefs and find ourselves working at cross purposes. Hence organized religion: as long as rational belief is necessary, it needs to be rational for everybody. Organized religion offers a standard set based on a very large sample of human experience over time and space. Unfortunately, not large enough. We have a multiplicity of organized religions of which the least credible are those which claim to be the only true one.

Going back the other way, there is the possibility that the individual experience may be refined and reduced to the irreducible core which is common to all human beings. In the process, the individual personality which colors our experience has to be abandoned. That makes this approach extremely tricky and there is danger of self-delusion. There is no solid evidence that it can be done at all but it is certainly possible to go a long way in that direction, perhaps far enough for the practical purpose of formulating universally acceptable rational beliefs. For those who choose to believe in a divine basis of existence, it's the way to discover and meet the divine within us.

Until tomorrow (a Sunday Special),

Paul W.

04/04/08 (#0231) Enjoying life in America

America (meaning the United States thereof) is a land of infinite possibilities. Anything can happen here. What actually does happen is another thing. There are possibilities and there are probabilities. For quite some time now, with no prospects for change in foreseeable future, the probability has been that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. And we have just reinforced the system, because, we're told, to do otherwise would lead to financial chaos and we'd all be even worse off. Yeah, probably.

Poverty is unavoidable. There will always be people who are incapable, for one reason or another, to make or keep enough to pay their way through life. These people we can write off as bad social debt. Actually, in a country as wealthy as the USA they are not a problem. They are a problem to themselves and those who have to deal with them directly, but to the society at large they are only a minor annoyance disposed of with minimal philantropic effort.

The real problem is that more and more people who had been just making the ends meet, no longer can, and more and more of those who used to have disposable income are just making the ends meet. The middle class is experiencing a degradation of their quality of life. But, of course, this is not the plutocrats' problem - they are making out like bandits.

Unless ill-gotten, I do not begrudge anyone their wealth. In fact, I sympathize with the rich who have to deal with their wealth - it's an added responsibility and requires an extra effort (and you know how I feel about effort). As I see it, the main reward of wealth is the pleasure of having the power to exert one's will that is not available to those with more limited fiscal resources. This is a considerable reward, but beyond that there is not as great a difference as one might think in capacity for enjoyment of life between the very wealthy and those on the edge of poverty. (Recent studies show that perceived personal happiness does not increase proportionately with income - it peaks out somewhere in the middle of the middle class range).

In the USA it is actually possible to live fabulously well without being rich (I am a prime example). Of course, poverty is no fun since, by definition, it involves some deprivation. Just making the ends meet is also a dreary and wearying sort of life. But with even just a little disposable income life here can be a joy provided a) you find satisfaction in your work (I know, a tall order) and b) you consciously take time to enjoy life.

I am doubly blessed - I only do what I like and only as much as I want to. I can enjoy every day all day. It doesn't get better than that. I think I should feel guilty about my undeserved and unearned good life but, just between you and me, I don't. I do, however, try to en-joy the world in the transitive sense (i.e. "fill with joy") as best I can because it's what I like to do and I can't think of anything more worthwhile, for me as well as the world.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

04/03/08 (#0230) Where's Solomon now that we need him?

Yesterday morning, as I was listening to the news, half asleep and not really paying attention, I was suddenly startled by the sound of a reasonable voice. The subject was the current world financial crisis and what needs to be done at this time to contain and reverse it. I missed the name of the man, apparently a spokesman for or a consultant to the Fed. He spoke lucidly, unhesitatingly, with goodnatured confidence that comes from the authority of deep understanding, without any euphemisms, evasions, or equivocations, without fear, hostility or aggression. He spoke to his listeners as an equal among equals, without condescention or servility, as one reasonable person to another together facing squarely a situation that needs to be dealt with quickly, efficiently and effectively.

I want that man for the president of the United States. I don't care what his political stripes may be. I don't need to know where he stands on the issues. I already trust him to see clearly what is the case and deal with it in the best possible way under the circumstances. Here is a man who actually emanates wisdom, strength and kindness - why isn't he running?

As for those who are running, what Clinton has to offer, as I see it, is strength, tenacity and intelligence. Otherwise she is a classic political hack. I see no great wisdom in her. If Obama, who does offer something new: eloquence and apparent wisdom, cannot prevail against her in, as they say, a "timely manner" (i.e. very soon) then he doesn't deserve the presidency. This is the test of his wisdom and strength. If he fails, we default to McCain, who, on closer inspection does not appear to be the shining knight he seemed to be from afar.

It's down to whether we can be persuaded to move in a new direction or whether we'd rather stick with the devil we know. However bad the current situation may be, to many any change looks even more frightening. At some point the present situation will get bad enough that any change will seem better than status quo. That's when we will make a change. But not before then.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

04/02/08 (#0229) Spring fashion

Wisdom does come with age. A case in point: for most of my life I had nothing but utmost scorn and contempt for fashion. That in spite of my own enormous vanity. "Fashion, humbug!" I would pontificate, "A diversion for fools, a colossal waste of effort, time and money, a ritual of superficiality, an exhibition of silliness and conformity at once vulgar and undemocratic, and a vile insult to the natural beauty of the human form." That's what I said, or would have said if anybody asked for my opinion (nobody actually did).

Well, in my mature - OK, somewhat more mature - years, amazingly, I have changed my opinion. (Was it Dr Seuss who recommended changing one's opinion as often as one's socks? In any case, at least once before you die).

I am now willing to admit that fashion is an art. In some cases, even Art with capital A. But that is the least of it. The very things I hated most about fashion - its evanescece and mutability and absolute despotism - I now find to be virtues of the highest order. I am sure this will not be news to the fashionistas among the Nutshell readers, but I now realize that fashion is about change, that it is change. As such. it is the symbol of life itself, of the excitement and adventure of the ever fresh, ever new, ever different life. With each fashion change we renew ourselves (at least women do - men continue to be firmly stuck in the cave), we become young and new again, and our new selves open up a whole new world of possibilities. On the material level fashion may be just skin deep (if that) but as a powerful and transforming symbollic ritual it goes to the core.

As for the absolute despotism of fashion, it is a mixed blessing. On the positive side it makes it possible for a woman (and, to a much lesser extent, a man) to feel "right" about her fashion. It's the only way, since fashion, like beauty, is totally subjective and if there are to be any standards they must be ruthlessly imposed by an absolute authority (usually someone with a proven record of designing attractive and practical clothes and accesories). Hence an essential requirement for a fashion designer (besides talent and skill) is a humongous ironclad ego.

On the negative side, it imposes conformity and class distinction. It defines one, whether one wishes to be defined or not, and what's worse, it pidgeonholes one into one of limited number of slots whether it fits or not. The solution to that is to either design your own clothes (and to hell with the authority) or hire a fashion designer to create something exclusively just for you. For those who can't afford it, some comfort is to be had from the fact that there are a great many designers with great many ideas covering a good range of human lifestyles and self-images.

Also, it is true that some fashion is a vile insult to the natural beauty of the human form. In fashion, as in everything else, Sturgeon's Law applies. (By the way, that article in Nature? Turned out to be a hoax).

What this whole discourse is about is I bought myself a new pair of pants.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.

04/01/08 (#0228) Sturgeon's Law repealed?

I don't shock easily but I think I am actually shocked. I just found out, accidentally (as is the case with most discoveries) that an article in a recent issue of Nature reported a number of unambiguous instances where Sturgeon's Law (the most durable law of empirical physics) was apparently violated. The authors propose that Sturgeon's Law is not universally applicable as generally supposed.

I haven't read it yet but what amazes me is that there has been virtually no reaction among the science commentators, and no publicity of any kind that I am aware of. Maybe my view of the importance of Sturgeon's Law is exaggerated, but as I understand it, its practical significance is comparable to that of the speed limit set by Einstein on propagation of energy and information. Sturgeon places a strict limit on the probability of expected outcomes from intentional actions, keeping experimental science firmly grounded in reality. Removing those limits is really like removing the limit on the speed of light. Impossibilities pile up on top of contradictions and the current paradigm governing practice of science goes out the window. We're back to looking for ether. (It's true that a few scientists skeptical of Einstein never stopped, but they're way off mainstream).

Just think of the implications if the Sturgeon's Law does not in fact operate as reliably as we believed. Even with the law in place, humanity has burgeoned on this planet threatening to displace all other species. If it wasn't for wars, snafus, screw ups, misunderstandings and general ignorance (all guaranteed by Sturgeon's Law) where would we be now? Barely subsisting on a barren rock or perhaps on our way to Mars? I suppose the latter is more consistent with failure of the Sturgeon's Law but either is a paradox. Take away Sturgeon's Law and one would expect the experience of life should get an order of magnitude better. Except it doesn't - it's as if nullification of Sturgeon's ends up actually reinforcing it.

I can't conceive of a paradigm that would make sense of a world where Sturgeon's Law can't be relied on. Of course, that doesn't mean much. There's a lot I can't conceive of that some future Coppernicus, Newton or Einstein will no doubt elucidate (especially if no longer slowed down by Sturgeon). But for now it leaves me disoriented, with all my neat hypotheses, such as my "Elements of Existence", shattered to irrelevance. I really don't know where to turn to find some kind of reassurance that this still is, as I believe, a meaningful universe. I am rather hoping that the observations cited in that article will turn out to have been irreproducible anomalies or perhaps plain bogus.

Until next April 1,

Paul W.