The Nutshell

In one of long ago Nutshells (now buried somewhere in the Archives) I noted that most of the bad boys I had encountered in my childhood (much to my grief and disgust) went on to become professionally successful and socially distinguished people. The nice ones generally went nowhere. This, by the way, did not seem to be equally true of bad girls. Though I'm sure some of them made out very well, most ended up badly. But that was then, it's different nowadays.

In any case, as a child I have often felt outrage at the unfairness of it all. The misbehavers, the rule breakers, the nasties seemed to evade their just deserts much of the time. In general, they were having much more fun than me, and I was at least trying to be good.

Now, as an alleged adult, I think I see what was the problem. These bad boys and girls were bad only in my judgement. As a natural born rationalist but lacking the experience and discrimination needed to evaluate the facts of my experience, all I had to go by in forming my judgements of other children was what I was told by the adults is the proper behavior for a child. Naturally, I never questioned what adults told me - they were the ultimate authority, they knew. I was horrified when, on arrival on these shores, I discovered that kids here generally have little respect for adult authority.

Of course, in actual practice, though I tried I could no more maintain submission to adult authority than did those "bad" kids. In fact, it was I who became the black sheep of the family, breaking away from tradition, propriety and expectations of friends and family. If there were perfect justice in this world I really shouldn't be enjoying life as much as I do. But I'm not complaining.

Until next time (the Nutshell is paused for maintenance and renovations, except for an occasional and irregular appearance such as this one),

Paul W

06/17/09 (#0522) The light side of nihilism

Woody Allen is a very funny fellow. As a movie director he is a fine craftsman (which, however, did not prevent him from making some clunkers when he got out of his depth). As an actor, like Charlie Chaplin, he has only one persona, which, he claims, is not anything like his off-screen persona. Be that as it may, his offscreen persona certainly looks a lot like his onscreen persona and the one thing they definitely have in common is the belief that Life, Universe and Everything is meaningless.

Woody believes that absolutely and is horrified by it. He thinks it's some kind of a cruel (though meaningless) cosmic joke and actually unfair. He says he makes movies, plays the clarinet and is raising a family as a distraction from contemplation of the total futility of it all. He considers the pleasures of his life to be rare oases in the vast wasteland of human experience. But he underestimates the human capacity for joy. And, except for his self-imposed angst about the meaninglessness of life, his own life seems to have been and continues to be quite enjoyable. He may be horrified but he's not depressed.

As MFRs are well aware, there is a sure-fire cure for Woody's existential angst. It's just a matter of changing one's belief. Since belief has no basis in fact (although rational belief is not contradicted by any facts) one is perfectly free to choose what one believes. And it's not as if it did not matter what one believes - in fact, it does.

The Nutshell strongly advocates belief in purposefulness of Life, Universe and Everything. Although it is equally without basis in fact as its opposite, it makes enjoyment of life far easier and more "natural". Woody, like everybody else, is certainly in favor of enjoying life as much as possible (even though, like most people, he feels guilty about it - but that's another story). Nevertheless, he is not likely to change his belief because he needs his nihilism. Paradoxically, it is the very basis of the integrity of his persona. He wouldn't be one tenth as funny without it. If at all.

Until next time (the Nutshell is paused for maintenance and renovations, except for an occasional and irregular appearance such as this one),

Paul W

06/15/09 (#0521) The mysteries of modern commerce

Late last year a long awaited event came to pass at last. A couple of years ago I had writtem down specifications for my ideal digital camera but there was nothing on the market remotely resembling this ideal. There were, however, rumors and intimations that something like it was in gestation, waiting to be born. I was ready to pounce. When Panasonic Lumix LX3 made it to the market in September 2008 it was unique (or so I thought) and close enough to my specs that I did not hesitate to buy one after reading a trusted review which gave it the highest grade. Indeed I was not disappointed. The camera was not perfect, merely great, but it was good enough for my purposes. Among other unique features, it was equipped with a genuine Leica lens so I called it "my little Leica". Little did I know...

Only after it was stolen and I tried to replace it I found out that a) it is now virtually unobtainable, and b) Leica sells an almost identical camera under its own name (as D-LUX 4) with the MSRP about 50% higher. Now, for a price, it is possible to buy an LX3 but the current average price happens to be not much less than the full MSRP of the Leica version. I suppose this is an example of the market forces at work reflecting the fact that there is almost no difference between the two cameras. The mystery is why would Leica and Panasonic go head to head with essentially the same camera, made in the same factory, but selling under different brands at different prices (or at least at significantly different MSRPs)? What were they thinking ?

The consensus among serious photographers is that LX3 and D-LUX 4 are tied for the top place among compact pro-level digital cameras. Quality-wise there seems to be hardly anything to choose between them. When I bought my LX3 I wasn't even aware of its Leica branded twin - I didn't even think of looking at any Leica camera because I consider Leica to be out of my price range. But now the difference in actual street price between LX3 and D-LUX 4 is so small one has to rethink the situation.

As noted in the last Nutshell, LX3 and D-LUX 4 are not exactly identical. Although it is not easy to see the differences between them, the Leica version is made to more stringent quality specifications and it's tweaked by Leica to produce more "Leica-like" images, whatever that means. With a two year warranty, better bundled software and somewhat sturdier and classier construction, the D-LUX 4 is unequivocally if marginally a better camera than the LX3. With price difference approaching insignificance, it now makes sense to buy the best. So I did.

Until next time (the Nutshell is paused for maintenance and renovations, except for an occasional and irregular appearance such as this one),

Paul W

#0520) More rainy day thoughts

After a brief respite it's back to rain. Can't help but note how much what I think and the way I feel is affected by my environment and my body chemistry. I suppose one measure of our angelhood is how well we are able to resist the influence of weather and toxic chemicals and maintain a rational and joyful mindset come what may, i.e. how well the mind rules the matter rather than vice versa. I have ways to go. (But, of course, the mind is in fact a function of the matter albeit with a feedback loop).

Grace - A hobby horse of mine, one which I ride often. "Grace" has several meanings, none conflicting with one another. The Sanscrit root of "grace" means "praise" which I consider to be synonymous with "appreciation" which, according to the Nutshell Doctrine, is the main occupation of angels and the root of all joy. So grace and joy are practically synonymous. Which IMHO is ample justification of grace for grace's sake.

As I see it, we do not need any reasons for acting gracefully (in every sense of the word). Grace is its own raison d'etre and requires no other. I see it as a manifestation of universal love of self and others. Hence, all we need to save ourselves is grace in all aspects of our being. I am a great admirer of grace. But on rainy days I tend to give in to sad contemplation my own gracelessness, natural and acquired. Sigh...

The Great Communications Revolution - We've been in the midst of it for some time, a few hundred years to be specific. It all started with Gutenberg and his printing press. For a while progress was slow, consisting mainly of improving the printing process and means of distribution. Then along came the telephone, the radio and the television, practically all at once. In a matter of several decades we underwent a quantum leap in capability for universal communications. Soon after came solid state electronics and nanocircuitry which made the personal computer and the Web possible. That was another quantum leap, this time in mere couple of decades. Another decade and behold, a global cellular network which makes pocketable multimedia personal communications devices feasible. We can now remain connected with everybody by broadband data channels wherever we are, 24/7/365.

The Face Book, texting, the Twitter, etc. - these are merely transient epiphenomena of the present state of the Communications Revolution. The Revolution itself is rooted in the portability, ubiquity and connectedness of powerful universal communications devices. Like it or not, we are all about to become permanently linked via a data rich, universal, omnipresent communications interface. Many of us already are. We have not yet began to imagine the consequences. And the Revolution continues at an ever accelerating pace.

Replacing the LX3 - Diligent research reveals that LX3, my special little camera which was stolen recently, is simply not available anywhere at a reasonable price. It is universally backordered with months long wait lists. There are two or three stores that actually have it in stock but they demand premiums of $200 and up over the MSRP. However, for about $250 more than what I paid for my LX3 I can buy the Leica branded version of this camera which is in stock everywhere. Does this make sense? Maybe.

Leica offers the D-LUX 4, virtually identical to LX3 but with the Leica logo, at a seriously higher price. Indeed, the scarcity of the lower priced LX3 may be more political than economic - Leica may have found the competition a bit much and may be putting pressure on Panasonic, which makes both cameras in the same factory, to drag its feet on LX3 deliveries.

So how does Leica justify the higher price? According to reputable reviewers the Leica version's advantages are: a) the Leica logo, b) better internal image processing engine resulting in subtly but perceptibly better image quality, c) better image processing software supplied with the camera, d) sturdier construction and a more classical look, e) two year warranty (vs. one for LX3). Does this add up to $250 worth of extra value? As I said, maybe. I'm thinking about it.

Until next time (the Nutshell is paused for maintenance and renovations, except for an occasional and irregular appearance such as this one),

Paul W

06/06/09 0519) Thoughts on yet another rainy day

Is Barack for real? - When was the last time that the possibly most powerful person on Earth spoke straight facts to all the people of the Earth with genuine and rational concern for the good of all? Has it ever happened before? Anyway, this makes Obama, like Lincoln, Ghandi and Jesus, the #1 target for the vested interests (as exemplified by Dick Cheney and Osama bin Ladin) but this time globally. I fear greatly for his life. He may well be able to bring a significant fraction of the world leaders to his side but this would only increase the danger to him by increasing the probability that his program for changing the world may succeed in the long run.

Absolute terrorism - Absolutism is, by definition, extremism and extremism, because of its absolute zero tolerance for different views, leads inevitably to terrorism, whether physical or mental or both. All terrorism (as distinguished from mere violence which may be motivated by primitive fear or hunger) has been and is being perpetrated by people with absolute beliefs.

Postulating existence of certain absolutes is absolutely necessary for making sense of the world. But there is an infinite difference between acting on faith as if these postulates were true and making absolute belief mandatory for all under penalty of death, torture or excommunication.

Three statements - Here are three statements for your consideration:

a) You're welcome to anything I can offer that you can use but I don't need anything from you.
b) I don't want anything from you but you're welcome to anything I can offer that you can use.
c) You're welcome to anything I can offer that you can use and I hope you can offer me something I can use.

Becoming an angel - We are born animals though with a seed of angelic nature which may or may not germinate. Charming as they may be, little kids are not angels - not yet and may never be. At best they are larva angels awaiting metamorphosis and birth at a much later stage of human development. Although most are born defective some reach their full potential to justify the existence of the human race.

Until next time (the Nutshell is paused for maintenance and renovations, except for an occasional and irregular appearance such as this one),

Paul W

06/05/09 (#0518)

Yes!! I hear you! Caloo, calay! But I always knew you were there. It's just that sometimes I indulge in literary hyperbole to prey on MFR's sympathies, a despicable habit I picked up from Earthlings in course of the long years I've been marooned on this planet... - the Ed

Hedgehog dialogs XII

Prickles, the hedgehog I live with, my friend, occasional mentor and minder of my Important Stuff (NOTE: she was not with me when a lot of my Important Stuff was stolen recently) has been in a blue funk for days. The reason is simple: rain, rain, rain and not a ray of sunshine for what seems like forty days and forty nights though I'm sure it hasn't been more than thirty. Prickles' main mission in life is to Appreciate Sunshine and when she is thwarted in this essential work she can be hard to live with.

Prickles: "## ## #### ### ##?!" (I have tried but have given up trying to translate Hedgehogese into peoplespeak).
Me: "Hey, no need to bite my head off! I'm thinking deeply about where the Nutshell needs to go. That's heavy duty thinking. Takes time..."
Prickles: "### #### ###."
Me: "How can you say that? Me? Procrastinate? You cut me to the quick."
Prickles: "### ### ## ### ##?"
Me: "There are aesthetic, ethical, existential and technical questions I have to wrestle with here. You can't put deadlines of this stuff..."
Prickles: "##### ## #### ## ####?"
Me: "Of course I'm going to get it done before I die! What a question!"
Prickles: "### ### ###?"
Me: "Well, I don't actually know - I'm guessing anytime between now and 2034. But don't worry, I'm comitted to get the Nutshell back on track and I always keep my promises (which is why I almost never make any)."
Prickles: "## ## # ### #####!"
Me: "What you need, Prickles, is a good dose of vitamin D. Why do you care so much about the Nutshell anyway?"
Prickles: "## ### ### #### ## ### ## ##."
Me: "But you always have me read it to you, sunshine or not. There must be more to it than just killing time until the sun comes back."
Prickles: "### ### ## ###. ## # ## ZZZ."
Me: "Good idea! I'll wake you up when the sun comes out and we can talk rationally again."
Prickles: "##."

Until next time (the Nutshell is paused for maintenance and renovations, except for occasional appearances mainly to keep Prickles from going bonkers on rainy days),

Paul W

06/04/09 (#0517) Photographer's lament

For well over half a century I have not gone anywhere without a passport and at least one camera. I feel naked without either (although for a nudist-at-heart that's perhaps not so dramatic a statement). Recently both my passport and my favorite camera (plus some other non-trivial items) have been stolen and I'm running for cover. Replacing the passport, the credit cards, and the various IDs was a snap compared to the problem of replacing my camera.

It may be the recession but in just about every reputable camera store the Lumix LX3 is out of stock or back-ordered with months-long wait lists. The bait & switch artists advertise that they have it in stock, but these turn out to be "imports" i.e. gray market items without US warranty and, according to one such outfit, have Chinese only menus and instructions (if so, they must be specially made to order since English is standard for all models). The few Amazon and e-Bay sellers are asking outrageous prices (some well over MSRP) for specimens of dubious provenance. It's a bleak picture out there.

After extensive and intensive search I found an unlikely but reputable source (Dell Computers) offering the camera for not much more than what I paid for it originally, shipping three to five weeks after date of order. That is, evidently, absolutely the best deal available. There is only one (I think) catch: it's the silver version. I had the far more popular black version which is more elegant and less attention catching. It's more than just aesthetics - black is actually more functional for serious photography of the sort I had in mind. Also, I am suspicious that the silver version may be manufacturer's overstock, meaning it may not have the most up-to-date processor.

For now, I'm making do with my unportable and obsolete behemoth of a camera (Sony R-1). Within the range of its limitations it's a very good imager, but it's no substitute for LX3 which is, so far, unique on the market and just about perfect for my purposes. I'm waiting for the situation to resolve itself but I can't wait too long - I'm a man in growing hurry...

Until next time (the Nutshell is paused for maintenance and renovations, except for an occasional appearance such as this one),

Paul W

06/03/09 (#0516) "I" can have it all

Just not all at once. Of course, the fragment of "I" peering through the eyes of the Paul Wyszkowski persona can't have it all, not ever. (Although, any fraction at all of it all is intrinsically inseparable from all of it, but never mind). The thing is, the Paul Wyszkowski persona represents the limit of what this particular fragment can experience. For better or worse, Paul Wyszkowski has the high privilege and the unavoidable necessity of choosing from the universe of his potential some doable portion of it that can be accomplished in a life time. No choice is also a choice - death is the only way out of the game, at least for the Paul Wyszkowski persona. "I", being immortal, am not so lucky. Indeed, as sum total of "My" fragments "I" am already having it all (God forbid "I" should ever be re-integrated...)

Actually, when we say "I want it all" we don't mean it literally. The phrase "I want it all" refers, almost always, consciously or unconsciously, to the animal/angel dichotomy at the root of our human nature. We want to be both. Gods and beasts. Saints and sinners. We want to integrate our opposing drives and be all that we can be. But we can't. We can only be some fraction of what we potentially could be. We are forced to choose and ignorance can lead to disaster. To come to know the right choice (according to the Nutshell Doctrine there is such a thing) is the highest expression of humanity.

Until next time (the Nutshell is paused for maintenance and renovations, except for an occasional appearance such as this one),

Paul W

05/29/09 (#0515)

(Re: TN #514) You piqued my interest with the word "net" in the phrase 'net benefit': it implies an accountant (i) capable of of calculating on a universal scale, and (ii) able to communicate the bottom line. Otherwise, in every case of human action, the 'actor' can at best only whimper, 'I like to think that ...", one of the most pathetic utterances made daily by human types: as if what one 'likes to think' has any importance whatsoever in expressing what is. - Y'r "sole Faithful Reader's" shadow.

Some believe there is just such an Accountant who in fact calls every life to account at its end (see TN #470). I like to think that what I think is not totally divorced from reality. Of course, I can't be absolutely sure of that so I just go with my best guess and take a leap of faith. After seventy five years of leaping I think I'm beginning to get the hang of it. At least I'm able to do it without a lot of existential angst... - the Ed

The enthusiastic life

Ancient Greeks invented the word "enthusiasm" to describe the condition of being filled with divine spirit. The meaning of the word has been somewhat degraded after a few thousand years of use but not too badly. It has weathered relatively well: the outlines of the original meaning are still discernible.

Enthusiasm is often perceived as a form of benign madness (conversely, mad people used to be thought of as divinely inspired.) But if it be madness yet there's a method in't. Contemporary psychology is catching up with the age-old wisdom which holds that enthusiasm is as necessary to a successful life as earth, water, sun and air. By "successful" life I mean, of course, a joyful life, there being no other credible criterion of success.

There is a class of people who "enjoy" being miserable. They become anxious and fearful if they are not actively suffering. Theirs is a perverse enthusiasm based on the belief that their joy in the future depends on their suffering in the present - an extreme case of "no pain no gain" philosophy. Then there are intellectually challenged people whose enthusiasm is spent on the utterly trivial - collecting silly stuff, following twittering celebs, being fashionable, blathering on blogs. But in general, people are enthusiastic about things that add significant meaning to their lives thus enhancing their capacity for enjoyment and appreciation of life. It's easy to see such enthusiasm and its effects as an imperfect but authentic manifestation of the work of the divine spirit. After all, without meaning, we are nothing. Without hope of joy, we have no reason to be.

Until next time (the Nutshell is paused for maintenance and renovations, except for an occasional appearance such as this one),

Paul W

05/24/09 (#0514)

(Re: TN #513) Having recognized the foolishness of your obsession with the piano how do you justify your persistence in it? - the Squirrel

Good question! See the following. By the way, I do believe you're my sole remaining Faithful Reader. Thanks for hanging in. - the Ed

Enjoying myself, enjoying the world

The Nutshell Doctrine, as MFRs (that probably should be singular) know, is that the purpose of the Universe, Life and Everything is Joy. The Nutshell defines Joy as a sense of rightness, a sense of being in harmony with the Whole, of a creatively fruitful dynamic balance between Order and Chaos. Joy is never perfect (nothing is) and varies in degree from vanishingly small to huge. It is not uniformly distributed throughout the Universe.

According to the Nutshell, the Universe is always striving to optimize and maximize the experience of Joy, with mixed results but total commitment and determination driven by an ineffable transcendental Desire for Joy. It's an endless process with the hope of positive progress springing ever green, but also with many set backs, some of them tragic.

As is the case with any desirable commodity, there is an Economics of Joy (there is also a Mechanics of Joy, but that's another story). So if I enjoy myself at no expense to the rest of the Universe that is essentially a Good Thing. I am, after all, a Part of the Universe. A problem arises when my enjoyment of myself is at the cost of loss of enjoyment of some other Part of the Universe (practice of slavery is a good example). Even so, what matters is the net increase or decrease of Joy in the Universe. For example, my enjoyment of a chicken dinner far outweighs the chicken's loss of enjoyment of the rest of its natural life. (Who says? I say; the chicken may have a different opinion.)

Playing the piano is a source of considerable enjoyment for me - it's a way to enjoy the intricacies of music much more deeply and intimately than mere listening affords. In essence, though, it is no different from listening. It does offer the opportunity to share one's enjoyment of music with others via performance, however, this does not apply in my case because I am incapable of performing acceptably well. Since no exploitation of others is involved (such as forcing them to listen) my playing the piano would seem to have a net positive effect on the quantity of Joy in the Universe. Still a question remains: is this the most economical way of en-joying [transitive verb] the Universe?

Perhaps not. Perhaps my hours at the keyboard would be better spent succoring widows, mentoring orphans and enlightening the benighted. But, apart from the question of my qualifications for such work (my vocation lies in the field of analytical thought rather than social work) there are many practical difficulties for which I am not well prepared. On the other hand, the psychological and biological benefits of playing the piano may well result in an increase in my capacity for contributing to the world's supply of Joy. After all, as long as I continue to live I owe it to the world to keep myself in good operating condition and practicing the piano is undoubtedly good for my brain and disposition.

Frankly, I don't and can't know the actual net quantitative effect of my piano playing on the en-joyment [v. tr.] of the Universe. But I do know that I enjoy it and that I'm not about to bend myself out of shape over it. I hope that answers your question.

Until next time (the Nutshell is paused for maintenance and renovations, except for an occasional appearance such as this one),

Paul W

05/20/09 (#0513)

(Re: TN #512) I thought you did marry a woman who would have you for a husband? - the Squirrel

Yeah, but it ended badly. We were too much alike... - the Ed

It's my mother's fault

My mother was, among other things, an accomplished pianist. Thus I was born into a home with a baby grand which was not just a piece of furniture but a hardworking musical instrument. Professionally my mother was a singer, and like many professional musicians she had low tolerance for musically untalented people. Like her son. She determined early that I was tone deaf and rhythmically challenged and did not waste any further time on my musical future. Nor did she appreciate my playing with the piano because the wrong notes and crippled rhythms grated on her refined musical senses. Besides, my perpetually grimy fingers would leave the piano keys sticky.

Which left me burning with desire to be able to play the piano just like her. For the rest of my childhood I was irresistibly attracted to any piano I came across. During the wartime there was no piano at home. The baby grand was looted by the Nazis, mother was lost somewhere in the vastness of the Soviet Union (that's another story) and we were in a fighting for survival mode. Still there were pianos here and there and if I ever saw one that's where I headed first. Of course, I could not learn much about piano playing until at thirteen, with the war over, I found myself living once again at home with a piano. During times when I was home alone I managed to teach myself, laboriously (it's really hard when you don't have the talent) to play a number of mostly classical pieces, the most ambitious of which was Chopin's Military Polonaise. Also the Bumble Boogie.

I did not play any of this repertory well and my efforts went totally unappreciated which only fuelled the fires of my passion. Then I moved away from my parents' home and found myself once again pianoless. I decided to take up the guitar as a portable substitute. Frustrated by the cheap instruments I could afford I decided to build myself a good one and wound up building nineteen in the process of learning how. That was interesting but I never learned to play the guitar well either (though I came to love guitar music).

And I kept coming back to the keyboard. One of the highlights of my life was coming across a baroque italian harpsichord kit that I was able to acquire very cheaply because the guy who had bought it decided it was beyond his ability to build. I built it in three days and three nights (I didn't sleep). It took much longer to string, voice and tune it. Finally I had a keyboard. I learned a bunch of easy Bach and other baroque pieces that I could play on it. It was great fun but it wasn't a piano.

Eventually I did buy a piano - an old wreck of a turn of the century upright grand which I restored and tuned myself until I grew tired of trying to keep it in a playing condition and splurged on a Yamaha Clavinova electronic piano that never needed tuning. But I was growing older and presumably wiser and I began to get discouraged by my inability to play really well. I got away from playing the piano. Or anything. I got busy with image making for which I have some native talent so the results are more rewarding. I gave the Yamaha to my daughter who did have musical talent (I am apparently a carrier of my mother's musical gene but in me it remains unexpressed).

End of the story? Not quite. Whenever I go by a musical instrument store I keep looking at pianos and keyboards. When Costco had a super special on a Yamaha keyboard with 61 touch sensitive keys for $100 I couldn't resist. But then I realised this was foolishness. I was done with going against lack of talent. I offered the keyboard to my brother who also has something of a yen to play [with] a keyboard though in more subdued way. Before delivering it to him, though, I gave it one last farewell trial. Soon I was engrossed in relearning some of the old pieces I used to play and actually learning new ones. I discovered that when plugged into a set of good speakers this little keyboard makes an impressive facsimile of a concert grand with a rich tone to gladden a piano lover's heart. One problem: 61 keys are not enough to play my full repertory.

So I have a Casio CDP-100 with 88 weighted keys on order (a popular item, it's out of stock everywhere). Should be here early August. And it's absolutely my mother's fault. Had she insisted that I learn to play the piano instead of discouraging me from it none of this would have ever happened.

Until next time (the Nutshell is paused for maintenance and renovations, except for an occasional appearance such as this one),

Paul W

05/17/09 (#0512) Sunday thoughts

Item: Sex and religion

The two have always been close, whether as allies or adversaries, even to the point of identity. While some consider sex to be a purely animal behavior, a necessary evil, a drag on our angelic aspirations, others see in sex a spiritual dimension and a path to Godhood. Is God essentially sexless or sexy? A futile question since, to paraphrase Lao Tse, "that which people call God is not God".

Observation of the world of experience suggests that sexual union is an adaptive strategy essential to effective engineering of necessary modifications in complex organisms in response to changing conditions. But in more highly developed animals and especially in homo sapiens sexual union has also become a channel for communication and expression of feelings (sensations of being). Thus sex is becoming angelified while, at the same time, its mechanical role in genetic engineering of the species is being supplanted by technology. Human sex may soon become biologically irrelevant and a matter of concern only to psychologists and theologians.

Item: Sex, men and women

This is just me but what I don't understand and don't like about women is that they find men attractive. Granted that there are exceptions which prove the rule but as a rule men are uncouth, immature, repulsive, and plain ugly. How can graceful creatures like women be possibly attracted to these graceless lumps? Blind, insect-like sex drive or maybe the feminine impulse to take care of the needy (or both) is the only way I can explain it. But perhaps women are not so much attracted to men as to the idea of being attractive to them. Maybe it's just vanity....

There are, of course, some men who are actually graceful, highly intelligent and mature (I am not one of them). They are a small minority. In general, men have been brutalized by their historical role as hunters and warriors responsible for dragging home the dinner and fighting off the predators. Women, on the other hand, developed social sensitivity and grace through motherhood. There's nothing like intimate contact with the innocence and vulnerability of children to induce emotional civilization. So there's a clear incompatibility here, but that's hardly news. With respect to a relationship with a woman I feel like Groucho Marx - I wouldn't marry a woman who would have me as a husband. (So I'm sticking with the one who won't).

Item: An aphorism suitable for men, women and children

I leave you with this helpful thought (or prayer): "Let me not despise others for being different from me, and let me not despise myself for being different from them". Amen.

Until next time (the Nutshell is paused for maintenance and renovations, except for an occasional appearance such as this one),

Paul W.

05/115/09 (#0511) Where did the money go?

Since the onset of the current recession about $4 trillion disappeared from the U.S. economy, apparently into thin air. What happened to it? Where did it go? Who's got it?

It never existed to begin with. It was an illusion, a lie. An appearance of wealth was created out of nothing, out of empty promises to be exact. Collectively, we are no poorer than we were before the bubble burst. We merely discovered we are not (and never have been) as wealthy as we thought. Nevertheless, as individuals we have been subjected to a significant redistribution of real wealth. That's because many of those responsible for creating the illusion managed to trade their share of it for things of real value before it became evident that it was nothing but smoke and mirrors. That left everybody else actually poorer.

So that's where some of the money we did have went: into the pockets of clever fiscal magicians. Some of it we spent, deceived by the illusion of wealth, on things we could not actually afford. In the end, except for the scammers, we are all worse off for the exercise. The best we can do now is to learn from the experience. History suggests that in a couple of generations we'll forget the lesson but, since past performance is not necessarily indicative of future performance, we can hope...

Until next time (the Nutshell is paused for maintenance and renovations, except for an occasional appearance such as this one),

Paul W.

05/09/09 (#0510) Orga and mecha

In the movie "Artificial Intelligence" the synthetic boy is treated by the womb-grown kids like a nigger because he's mecha and they're orga. But the difference is in perception only - in fact, he's every bit as conscious and desire driven as the orga kids. The question for today is: can "artificial intelligence" be actually conscious in an organic way the way animals and humans are, or can it, at best, merely mimic consciousness?

If AI is a mecha phenomenon, as indeed it is so far, the latter is the case. But where does the boundary (if any) lie between artificial and natural intelligence? What exactly is the difference between mecha and orga?

The critical difference is the presence or absence of an integral self - the perception of self as an individual whole. In other words, self-consciousness. The organic intelligence is grown from scratch as an integrated individual whole. It possesses a sense of self from the moment it becomes distinct as an individual. It is actually built up around this original sense of self. All growth and maturation processes serve to establish, confirm and expand the original primitive sense of self as a unique individual. That individual's consciousness begins and continues as an integrated field inseparable from its organization. In fact, it actively participates in development of that organization.

On the other hand, at the present state of technology, a manufactured intelligence is a mere assemblage of incompletely integrated parts. All the individual components: the memory, the processor circuits, the input and output devices, are formed each in its final state and asembled to produce a mechanism, the way a car is built. The various parts have no prior knowledge of each other, they are assmbled in a pre-planned way in the planning of which they did not participate. They are designed to perform in very specific ways with no allowance for deviation from the plan. They are locked into a very primitive identity strictly defined by rigidly fixed relationships. The whole thing is pure mecha.

Experiments are now under way to "grow" a synthetic intelligence in an organic way. Starting with primitive components, an environment favorable to "naural" (i.e. random) formation of combinations of these components, and some kind of a motivation to evolve in a particular direction, researchers hope to see emergence of a self-organized, self-conscious intelligence. While it took a few billion years for the human brain to organize itself, application of conscious intent to controlling the components and the conditions should make the creation of a synthetic organic intelligence doable in a much shorter time. However, I'm betting it will be more than six days.

Until next time (the Nutshell is paused for maintenance and renovations, except for an occasional appearance such as this one),

Paul W

05/07/09 (#0509) Fact and fancy

A fact is a report or a record of an observation. Given a reliable and honest witness, a fact is often, for all practical purposes, as good as an observation. Since there is no way we can observe in person all that we need to know we have no choice but to rely heavily on facts.

Dry facts (the most reliable kind) don't mean anything by themselves. They're just facts. Somebody has to be able to make something of them, to weave them into a plausible theory about the state of the world so that we can make a sensible decision about what needs to be done next.

This is where fancy comes in. We must be able to imagine believable scenarios that can explain the known facts. Without fancy facts are useless.

Of course, some of us are better (whether by nature or training or both) at concocting possible scenarios than others. That, and the available personal energy, is what differentiates leaders from the followers. A follower keeps asking: what does this mean? What do I do now? A leader asks: what are the facts? Just give me the facts, I'll sort them out for myself. Fancy makes the difference.

Until next time (the Nutshell is paused for maintenance and renovations, except for an occasional appearance such as this one),

Paul W.

05/06/09 (#0508) The unredeeming tragedy of Francis Bacon

Reviewing the current Francis Bacon retrospective, Richard Lacayo, the art critic, confesses that he was deeply impressed. He thinks that Bacon's grisly visual cries of anguish, rage, and frustration are despair made majestic.

I don't think despair can be made majestic. Despair is inherently powerless, pathetic and unenviable. I think what Lacayo has in mind is not despair but tragedy which can be majestic although the case of Francis Bacon is not an example.

What is miserably tragic about Bacon's art is the relentless focus on what is life degrading rather than life enhancing. Bacon was unhappy as boy and man, unable to come to terms with life or to find genuine joy in being. Escaping from paternal condemnation he became immersed early in his life in the murky currents of a corrupt society where animal natures ruled ferociously if impotently to create an illusion of power through mutual mutilation and violation. That is precisely the hell that Bacon portrays vividly in his paintings. It is not majestic. It is not inspiring. If it is impressive it is only in its bestiality. Ultimately, his work is a deeply depressing document of failed humanity. And any hope of learning from this horrible example has to struggle against Bacon's ecstasy of despair.

Until next time (the Nutshell is paused for maintenance and renovations, except for an occasional appearance such as this one),

Paul W.

05/05/09 (#0507)

(Re: TN #506) #### #### ## ### #### ## # ### #### # #### ### #### ## ## # #### ##### ##? - Prickles

You're right, "Consciousness of a Magnitude and a Direction" (which I will call an "Elementary Observation" for short) does not taste anything like chocolate mint ice cream. But if there are a great many Elementary Observations, with different combinations of Magnitude and Direction, they can link up like Lego blocks to make up very complicated constructions. Some of those complicated constructions actually do taste like chocolate mint ice cream. I hope that helps. - the Ed

Certified beauty

"La Gioconda" ("The smiling one"), a.k.a "Mona Lisa", the most famous painting in the world, is famous mostly for being famous. It's actual claim to fame rests on two facts: a) it was painted by a celebrity (Leonardo da Vinci) and b) the lady in the portrait has an eye-catching mysterious smile like she knows something we don't (totally unlike portraits of the period in which people were shown only with serious or at least dignified expressions). Because it is the most famous, most people think it is the greatest painting in the world, and therefore, by definition, the most beautiful, following the general (erroneous) belief that Art is beauty objectified. Most people when they actually see "Mona Lisa" wonder what makes it so beautiful because, to look at it, it doesn't seem all that beautiful.

Helen of Troy was, reportedly, the most beautiful woman in the western civilized world of her time. No reliable likeness of her survives so we have to take Homer's word for it. Judging from statues and busts of some other beauties of the time, actual or ideal, Helen probably came closer to the contemporary idea of feminine beauty than does Mona Lisa. And who is the most beautiful woman in the world today? One way to decide this might be by a popular vote for a Miss World. But what about the dissenters? And there will be many. Just ask anyone in love who is the most beautiful woman in the world.

Neither the consensus of a majority nor the opinions of arbiters of aesthetic value (arbiters by virtue of their fine discrimination and great learning) help me perceive something as beautiful except to the extent of helping me focus my attention so that I can see the object more clearly and more completely. Ultimately, beauty remains firmly in the eye of the beholder. What seems beautiful is beautiful. What does not, is not. But only to me.

A perception of beauty is exactly that: a perception. It is not a belief, it is not a statistical datum, it is an experience, a feeling. Nevertheless, some people deliberately disregard their actual experience (which they mistrust) and supplant it with belief based on polls or expert opinions. Declining to experience and appreciate beauty directly they only allow themselves the satisfaction of a suitably authoritative certificate.

Until next time (the Nutshell is paused for maintenance and renovations, except for an occasional appearance such as this one),

Paul W.

05/02/09 (#0506)

(Re: TN #505) You ought to point out that 0<P<100 applies only to the universe as a whole. There's bound to be some section of the universe where a particular event has always or has never been observed. - the Squirrel

At least so far... But you're right. Consider it pointed out. It should also be pointed out that probability is not so much a property of events (since it only applies to events that have not yet happened) as of the state of the universe. - the Ed.

Hedgehog dialogs XI: The ultimate Elements of Existence

The Nutshell readers have been frequently exposed to the Nutshell Doctrine of the Reality Trinity (a.k.a. Elements of Existence) in one form or another, directly or indirectly. This has been quite deliberate as the Ed believes that the readers' lives will be Enormously Enhanced by their understanding of this Doctrine. Therefore, the Ed continues to push his thinkware in anticipation of the Eternal Gratitude he will have earned from the readers and their progeny, not to mention the Untold Riches.

In this noble effort Clarity and Conciseness are indispensable virtues. Prickles, the hedgehog the Ed lives with, provides the golden standard of adequacy in this respect. If Prickles, who is a simple soul, can understand the point being expostulated, then the Ed has indeed succeeded. What follows is a transcript of the Ed's actual attempt to explain to Prickles a recent refinement of the EoE Doctrine.

the Ed: "Hey, Prickles! I got something here I want to bounce off your noggin."
Prickles: "##?" (It is quite impossible to render Hedgehogese cogently into English)
the ED: "Prickles, do you think we're different, you and I?"
Prickles: "### ##!!."
the Ed: "Yeah, I guess that's kind of obvious. So you'd say there is a big difference beteen us?"
Prickles: "## ##!"
the Ed: "And what about these two new shiny pennies in your Ice Cream Savings Fund? Are they also different?"
Prickles: "# #."
the Ed: "Yes they are. Look, one has a paw-print on it and the other doesn't. And one of them has a slight scratch on it, see?"
Prickles: "## ## ####."
the Ed: "Well yes, the difference between these two pennies is very very small, but they are still different, otherwise we couldn't tell one from the other. If they were exactly alike in every respect (including their location) they'd be one and the same penny."
Prickles: "### ## ##..."
the Ed: "Trust me on that. The point is, differences come in all sizes from very small to very big. I'm going to define Magnitude as the size of a difference."
Prickles: "## ### ##### ###?."
the Ed: "Because 'Magnitude' has more syllables and sounds more scientific than 'Size', OK?"
Prickles: "##."
the Ed: "So can you tell me how big is 'big'?"
Prickles: "###!?"
the Ed: "Just kidding. Actually there is no way to tell. Magnitudes can only be compared one to another. You can say this one is bigger or smaller than that one but that's all. Magnitudes are only relative. Now, Prickles, I'm sure you know what is a Direction?"
Prickles: "### ### ###?"
the Ed: "That's right, like left and right, or up and down, or forward and back. So which way is left, Prickles?"
Prickles: "##??"
the Ed: "Pulling your leg again. Directions are also relative. They are relative to one another. Like which way is left depends on which way you're facing, right?"
Prickles: "##..."
the Ed: "And how many Directions do you suppose are there?"
Prickles: "######?"
the Ed: "Six is a very good guess, Prickles, but wrong. Besides left and right, forward and backward, and up and down, there's also future and past which makes eight, but actually, although it's hard to imagine, there can be any number of Directions."
Prickles: "# ### ## ####??."
the Ed: "Trust me. And don't even try to imagine it. You might sprain your brain."
Prickles: "##!!"
the Ed: "Just don't think about it too much and you'll be OK. Now let's come back to Magnitude. What do you suppose is the smallest and the biggest possible Magnitude?"
Prickles: "## ## #."
the Ed: "That's right. We don't know - there's no way to measure the biggest or the smallest. But we know for sure the smallest Magnitude can't be just nothing at all. It has to be something with a size to it. And the biggest also must have a definite size - it can't just keep growing. OK?"
Prickles: "##."
the Ed: "OK. Now here is what I've been aiming for all along so listen closely, Prickles. You remember the 'Reality Trinity', the elementary Atom of Existence?"
Prickles: "### ## #### ### ### ####?"
the Ed: "Excellent memory, Prickles! That's right: Consciousness of the difference between two distinct Things (or States), like two distinct flavors of ice cream. Now wrap your mind around this: the definition of an Atom of Existence can be made even simpler than that. It can be boiled down to just this: ' Consciousness of a Magnitude and a Direction' ."
Prickles: "## ###?..."
the Ed: "Think about it, Prickles. Let me know if it sinks in. Consciousness of Magnitude and Direction is all that is required to construct this whole universe with all its flavors. Now this next statement may not mean anything to you - don't worry about it: the Theory of Relativity focuses mainly on Direction (a.k.a. space-time) and the Quantum Mechanics focuses mainly on Magnitude (a.k.a. energy) - just take my word for it. However, EoE deals with both equally so, unlike TOR and QM, it's a true ToE."
Prickles: "###?"
the Ed: "'Theory of Everything'."
Prickles: "##."

Until next time (the Nutshell is paused for maintenance and renovations, except for an occasional appearance such as this one),

Paul W.

P.S. Prickles is still thinking, so I'm not sure I have succeeded...