Thank you. I was waiting for this comment. What I meant, of course, was that at the present stage of our evolution and understanding, we do not know how to tamper with Nature's Laws. They are hermetically sealed to us. Whether we ever manage to pry the seal open I do not know. I am not making any predictions. Could turn out to be a Pandora's box, though, unless we achieve godhood first which may well be a precondition... - the Ed.



Well, obviously you and I relate very well. Anybody who thinks I'm witty and handsome is definitely on my A list. - the Ed.


Which is more important to the survival and continuing evolution of our species: good intentions or accurate observation and rational analysis? I propose that both are essential. Certainly they are not mutually exclusive. By good intentions I mean the genuine desire to do all that is possible to improve the chances of survival and to increase the capacity for existential joy. But to understand what is possible and likely to succeed, accurate observation and rational thinking are sine qua non.

The point, which I have already made numerous times and will continue making as long as anyone is listening, is that rational thought by itself is not enough to make life worth living. We live for the joy of living, either present or hoped for. There is no other reason to cling to life. Once we're clear about that, we rely on accurate observation and rational analysis to secure and maintain conditions conducive to maximizing enjoyment of life.

Which brings me to the other point I continue to make. Enjoyment of life is not proportional to the amount of stuff we possess but to the size of our self, colloquially called the heart, the measure of how much of the world we incorporate within the boundaries of what we consider to be and treat as our self. As far as I know, there is no limit on the size of self.

One more point: the self is not merely a grab bag of variety of experiences. It is a living organism in which order and chaos are maintained in a dynamic balance that is the origin of creativity, adventure, continuing renewal and joy.

You've read it all here before, but it remains worth restating and I do try to vary the angle of view each time.

Until Monday,

Paul W.




05/23/08 (#0261)  Top ten reasons why I'm not rich and famous


Can't improve on that. - the Ed



No. 10 - I hate paparazzi.
No. 9   - I don't need it.
No. 8   - I just want to have fun.
No. 7   - I don't want to be obliged to meet my fans' expectations.
No. 6   - I don't relate well to most people. (Of course, that makes it mutual).
No. 5   - I easily loose track of where I'm going and I actually enjoy it.
No. 4   - I don't have the ego for it.
No. 3   - I'm neither funny nor good looking.
No. 2   - It takes too much energy and hard work. I'm exhausted just thinking about it.

And the No. 1 reason why I'm not rich and famous: - I'm not trying to be.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.



05/22/08 (#0260)  There is hope


There is a Jewish legend (probably evolved from the story of Sodom & Gomorrah) that God will not destroy the world if there are at least thirty six righteous people living in it. This is very hopeful - with six billion people now living, surely there must be at least thirty six among them who are righteous. The odds seem pretty good that we are safe from God's wrath for the foreseeable future.

Which brings me to today's subject: changing the world, i.e. the bulk of the people living in it. Couple of Nutshells ago (#0258) I ranted and railed re the willful irrationality of people generally. I suggested that only an adequate degree of misery and fear can force an otherwise mentally competent human being to resort to rational thought. I was being a bit unfair and not entirely realistic. Let me make amends.

First I'd like to note in passing that people's irrationality is sometimes their most endearing characteristic. One can't help but admire the romantic heroism of attacking windmills in face of certain failure, stupid as it is. That's why Don Quijote is such a globally beloved character. Sancho Panza, who is rational most of the time, endears himself to us through his stout simplicity and ignorance, a reminder that rationality alone is not enough. Don Quijote returns to sanity and dies - saved, but sans his identity and with no further purpose in life. The tragicomedy of life is rooted in irrationality.

Now to practical matters. The question is can people change? Yes, of course, they change all the time. Can they be intentionally changed? That is not so obvious. But God is clearly an optimist - according to God, thirty six people in six billion is sufficient leaven to transform the world. Then there is the matter of who are the righteous, and what is it that makes them righteous? Don Quijote and Sancho Panza are each of them righteous in their own way, and they try to transform the world and fail. 

Nevertheless, the world has seen popular leaders, both rational and irrational, who distinctly and unquestionably changed the world and whose thoughts and teachings continue to change it, for better or worse. Indeed, thirty six such people could easily lead the six billion. As for determining whether they are the righteous ones we can only judge this in historical perspective - has their influence brought more joy to the world or more misery? Thirty six righteous ones may be just enough to keep the balance of joy and misery in the world on the positive side.

But in addition to the thirty six, there is a small but significant minority of rational and charismatic (in the original sense of the word) people who work in obscurity, within their particular spheres of influence to change the world. There may well be many millions of them. They might be able to avert the need for extreme misery to bring about rational behavior. They might keep us from destroying ourselves (or being destroyed) before we come to our senses. It's a close call but they are the hope of the world.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.



05/21/08 (#0259)  Tampering with nature


Every time there is a notable technical break-through or a significant advance in science, a cry goes up warning of dire consequences and certain damnation if there be any who dare tamper with the Laws of Nature. Most of it is just a knee-jerk reaction to any possibility of change in our way of life (we all fear change, some more than others). Some is based on the belief that an absolute moral code appears to be in danger of being violated by the new possibilities.

There are many reasons for proceeding with caution when exploring a new territory. There may well be tygers there and other monsters yet unknown. A misstep may be fatal. And we never know exactly what the consequences of our actions may be, even in familiar environments. But fear of tampering with Laws of Nature is not one of those reasons and that's because the Laws of Nature are tamperproof.

Nature's Laws are not like human laws which may be broken or transgressed. Nature's Laws are unbreakable. Just try to get around the law of gravitation or any of the three laws of thermodynamics ("you can't win; you can't even break even; and it's the only game in town"). If a law of nature appears to be broken before your very eyes, it's either magic or a miracle. The first is an illusion and the other is only God knows what. We can do magic but not miracles. We cannot twist a rope out of sand or make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (actually we can, but that's another story). Rest assured: we cannot tamper with Laws of Nature no matter how we try.

The corrolary of this is that whatever we can do cannot be illegal as far as Nature is concerned. And if Nature allows it to be done, it almost certainly will be done, sooner or later, somewhere or other, intentionally or not. Nature is out to explore all possibilities on the chance that some of them may be viable (most aren't) and lead to greater joy. Of course, now that Nature has managed to evolve a Rational Animal that can act with conscious intentionality, it expects it to make use of its rational faculties to choose those among all the possibilities which seem to have greatest chances of success. That was, after all, the whole idea of evolving such an animal. We are the manifestation of Nature's intent.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.



05/20/08 (#0258)  Misery, the mother of rationality?


OK, I'm marginally autistic so I find it hard to understand why people don't always act sensibly and rationally. It's not like they're brain damaged or developmentally impaired. They seem to be in possession of all their faculties, they're just not using them, in fact, refusing to use them.

Now I don't always act sensibly and rationally myself. But in my case it's because of either misunderstanding or distraction or forgetting or plain running out of energy, not because I don't want to. Regular people act irrationally even when they know it, because they want to. That's what I can't wrap my mind around. (Case in point: a song "Stop Making Sense" is very popular because that's exactly what people want to do.)

I do understand that life is about feeling, not about thinking . And I do have feelings, more or less like everybody else. But while feelings are the stuff of life, rational thinking is the infrastructure necessary to support life, feelings and all. We stop being rational, we die. Rationality is our survival mode because we have at once too little and too much brute power to depend on it for survival. But it seems people would rather die than be rational. And they do, by the millions. Call me heartless, but I think that's a good thing. I also think high gas prices are a good thing. I think gas is still way too cheap. There's still not enough misery in the world to make people think rationally. Hopefully, we're getting there.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.



05/19/08 (#0257)  Hedgehog Dialogs III


Prickles, the hedgehog who lives here with me in Possum Hollow, is bouncing all over the place.

Prickles: "###! ###! ###!" (Hedgehogese is not translateable into any human language)
Me: "Stop bouncing, Prickles, you're making me dizzy."
Prickles: "###! ###! ###!"
Me: "I'm glad the show is over too but I'm too achy to bounce. That was a lot of heavy lifting. Good thing the Show Fairy showed up, with her sister  yet! We were on the brink of disaster..."
Prickles: "###! ###! ###!"
Me: "Down, Prickles, down! Calm down!"
Prickles: "## #### ### ## ###? ##! ##! ##!"
Me: "Never mind that. It's been a couple of years since I had a show - you expect me to remember details like that?  Besides, I would have been a lot more nervous had I known I was shlepping 900 pounds of iron instead of 600, so it was good I didn't know. It worked out well in the end. I don't seem to have wrecked the car and I got rid of 300 pounds of iron I didn't need."
Prickles: "##! ##! ##!"
Me: "The main thing is, thanks to the Show Fairies it looked fresh, graceful and effortless.  It was a good show and everybody agreed on that. People were impressed. It felt right. It was spacious, relaxed but with lots to look at. People are talking about having another show in the same place next year..."
Prickles: "## ##!"
Me: "Hey, that's part and parcel of living with an artist. Art is a jealous mistress. But you're always number one and a half."
Prickles: "###!!"
Me: "OK, number one and a quarter".

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.



05/03/08 (#0256)  Don't panic


This message is brought to you courtesy of the Show Fairy, the one who, after every possible fiasco, snafu and disaster has occurred and all the plans and schedules have been reduced to shambles and ruin and everybody is ready to commit suicide, magically makes the show come together in the last possible moment, looking fresh, graceful and effortless.

But just in case the Show Fairy catches a cold or something, the Nutshell is suspended until after the Show.

See you May 19th,

Paul W.



05/02/08 (#0255)  Structure and effect


The current hot trend in Art with capital A is to play around with structure and to disdain effects. I have very high regard for structure but it seems to me that structure without effects is like notes without music or food without taste or drawing without an image (which is exactly what Art without effects would be). By "image" I don't necessarily mean a recognizeable representation of "reality" - I mean any organization of space, light and color such that there is an defined whole of some kind for the eye to see and the mind to perceive.

Of course, you can't have structure without effect, without an image. The moment the paint brush touches the canvas (and even before that) you have an image. The thing is, the contemporary artist who is au courant with the mainstream trends doesn't care about the image. Image is incidental - it's there only because you can't avoid it. Certainly its aesthetic quality is totally immaterial. That belongs under the rubric of "effects" and effects is not what the fashionable art of today is about. Which is why so much of contemporary art seems deliberately ugly. But the ugliness is not usually intentional - it's merely a byproduct of a painting process that is unconcerned with visual aesthetics.

Isn't "ugly art" a bit of an oxymoron? No, not at all. Art doesn't have to be beautiful, it only needs to be meaningful. As far as what art can or cannot be is concerned, I draw the line at deliberate meaninglessness which is an oxymoron. And what bothers me about much of the contemporary art is precisely that its superficial imagery is meanigless. There may be some kind of logic in the way the painting is put together (that's the "structure" aspect of it) but deliberate neglect of visual aesthetics is something like deliberate self-mutilation (which is sometimes considered to be an artistic act). Intentional ugliness for a specific effect is one thing, but accidental ugliness due to intentional disregard of visual aesthetics is, in my view, an unnecessary diminishment of the expressive potential of art. It's like a wonderful room in a house which is deliberately locked and neglected because of some irrational self-destructive notions of the owner. The critics may point out that contemporary art is not about being expressive - but I'm not going there, not today.

My own naive art is all about the effects. I do pay attention to the structure but in my images the structure is merely the scaffolding for the effects. What you see is what I intended - you do not need to disregard the image and dig deep for the meaning, nor do you have to be content merely with an appreciation of the way my images are structured. You don't need to even notice that aspect of my art. Its meaning is all on the surface, in what is visible, in the image, in the effect of my organization of space, light and color. In other words, contemporary art-wise I'm just not with it. Sigh... Fortunately, in these post-post-post-modern anything goes days there is room and tolerance for every sort of art - even mine.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.



05/01/08 (#0254)  The joy of synthetic significance


We see not what is before our eyes but what we think is before our eyes. Before I go any further let me note that merely looking is not seeing: how often do we look without seeing at all? Not everything that enters the eye is registered by the mind. Which brings me back to my point: what we see is what the mind registers, and what the mind registers is controlled not only by the image on the retina but also by what we are thinking at the time.

Seeing (as opposed to the physical function of sight) is very much a psychological sense. We see what is important to us and are blind to what lacks any apparent significance. "Meaningless" stuff is just so much noise and gets filtered out automatically by our noise supression circuits. On the other hand, a tiniest detail, like a mere glint in somebody's eye across the room, may be seen (and remembered) vividly. Ultimately, what we have seen is what we remember having seen, and we only remember what we can logically connect to what we already know or believe (or desire or fear).

I have had and continue to have a lot of fun creating synthetic visual significance through symmetry and repetition. We are very sensitive to symmetry because we and most of our fellow creatures are symmetrical. If it's symmetrical it could be mommy or a tiger, in either case well worth paying attention to. Making otherwise "meaningless" or chaotic patterns symmetrical by reflection imbues them with instant if artificial significance. The beauty of that is that the beauty that exists unseen thoughout the world suddenly becomes vividly apparent - merely because it has caught our attention with its fake symmetry. A piece of unnoticed garbage lying in the road becomes a fantastic and fascinating creature in its own right when combined with its mirror reflection. A simple, you might even say stupid trick, but oh, so effective at eliminating psychological blindness! The cheapest, easiest and safest genuine psychedelic experience there is.

Until tomorrow,

Paul W.