Have I written it here? Or have I only thought about it?
I could go back and search the prior posts, but that's not how things work here at SharpSugarShock, we only go forward, usually as fast as possible, often with both hands off the wheel and our eyes glued to the cute chick w. the great ass on the sidewalk, that's how we like it. So..."tits or GTFO", as they say.
Software Singularity (SS): This is the basic Kurzweil idea but updated...because I'm smarter than him. The Singularity is here, right now, we are inside of it. The thing being we've not yet realized it and so we can't quite take advantage of it. The way in which this works is that as humans apply psychic energy (magic) to the world we change it, internet + software allows us to change reality (by that psychic magic process) essentially instantly and essentially everywhere. This is the disruptive change which the Singularity can be used to enable.
Omni-net (ON): This is the idea of ad-hoc network-aware wireless mesh networks becoming omnipresent. My device talks to your device talks to the main trunk line. My device and your device talk to a cell phone repeater that talks to the main trunks. And various iterations. I like to use the ideas of Nearest Neighbor Next Nearest Neighbor Networks (N5) or NANs (Neighborhood Area Networks). The point with this one, and it's a good example of the SS from above, is that we can actually do this, really, right now, if there was software to allow it, and if there was software to allow it it would spread very rapidly to transform the entire network simply be being available. There's a self-as-server post around here which ties in to this as well.
Fiber-net (FN (pronounced "fin")): This is the logical counterpart to the ON, you use fiber optics to engage in what is called quantum cryptography, this allows you to "trust" and to monitor for interception, packets on the wire (or photons on the fiber I guess). The idea of the ON and the N5 system it allows is that you can draw data across a range of sources and validate it that way. I can check the same story on FOXNEWS and CNN and somewhere else, I can also check the FOXNEWS story against itself by using two different routes to connect to it, I do all of that because of the untrustable nature of the ON, you don't know if your path to the source is secure (or even real, maybe you've got the DNS poison and are redirecting to fictitious hosts). These would be hardwired things. The local data shop, or the 7-11, or your apartment.
Personal Omni-Device (POD): This is the near-future iPhone. We've got them already, I mean it was quite interesting to consider this device prior to the iPhone existing and then to see them pop up in reality. Not a *tremendous* unique idea on my part, and likely stolen unconsciously, but still interesting to make predictions and have them come to pass. The thing that lets you access and process information which can be...anything. Taxes, pictures, email, video, etc. And so since you can look at anything with it you can use it for anything and it becomes the single device to "in the darkness bind them". This can again be done right now. Extensions to this idea involve other devices wirelessly "publishing" their own available resources so you can command them as needed from your POD. For instance your TV can tell your POD that it's there and then you can use your POD to control your TV, stereo, whatever.
Single Human Enhancement Layer (SHEL): This is a set of technologies which enable various human enhancements depending on what's available currently. At the low-end it's a antenna, larger battery, charging mechanisms (solar, wind, motion harvesting, wall plug, etc), and hopefully some ballistic\fragmentation protection, at the high-end it's Iron Man, basically.
I think those are the ones I tend to use most often and thus want to shorten to initials most often.
There are other concepts but I don't think they've got cute names for them.
You know, psychic energy influences reality, that's a big one. Usually easier to call it Magic, but then folks get weird about that, think it means things it don't (hint: It might be magic, but you will always have to do the work).
Direct economics. The idea (again, this is something we can do, right now, if there was software and laws for it, and again, once those two exist....it will instantly become everywhere) being that discreet individuals can transfer value (money) between each other on a random access basis. No cash, no swiping your card, no need for ATMs and checks and deposits. I think it's got some emergent properties. Also called micro-commerce.
What else?
Can't recall. I'll update this post, or, more likely, post new lists under the same post name to make them easier to find.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Neglect
Ah blog, I've neglected you, so sorry, so sad.
Here we go again.....
Need to get back in to the swing of the writing. Or the rut of it perhaps. Which means I'll have to quit editing the posts for being Future-Tech specific and just slap them back in to the general ranting nonsense realm. Quickly I makes the now standard blog-apologist qualifier, to wit: Ain't nobody what reads this space anyhow, so I'm sure this repurposing update will be met with a great deal of fanfare and approval. Or, not.
I want to take some time off from the news. Which leads to me having more free time at work. And work is slow so it's blogging that remains.
Why not talk about the news then? No reason, I guess I can, you interested to hear about it? Sure you are.
It's actually a nice little lead in to what I see as a stunningly common and widespread issue, and one of my favorite issues at that, cognitive bias.
Emotions. The gift-curse of being human. W.o. them we are nothing w. them we are raving lunatics. Better to be mad than dead I suppose.
In the SD realms much of what I've seen and learned has been based around emotions. This is of course superficially interesting because of the common misassumption that SD is about ass-whuppery. Most often what I see (or tend to perceive? Perhaps a projection? Potentially a potent potion of perceptual poison?) is emotions being used as weapons by folks, what's interesting here is that they are not using their own emotions (rage, disapproval, scorn, etc, or the withholding of the better ones, affection, trust, etc) but instead manipulating the emotions of the target. Often the target even assists them with this and often the target will be utterly unaware of what is happening. Which, really, makes them pretty fuckin' sweet weapons in my opinion. When you can "steal" somebody elses hardware and then trick them in to shooting themselves in the foot and make them think it was their idea? Awesome.
I think the news, whatever that vague concept means to you, is becoming increasingly adept at using that weapon. This is because (back to the Future-tek) of the news orgs becoming "int0rw3bz enabled". As a side note the interesting thing about being internet enabled is that...it's a voluntary upgrade. It's a taking advantage of what's already present rather than creation of a new medium. For instance blogs and FaceSpace are pretty good examples of ways folks can now network and advertise and gather intel that have existed for a period of time but are only now becoming used in that fashion. Observed also how this relates to the concepts of the software Singularity which I talked about in prior posts. Or at least I hope I talked about it, I'll need to if I haven't.
So. The use of emotions as weapons against their host target. Making somebody mad or sad so you can manipulate them. Or making them make themselves mad or sad. You know, like presenting them with various words and pictures that produce consistent and predictable emotional responses. Pictures of dead babies. Words about beauty and wealth. And so forth.
As advertising dies, as predicted on prior blogs, instead we move towards an attentional economy. Again I suspect I talked about this prior but if not I'll prepare a blogging on it. Humans create what we put work in to, often times this is indirect. For instance if I go to see a concert I'm not going to be doing anything personally, but by "paying attention" (note use of "pay" in this usage) to it I create (help create) the entire concert, pay for a ticket, pay the band, the venue, etc. Even if I get free tickets you can know that money is trading hands somewhere and it's to the intention of getting attention.
News works this way. The number of folks that give a crap about your stories, clickthru, etc, the more you can make (still using sidebar adverts and such, but that'll only last so long, and of course those adverts use the same attentional economics) so then what you're interested in is not news, not in the (ie, what I consider) classical sense, it's not events in the world that are of importance, it's events in the world that will provoke an emotional response in the reader.
It's a funny thing too I guess. Co-workers this morning still talking about that fucking boy in the balloon, or lack of boy. Still! Read my lips: Nothing. Happened.
And yet...something did happen, is happening, will continue to happen, because of...? Attention being paid to it. And it consumes all this resource to do so. Supposing Anderson Cooper does a bit on the incident, I don't know if he did but he's a good example for my purposes, and suppose he makes some easy number liked 600$ an hour. Spending 10 minutes of his time, which I assume involves 10 minutes of camera man time, production assistant time, and more at the back end of editing and arranging and so forth, and we can be putting pretty gross amounts of cash in to something ephemeral, which then becomes nice and solid, instantiates itself if you will, in reality.
But why? Because they told us to care about it? Or because it was an easy and effective emotional grab? And now that we were grabbed we get backlash when we're "wrong", we get angry w. them for fooling us, tho we were never really fooled in that we were just told to accept something as fact (it's on the news, right?) and had no reason to question it, so it perpetuates.
I suppose this can be a good thing in the interpersonal realm. Get in a fight with the girlfriend and then the backlash will be a swing towards lovey-dovey happiness and make up sex.
The down is the up and all of that.
So then, to take a break from the news for reasons of increased emotional integrity, which is really just attentional integrity. Emotions often being only real when we pay attention to them. Often, not always.
Another thing, three other things:
1) You are what you do.
This one comes in a lot of forms. As you think so shall you become. Reap what you sow. Thought creates reality. Or from the above paying attention instantiates events in reality and then once they are "real" they can continue to roll along on their own after they've sprung fully formed from our foreheads.
This is a central tenet for me at this point. It's largely so "obvious" (cog bias) that it's hard to even talk about or explain w.o. it sounding so obvious folks misunderstand it. It's the "secret" to everything. Want to be good at martial arts? Easy. Do them, every day, for 10-20 years, you'll be good at the end of that time (and maybe well before). Want a nice garden? Read about gardening daily, think about your own garden daily, check it, water it, sit amongst the rows and beds. Writing books? Same\same. Again, obvious.
This leads to
2) You only have a certain limited amount of time and energy.
This applies both lifetime and daily. This isn't about excuses folks make saying they are tired or busy, that's true but irrelevant for our purposes here. No matter what, you will only have so much time in a day, and what you spend that time on (spend?) is what you become. If I spend 15 minutes a day showering and brushing my teeth and other kinds of grooming I become a groomed and clean dude. If I spend 15 minutes shoveling fastfood down my food hole every day I become a corporate supporter of McDonalds (or brand of choice). A 1 hour commute transforms you in to a person who spends 2 hours a day alone in your car, probably irritated.
Aside: Emotions can be draining, do you think the modern malaise might be partly manufactured by all those little irritating digs we surround ourselves with? I do.
This is probably the most important of these principles\truths to consider. In particular this is true because many things we want to do to become (per 1) ) are not short term activities. For instance being a good father is an investment of a significant period of our limited time and energy over a significant time span.
Other ways in which this truth is important are all along those lines. What are you doing that you won't be happy w. having invested in when it is time to retire (and we're talking Replicant style retirement here). Drugs? Drinking? Sitting in rush hour traffic, irritated, alone? Getting pissed off at "the news" by stories about the fucking republican shitards and the douchelord democrate asshats? What about playing video games? Reading genre fiction? Watching reality TV?
and so we arrive at:
3) If it's important do it every day, if it's not important don't do it at all.
This one is a Dan Gable quote, perhaps adulterated by the internets. It's not quite an actual literal truth, as a very wise friend of mine clarified for me recently, but it's a fine little personal heuristic.
Another variation I came up with recently being: Would I have rather spent the time jerking off?
Because if it's not as rewarding as a self-inflicted orgasm is it really worth engaging in?
That one is a bit more flippant, but I do loves me some flippancy.
This is where we bring the 3 truths together to unify. What are you doing with your time? You know what you do becomes what you are and you know you've only go so much time so why are you doing what you are doing and do you really want to be doing that?
I don't think I really want to watch TV, particularly the series, I don't think I really want to watch the news (or monitor from my internet lair more accurately) and I think there are likely to be other things I might not really want to do either. Heck I bet jerking off could be added to that list, dumping the literal as well as metaphoric masturbation.
But that's all definition by the negative. Things I can cut out. What about the things I want to make sure to do "every day" (in the sense that there might be somethings you don't actually want to do daily but that are important)?
For instance if you want to consider yourself a martial artist...is that really fair to do if you do not have a personal private (or maybe not private, but...) practice on the daily tip? I don't think so. And even in the case that you do you might still end up a beginner, dabbler, hack, or something. But at least you'd have the dedication to make "martial arts" (impossibly vague and meaningless in the current usage) part of who you are, rather than a thing that you do (I know, if you're doing it and then becoming it, isn't it "you" just as well? Sorta, but no, not really, IMVHO).
So, from news to 3 essential truths. No tech stuff?
Only 1800 words here, I think I can tack a bit on at the end.
Psychic energy is attention. Focused attention becomes reality. Which is magic (to effect\"create" reality). Thus we can say that what we spend our collective psychic energy on is a distributed extended magical ritual. Ideas like money, religion, law (which side of the road you drive on).
Techwise we've come to an interesting place particularly since crossing the Singularity barrier. We can now focus and distribute attention in, perhaps not entirely, but still relatively novel and new ways. We don't have to watch the TV show at the particular time, we can watch in Hulu, or DVR, so the show can still get our support, and thus be more likely to sustain production.
There is the common reference to human minds being able to "hold" about 7 things at once (often cited as +/- 2) and there is the other side of the "you are what you do" thing, which is that you (as a living organism) are going to (unable to prevent IMO) adapt to what is around you. So when we surround our selves with the modern malaise we'll adapt to it in some way. Maybe by becoming more active and maybe by shaping our selves to it and letting it in to our lives.
The news then exists because we pay attention. Most of the folks I know consider themselves informed in many ways and use the news to get that inform(ation) and thus keep it going, but I think the news is no longer our servant but our master, learning to manipulate us to give it attention so that it can in turn absorb more attention from us, strengthening itself. Psychic Parasite.
Bad memes.
There's the fracturing of attention as well these days. If we look at 2) from above we can see that this is another bad meme and psychic parasite, we can't amount to anything if we're constantly distracted (ie, paying attention to) by everything. The technology is making this possible. And largely this is because Software Singularity (SS) style we're paying attention to, spending psychic energy on, creating the tools to do this to our selves. FaceSpace, Twitter, blogs, news, always-on always-present (Omni-Net) internet connections which allow the distraction further and further in to our lives. Why if I didn't love the internet so much it would make me considering getting rid of my precious iPhone (full disclosure: I don't own an iPhone). ;-)
Here we go again.....
Need to get back in to the swing of the writing. Or the rut of it perhaps. Which means I'll have to quit editing the posts for being Future-Tech specific and just slap them back in to the general ranting nonsense realm. Quickly I makes the now standard blog-apologist qualifier, to wit: Ain't nobody what reads this space anyhow, so I'm sure this repurposing update will be met with a great deal of fanfare and approval. Or, not.
I want to take some time off from the news. Which leads to me having more free time at work. And work is slow so it's blogging that remains.
Why not talk about the news then? No reason, I guess I can, you interested to hear about it? Sure you are.
It's actually a nice little lead in to what I see as a stunningly common and widespread issue, and one of my favorite issues at that, cognitive bias.
Emotions. The gift-curse of being human. W.o. them we are nothing w. them we are raving lunatics. Better to be mad than dead I suppose.
In the SD realms much of what I've seen and learned has been based around emotions. This is of course superficially interesting because of the common misassumption that SD is about ass-whuppery. Most often what I see (or tend to perceive? Perhaps a projection? Potentially a potent potion of perceptual poison?) is emotions being used as weapons by folks, what's interesting here is that they are not using their own emotions (rage, disapproval, scorn, etc, or the withholding of the better ones, affection, trust, etc) but instead manipulating the emotions of the target. Often the target even assists them with this and often the target will be utterly unaware of what is happening. Which, really, makes them pretty fuckin' sweet weapons in my opinion. When you can "steal" somebody elses hardware and then trick them in to shooting themselves in the foot and make them think it was their idea? Awesome.
I think the news, whatever that vague concept means to you, is becoming increasingly adept at using that weapon. This is because (back to the Future-tek) of the news orgs becoming "int0rw3bz enabled". As a side note the interesting thing about being internet enabled is that...it's a voluntary upgrade. It's a taking advantage of what's already present rather than creation of a new medium. For instance blogs and FaceSpace are pretty good examples of ways folks can now network and advertise and gather intel that have existed for a period of time but are only now becoming used in that fashion. Observed also how this relates to the concepts of the software Singularity which I talked about in prior posts. Or at least I hope I talked about it, I'll need to if I haven't.
So. The use of emotions as weapons against their host target. Making somebody mad or sad so you can manipulate them. Or making them make themselves mad or sad. You know, like presenting them with various words and pictures that produce consistent and predictable emotional responses. Pictures of dead babies. Words about beauty and wealth. And so forth.
As advertising dies, as predicted on prior blogs, instead we move towards an attentional economy. Again I suspect I talked about this prior but if not I'll prepare a blogging on it. Humans create what we put work in to, often times this is indirect. For instance if I go to see a concert I'm not going to be doing anything personally, but by "paying attention" (note use of "pay" in this usage) to it I create (help create) the entire concert, pay for a ticket, pay the band, the venue, etc. Even if I get free tickets you can know that money is trading hands somewhere and it's to the intention of getting attention.
News works this way. The number of folks that give a crap about your stories, clickthru, etc, the more you can make (still using sidebar adverts and such, but that'll only last so long, and of course those adverts use the same attentional economics) so then what you're interested in is not news, not in the (ie, what I consider) classical sense, it's not events in the world that are of importance, it's events in the world that will provoke an emotional response in the reader.
It's a funny thing too I guess. Co-workers this morning still talking about that fucking boy in the balloon, or lack of boy. Still! Read my lips: Nothing. Happened.
And yet...something did happen, is happening, will continue to happen, because of...? Attention being paid to it. And it consumes all this resource to do so. Supposing Anderson Cooper does a bit on the incident, I don't know if he did but he's a good example for my purposes, and suppose he makes some easy number liked 600$ an hour. Spending 10 minutes of his time, which I assume involves 10 minutes of camera man time, production assistant time, and more at the back end of editing and arranging and so forth, and we can be putting pretty gross amounts of cash in to something ephemeral, which then becomes nice and solid, instantiates itself if you will, in reality.
But why? Because they told us to care about it? Or because it was an easy and effective emotional grab? And now that we were grabbed we get backlash when we're "wrong", we get angry w. them for fooling us, tho we were never really fooled in that we were just told to accept something as fact (it's on the news, right?) and had no reason to question it, so it perpetuates.
I suppose this can be a good thing in the interpersonal realm. Get in a fight with the girlfriend and then the backlash will be a swing towards lovey-dovey happiness and make up sex.
The down is the up and all of that.
So then, to take a break from the news for reasons of increased emotional integrity, which is really just attentional integrity. Emotions often being only real when we pay attention to them. Often, not always.
Another thing, three other things:
1) You are what you do.
This one comes in a lot of forms. As you think so shall you become. Reap what you sow. Thought creates reality. Or from the above paying attention instantiates events in reality and then once they are "real" they can continue to roll along on their own after they've sprung fully formed from our foreheads.
This is a central tenet for me at this point. It's largely so "obvious" (cog bias) that it's hard to even talk about or explain w.o. it sounding so obvious folks misunderstand it. It's the "secret" to everything. Want to be good at martial arts? Easy. Do them, every day, for 10-20 years, you'll be good at the end of that time (and maybe well before). Want a nice garden? Read about gardening daily, think about your own garden daily, check it, water it, sit amongst the rows and beds. Writing books? Same\same. Again, obvious.
This leads to
2) You only have a certain limited amount of time and energy.
This applies both lifetime and daily. This isn't about excuses folks make saying they are tired or busy, that's true but irrelevant for our purposes here. No matter what, you will only have so much time in a day, and what you spend that time on (spend?) is what you become. If I spend 15 minutes a day showering and brushing my teeth and other kinds of grooming I become a groomed and clean dude. If I spend 15 minutes shoveling fastfood down my food hole every day I become a corporate supporter of McDonalds (or brand of choice). A 1 hour commute transforms you in to a person who spends 2 hours a day alone in your car, probably irritated.
Aside: Emotions can be draining, do you think the modern malaise might be partly manufactured by all those little irritating digs we surround ourselves with? I do.
This is probably the most important of these principles\truths to consider. In particular this is true because many things we want to do to become (per 1) ) are not short term activities. For instance being a good father is an investment of a significant period of our limited time and energy over a significant time span.
Other ways in which this truth is important are all along those lines. What are you doing that you won't be happy w. having invested in when it is time to retire (and we're talking Replicant style retirement here). Drugs? Drinking? Sitting in rush hour traffic, irritated, alone? Getting pissed off at "the news" by stories about the fucking republican shitards and the douchelord democrate asshats? What about playing video games? Reading genre fiction? Watching reality TV?
and so we arrive at:
3) If it's important do it every day, if it's not important don't do it at all.
This one is a Dan Gable quote, perhaps adulterated by the internets. It's not quite an actual literal truth, as a very wise friend of mine clarified for me recently, but it's a fine little personal heuristic.
Another variation I came up with recently being: Would I have rather spent the time jerking off?
Because if it's not as rewarding as a self-inflicted orgasm is it really worth engaging in?
That one is a bit more flippant, but I do loves me some flippancy.
This is where we bring the 3 truths together to unify. What are you doing with your time? You know what you do becomes what you are and you know you've only go so much time so why are you doing what you are doing and do you really want to be doing that?
I don't think I really want to watch TV, particularly the series, I don't think I really want to watch the news (or monitor from my internet lair more accurately) and I think there are likely to be other things I might not really want to do either. Heck I bet jerking off could be added to that list, dumping the literal as well as metaphoric masturbation.
But that's all definition by the negative. Things I can cut out. What about the things I want to make sure to do "every day" (in the sense that there might be somethings you don't actually want to do daily but that are important)?
For instance if you want to consider yourself a martial artist...is that really fair to do if you do not have a personal private (or maybe not private, but...) practice on the daily tip? I don't think so. And even in the case that you do you might still end up a beginner, dabbler, hack, or something. But at least you'd have the dedication to make "martial arts" (impossibly vague and meaningless in the current usage) part of who you are, rather than a thing that you do (I know, if you're doing it and then becoming it, isn't it "you" just as well? Sorta, but no, not really, IMVHO).
So, from news to 3 essential truths. No tech stuff?
Only 1800 words here, I think I can tack a bit on at the end.
Psychic energy is attention. Focused attention becomes reality. Which is magic (to effect\"create" reality). Thus we can say that what we spend our collective psychic energy on is a distributed extended magical ritual. Ideas like money, religion, law (which side of the road you drive on).
Techwise we've come to an interesting place particularly since crossing the Singularity barrier. We can now focus and distribute attention in, perhaps not entirely, but still relatively novel and new ways. We don't have to watch the TV show at the particular time, we can watch in Hulu, or DVR, so the show can still get our support, and thus be more likely to sustain production.
There is the common reference to human minds being able to "hold" about 7 things at once (often cited as +/- 2) and there is the other side of the "you are what you do" thing, which is that you (as a living organism) are going to (unable to prevent IMO) adapt to what is around you. So when we surround our selves with the modern malaise we'll adapt to it in some way. Maybe by becoming more active and maybe by shaping our selves to it and letting it in to our lives.
The news then exists because we pay attention. Most of the folks I know consider themselves informed in many ways and use the news to get that inform(ation) and thus keep it going, but I think the news is no longer our servant but our master, learning to manipulate us to give it attention so that it can in turn absorb more attention from us, strengthening itself. Psychic Parasite.
Bad memes.
There's the fracturing of attention as well these days. If we look at 2) from above we can see that this is another bad meme and psychic parasite, we can't amount to anything if we're constantly distracted (ie, paying attention to) by everything. The technology is making this possible. And largely this is because Software Singularity (SS) style we're paying attention to, spending psychic energy on, creating the tools to do this to our selves. FaceSpace, Twitter, blogs, news, always-on always-present (Omni-Net) internet connections which allow the distraction further and further in to our lives. Why if I didn't love the internet so much it would make me considering getting rid of my precious iPhone (full disclosure: I don't own an iPhone). ;-)
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
self as server
Self-host server.
Pulse and gather.
If you've got a point to point connection you can stream following negotiation of connection speed. Packet switching, routing tables, that sort of thing. Which I suppose also superficially resembles time-slicing style multi-tasking. Or maybe it's not a superficial resemblance.
Pulse-and-Gather allows for per-packet micro-payments which really seems the more "fair" way of allowing data access\transmission. Like a toll road, paying per mile for access to the infrastructure.
Like the ripples in a pond. Or ripples in most liquids if you don't like pond metaphors. A still pool of crystal mountain rain? That doesn't even make any sense! A crystalline pool of glacier drip?
Anyway.
Currently we've got the DNS system, turning IPs in to URLs and that kind of shit. I find no reason that such a system cannot be adapted for a single-user private-server sort of deal.
It seems to allay privacy concerns. Rather than Google owning all your info and you being permitted access to it while they pimp your demographic data on the side you can own all your shit and instead pay other folks to host and distribute it (essentially linking it, providing pointers to it). Instead of FaceSpace hosting and owning your shit you own it, host it, and pay to have it published for listing.
You send out some sweet requests on the pulse and you receive some sweet data on the gather (or return pulse).
Like a tagging along. "While you are at the store can you get me..." "See if they have...." and then the pulse carries it out and away. Provided we're looking at solid local caching and WORM stores you should quickly be able to sort stuff out. Like a BSP in old skool gaming.
I'm still unsure of how to reverse the flow of advert money but this is a nice method for getting it out again. Question of if the cost of sales, marketing, advertizing, etc actually result in a significantly higher price for the goods\services themselves. It seems as if they must somehow. Google is making a LOT of money providing a dinky service of (IMO) questionable value (click-thru = what?). If you assume, and I do, that that money coming to Google is being taken from the companies doing the advertizing then what's to stop a reversal? That is the company keeps the money and spends it on their employees who then spend it in the larger general economy thru methods such as these.
It seems inherently more honest in some ways. Rather than getting a bunch of stuff "for free" and paying for it on the back end (like small merchants getting the dick from the CC companies with their "fees" which directly benefit the CC companies themselves) you just...pay for stuff.
So you carry and own all your data and then pay to have that data "published" to a host service. Like a (any) large database you get replication over time from datastore to datastore, this is the pulse\gather method. Changes propagate from the pulse (like a tide if you will) to the publishing stores and then the gather aggregates those changes and propagates them back to the clients (us).
There isn't much fancy about this to be honest. I move, I send a change of address to my CC company, insurance company, etc, they get that pulse (the mail system, or internet) and update their shit, and then all future queries come right back to me (my mailbox\door step).
This, again, is to enable the NNNNNN protocols. I ask you, you ask your friend, your friend asks their friends, etc, and pretty quickly, since we're dividing the time\space out in a somewhat linear pattern, we'll find the locations of what we're looking for.
For instance if you don't know a particular word in Spanish you can ask the guys nearest you, if they don't know they ask the ones closest to them which are not contained in the first set of "nearest" folks, and so forth. The pulse goes out. Since you're limiting your search at each extension of range you are at the same time excludnig previously searched areas.
If it's not in the kitchen then you don't have to keep going back to check there, if it's not in the house you can quickly move to looking down the street, after the first couple of searches your can go to an aggregator, much like what we've got now anyway. Aggregators are just going to sit there and update the version history as new pulses come in, mostly passive process. Of course you'll still have your favorites\bookmarks. Same as friends in Myspace (or meat space), just directly link to their server, catch RSS updates, etc.
Still needs work of course but part of the aim here is to save battery power. If you've a software radio
Pulse and gather.
If you've got a point to point connection you can stream following negotiation of connection speed. Packet switching, routing tables, that sort of thing. Which I suppose also superficially resembles time-slicing style multi-tasking. Or maybe it's not a superficial resemblance.
Pulse-and-Gather allows for per-packet micro-payments which really seems the more "fair" way of allowing data access\transmission. Like a toll road, paying per mile for access to the infrastructure.
Like the ripples in a pond. Or ripples in most liquids if you don't like pond metaphors. A still pool of crystal mountain rain? That doesn't even make any sense! A crystalline pool of glacier drip?
Anyway.
Currently we've got the DNS system, turning IPs in to URLs and that kind of shit. I find no reason that such a system cannot be adapted for a single-user private-server sort of deal.
It seems to allay privacy concerns. Rather than Google owning all your info and you being permitted access to it while they pimp your demographic data on the side you can own all your shit and instead pay other folks to host and distribute it (essentially linking it, providing pointers to it). Instead of FaceSpace hosting and owning your shit you own it, host it, and pay to have it published for listing.
You send out some sweet requests on the pulse and you receive some sweet data on the gather (or return pulse).
Like a tagging along. "While you are at the store can you get me..." "See if they have...." and then the pulse carries it out and away. Provided we're looking at solid local caching and WORM stores you should quickly be able to sort stuff out. Like a BSP in old skool gaming.
I'm still unsure of how to reverse the flow of advert money but this is a nice method for getting it out again. Question of if the cost of sales, marketing, advertizing, etc actually result in a significantly higher price for the goods\services themselves. It seems as if they must somehow. Google is making a LOT of money providing a dinky service of (IMO) questionable value (click-thru = what?). If you assume, and I do, that that money coming to Google is being taken from the companies doing the advertizing then what's to stop a reversal? That is the company keeps the money and spends it on their employees who then spend it in the larger general economy thru methods such as these.
It seems inherently more honest in some ways. Rather than getting a bunch of stuff "for free" and paying for it on the back end (like small merchants getting the dick from the CC companies with their "fees" which directly benefit the CC companies themselves) you just...pay for stuff.
So you carry and own all your data and then pay to have that data "published" to a host service. Like a (any) large database you get replication over time from datastore to datastore, this is the pulse\gather method. Changes propagate from the pulse (like a tide if you will) to the publishing stores and then the gather aggregates those changes and propagates them back to the clients (us).
There isn't much fancy about this to be honest. I move, I send a change of address to my CC company, insurance company, etc, they get that pulse (the mail system, or internet) and update their shit, and then all future queries come right back to me (my mailbox\door step).
This, again, is to enable the NNNNNN protocols. I ask you, you ask your friend, your friend asks their friends, etc, and pretty quickly, since we're dividing the time\space out in a somewhat linear pattern, we'll find the locations of what we're looking for.
For instance if you don't know a particular word in Spanish you can ask the guys nearest you, if they don't know they ask the ones closest to them which are not contained in the first set of "nearest" folks, and so forth. The pulse goes out. Since you're limiting your search at each extension of range you are at the same time excludnig previously searched areas.
If it's not in the kitchen then you don't have to keep going back to check there, if it's not in the house you can quickly move to looking down the street, after the first couple of searches your can go to an aggregator, much like what we've got now anyway. Aggregators are just going to sit there and update the version history as new pulses come in, mostly passive process. Of course you'll still have your favorites\bookmarks. Same as friends in Myspace (or meat space), just directly link to their server, catch RSS updates, etc.
Still needs work of course but part of the aim here is to save battery power. If you've a software radio
Monday, June 15, 2009
Ideas about people
I've seen this one. "those people"
Having talked about his before we'll skip the intro. I don't mean fuzzy ideas about fuzzy stereotypes which turn out not to exist beyond fuzzy headspace. I mean the idea that "those people" are out to get you, which seems predicated on the idea that they...well, that they actually give a fuck.
For instance those people are are anti gay marriage. Always creeping and croaking w. their obscene anti-life agenda (or whatever they are doing). And yet...don't most of those people not really care that much? I don't mean they don't feel emotion about this, I mean...do they donate? Do they format and inform and define and develop their positions on the issue? Do they march, act, organize such?
Clearly some folks do in fact do just these things. For legalized weed. More awesome guns. Removing a woman's right to choose. Jesus. And of course clearly those people do in fact have power and influence and an agenda. However, near as I can tell, most of "us" are not "them", even as most of us are being account as "those people" by somebody else.
I know I've considered this before but of course now, when I'm writing about it, the examples all escape me.
I don't know, I suppose, perhaps, those war loving murderthrill psychos in the red states that think we should be nuking Iraq to glass and maybe Israel and some of those other countries as well might be an example of an example. Or the limp-wristed bed-wetting liberals that hate all guns and want all guns taken away and think we should just be nice to criminals and understand them and we'll all be happy together.
So, it's not that I don't think people w. exactly those sentiments exist, and certainly it's got nothing to do w. if they are correct or not to feel and think that way, more it's to do w. if they are indeed acting on those sentiments and to what extent those actions (if any) are of importance to what comes next here in the world.
To me it seems as if those who know (the ones I'm listening to) have an assumption that those who do not know (the ones about whom they are speaking) must themselves also know. For instance in martial arts it's common to complain about (well, everything, but...) how dumb X people, or X style, are, or how misinformed X or Y is about the pet topic. For example a Silat school which does a lot of knife work talks shit about "those Karate guys" who do their dumb x-block defenses against unrealistic overhand knife attacks (extra, what I believe are irony points, if the Silat place doesn't actually feature anything but received wisdom about such subjects to being with) and yet...that Karate school is a point-sparring tournament school. They compete in kata demos, and "yellow card for contact to the face" type tournaments. The Silat guys of course are not just disapproving, they are also incensed by the bad and possibly lethal information being spread by these evil (and stupid) Karate dorks, and the *damage* being done, not just to Silat, not just to Karate, but to all of SELF DEFENSE!!!!
I know, particularly on these internetz, that spending a lot of words complaining about the dumbness of others is in fact the reason to exist. That venting spleen, ranting, etc, is a respected and traditional art form of the new medium (and was hardly unknown prior).
In the end I just find it strange and entertaining to watch folks make assumptions about a people by making the same sorts of assumptions about them that they are upset to have made about them. I find it stranger and funnier still when folks who do actually know stuff about stuff seem incredulous about other people (who do not know those things) are making such ignorant statements.
Like how shocking it is that there was a Satanic Panic about role-playing games back in "the day" when any young gamer, or stoner or death -rocker could have explained that what was being talked about had roots in effectively nothing.
Conversely of course the rule proving exception (or "Black Swan" as I understand them to be popularly called these days) can appear anywhere as well, only complicating the issue to those on both sides (apparently). I *A* legal carrier of a conceal pistol blasts up some poor fools at the local fastfood exchange then this means to the gun grabbers that ALL such individuals are not just capable, but actually edging always towards that kind of extreme violence. Where as for gun nuts this just reinforces the obvious need for a concealed gun. When in fact, I think, that such things are mostly avoidances of the underlying issue. Why did THIS guy do THAT in THAT location? Likely it's got nothing to do w. conceal weapons, nor guns, nor politics.
Likely it's got to do w. his unfocused rage towards "those people" and how they are always chewing w. their mouths open and how they know that irritates him and he just can't fucking stand it anymore.
Likely that has to do w. something else as well. Impotence (literal or otherwise), job stress, general stress really, it's all always often general stress nonsense isn't it? I mean the biologically mechanically insane are a touch more statistically rare than stress cases so usually (I think) the stress comes first and makes people "act" insane, rather than them just being that way.
Humans are really good a certain things in my estimation, and lying is one of them. We're best at lying to our selves and best at lying about our selves. So it's not surprising then that most folks are often unaware of almost anything but themselves and that what they are aware of is mostly bullshit. Phantasmal.
Funny? Just me?
Having talked about his before we'll skip the intro. I don't mean fuzzy ideas about fuzzy stereotypes which turn out not to exist beyond fuzzy headspace. I mean the idea that "those people" are out to get you, which seems predicated on the idea that they...well, that they actually give a fuck.
For instance those people are are anti gay marriage. Always creeping and croaking w. their obscene anti-life agenda (or whatever they are doing). And yet...don't most of those people not really care that much? I don't mean they don't feel emotion about this, I mean...do they donate? Do they format and inform and define and develop their positions on the issue? Do they march, act, organize such?
Clearly some folks do in fact do just these things. For legalized weed. More awesome guns. Removing a woman's right to choose. Jesus. And of course clearly those people do in fact have power and influence and an agenda. However, near as I can tell, most of "us" are not "them", even as most of us are being account as "those people" by somebody else.
I know I've considered this before but of course now, when I'm writing about it, the examples all escape me.
I don't know, I suppose, perhaps, those war loving murderthrill psychos in the red states that think we should be nuking Iraq to glass and maybe Israel and some of those other countries as well might be an example of an example. Or the limp-wristed bed-wetting liberals that hate all guns and want all guns taken away and think we should just be nice to criminals and understand them and we'll all be happy together.
So, it's not that I don't think people w. exactly those sentiments exist, and certainly it's got nothing to do w. if they are correct or not to feel and think that way, more it's to do w. if they are indeed acting on those sentiments and to what extent those actions (if any) are of importance to what comes next here in the world.
To me it seems as if those who know (the ones I'm listening to) have an assumption that those who do not know (the ones about whom they are speaking) must themselves also know. For instance in martial arts it's common to complain about (well, everything, but...) how dumb X people, or X style, are, or how misinformed X or Y is about the pet topic. For example a Silat school which does a lot of knife work talks shit about "those Karate guys" who do their dumb x-block defenses against unrealistic overhand knife attacks (extra, what I believe are irony points, if the Silat place doesn't actually feature anything but received wisdom about such subjects to being with) and yet...that Karate school is a point-sparring tournament school. They compete in kata demos, and "yellow card for contact to the face" type tournaments. The Silat guys of course are not just disapproving, they are also incensed by the bad and possibly lethal information being spread by these evil (and stupid) Karate dorks, and the *damage* being done, not just to Silat, not just to Karate, but to all of SELF DEFENSE!!!!
I know, particularly on these internetz, that spending a lot of words complaining about the dumbness of others is in fact the reason to exist. That venting spleen, ranting, etc, is a respected and traditional art form of the new medium (and was hardly unknown prior).
In the end I just find it strange and entertaining to watch folks make assumptions about a people by making the same sorts of assumptions about them that they are upset to have made about them. I find it stranger and funnier still when folks who do actually know stuff about stuff seem incredulous about other people (who do not know those things) are making such ignorant statements.
Like how shocking it is that there was a Satanic Panic about role-playing games back in "the day" when any young gamer, or stoner or death -rocker could have explained that what was being talked about had roots in effectively nothing.
Conversely of course the rule proving exception (or "Black Swan" as I understand them to be popularly called these days) can appear anywhere as well, only complicating the issue to those on both sides (apparently). I *A* legal carrier of a conceal pistol blasts up some poor fools at the local fastfood exchange then this means to the gun grabbers that ALL such individuals are not just capable, but actually edging always towards that kind of extreme violence. Where as for gun nuts this just reinforces the obvious need for a concealed gun. When in fact, I think, that such things are mostly avoidances of the underlying issue. Why did THIS guy do THAT in THAT location? Likely it's got nothing to do w. conceal weapons, nor guns, nor politics.
Likely it's got to do w. his unfocused rage towards "those people" and how they are always chewing w. their mouths open and how they know that irritates him and he just can't fucking stand it anymore.
Likely that has to do w. something else as well. Impotence (literal or otherwise), job stress, general stress really, it's all always often general stress nonsense isn't it? I mean the biologically mechanically insane are a touch more statistically rare than stress cases so usually (I think) the stress comes first and makes people "act" insane, rather than them just being that way.
Humans are really good a certain things in my estimation, and lying is one of them. We're best at lying to our selves and best at lying about our selves. So it's not surprising then that most folks are often unaware of almost anything but themselves and that what they are aware of is mostly bullshit. Phantasmal.
Funny? Just me?
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Waiting for it to hit
Here's the thing that's been percolating. Parts of it.
The darkside of light-chasers.
The yin and yang. It's, I think, simplistic to resort to binary sorting measures for most "real" things. But...binary is so fucking helpful!
Assignment\Alignment
When there is doubt, there is no doubt
and suchlike.
Self\Other
Internal\External
Good\Evil
It's not, at all, that these things don't exist, and often things will exist in a paired state, how can they not? Flip your slider bars the other way and.....there you go.
Inversion is easy.
So...in people what have we got if not this same dynamic?
I think that it's (stupidly) much like The Force. Dark side, Light side. There's that binary again.
It's easier to kill than to heal. It's easier to rape and take what you want by force. And it's hard to argue with results.
"More powerful? No. Quicker? Yes. Easier."
But this is...what, our Chimp nature instead of our Bonobo nature?
Most of life is an attempt to justify what you want, or rather it's a series of attempts to rationalize you doing those things.
This applies to the subject of murder. "They" are not "us". "They" threaten "our" way of life. "They" must be destroyed.
Not worked with, not healed, not anything except that false (IMO) binary of murder.
Often mercy comes from a place of strength. Steve Perry has a Ghandi quote I like, "better violence than cowardice" (paraphrased).
So then, why not be strong so that you don't have to use it? Be strong so that you can be merciful. Is this against the rape-ape nature of humankind? Survival is a brutal game, the weak are "Eliminated" and don't get to play any more.
Strike first to win. The person who is willing (and able) to take things that extra step farther faster is likely to win. The first person to resort to murder is likely to be the one left standing at the end of things.
There is a power to murder. I should stop to clarify that when *I* say murder what I mean is the taking of another human life. I do not like to sanitize this. Self-defense. Righteous Kill. Justifiable force. War. Whatever. It's murder. I don't of course mean this to in some way make it out that those who've done so are "bad guys". Again, it's just murder, it is what it is and I don't, personally, like to dress it up in soft language. There is a power to murder. People will fear you. You can resolve problems simply and easily...and absolutely. You can use the threat of your murder power to gain compliance.
This is the dark side. Murder is easy. Humans are fragile and there are so so many wonderful weapons out there. Strangle a person with a mouse cord. Gouge their eye out with a credit card. Fuck, just beat them to fucking death with your X-box or your HDTV. If the intent is there....
So. The only general paradox we (meaning I) find is that of course if another person is willing to use the murder power on you...you must be strong enough to be merciful when you defeat them. But...you still have to know how to, and be able to, defeat them. Which requires....that same murder power. IMVHO and totally unexperienced opinion. (I like it that way btw)
But that's the Light Side\Dark Side thing innit? You can gain the power of murder by using it. Or you can gain the power of murder by learning to access it and then not using it. One is easier. That base darkness in the human nature. Rape. Murder. Steal. Fuck those assholes! I do what I WANT!
Denial of a thing in the face of lacking that capability is weak and meaningless. If I'm a pacifist because I can't fight then, sorry, but it doesn't mean anything. Denial of an option as a choice. I think this is stronger and more better.
So. That's part of it. The essential human choice. It's easy to get what you want. But...does what you want really matter? Isn't the restraint of that impulse the noble thing? Isn't that the powerful thing?
It's easy to opt for Dark Side. Faster. Easier.
It's harder to chose life, restraint, and such. Honor.
It's the investment in that restraint that makes us noble I guess. Tho of course "noble" might just mean "royalty" and then...it's, historically, basic the opposite of the general contextual usage of the word.
It's easy to justify all of this stuff. The Bible. The Qu'uran. Yellowcake uranium. But it's a false polarization. The man who has, or sees, only two options, is just binding himself to blindness (insert s\he, pronoun of preference, qualifier) and restricting things, falsely to that binary. When you can submit or fight. Lame. What about going lateral? Outside of the box? This is the sign, I think, of control and power. Having options, creating options for others, allowing options to be exercised.
And if they are unreasonable? That's what you've acquired and refined this war knowledge, this murder power, for.
NOT so that you can use it. So that you can not use it. So that you are aware of it's existence. Face your fear.
I'm naked and fearless....and my fear is NAAAAAKED!
This is the Light Side path to power. Unrelenting, unwavering staring in to the place of darkness. And then...restraint. Not denial of the possibility but denial of the false binary choice.
It's such an easy little mindset to slip in to. If you are good at violence why not use it to get what you want? Because that would be weak and easy. Hard things are worth doing because they are hard. And denial is hard. It's of course easy to deny that which you reject or blind your self to. Which, for most people, I think, when I'm feeling judgmental and superior, is critical thinking. Examine your illusions. Examine your assumptions. Why? Just to see what happens.
It's easier to learn that to teach. Teaching is hard. You have to not just be able to do the thing but also be able to explain it. How it works. This is deeper. This is more noble. To teach others, to share what you have realized. I think.
And it's the same for the rest of it as well. Murder. To know it, learn it's ways, and teach them to others, but not to exercise it. If you don't know, if you reject, then you've just given up. Failure basically. How is that useful? "Math is stupid" "Martial arts are for violent people and the insecure"
A saying (it's mine AFAIK, or at least independently conceived) I like is: No judgment without knowledge.
This can be rephrased as "walking a mile in somebody else's shoes".
The "mercy" of the weak. What is it worth? I let you live because I cannot (not "am unwilling" but "am incapable")kill you. I let you return to me after cheating on me because I am unable to reject your love. Meaningless.
The Dark Side is easier, it is faster, but it is not more powerful. Each day we all get to make that choice. In so many small ways. So many big ones. Often we are constrained by the invisible bounds of our upbringing and culture. The mental force walls of those around us. "Permission" and yet....does this mean we should not examine them? Does it mean we should not delve in to our options to fucking kill people? I do not think so, personally.
Cops often seem to get the short shrift from civilians. And, of course, to be fair, as should be obvious, cops are just people too, they can make that Dark Side choice as easily as anybody else. It's easier to hate than to love. To project instead of accept.
The doing of hard things is inherently noble. Challenging limits.
Doing easy things is....somewhat less so. Do the drugs. Fuck the sluts. Drink the beers and drive home. Steal stuff from work. It's easy. And corrupting. Once you can see past that barrier that society projects in to the mind....if one line of blow is good...two must be better. If bustin' yo' nut in a sluts butt is good then...more sluts, more nuts, that's the answer?
But what about loving and fucking only one person for the rest of your life? Harder. More noble? I would tend to think so. But what about even harder options? Loving somebody who strays. But this is only if you can do this from a place of choice. If you back down and show your belly because you can't fight. Weak. If you do so voluntarily to resolve a situation. Stronger? More noble? I think so.
The weak want things to matter, because they project their weakness on to the world around them. This is their singular vision. Their only option. They must fight. There's no other choice. They must take him back after he fuck their best friend because otherwise who will really love them?
So....wrap this up. Only 1500 words. But then, it's such an easy subject. There are a lot of rewards for being powerful (able to control reality) and there are often few rewards for restraint. In fact you'll be mocked more for that won't you? Being powerful and not "using it"? But then that's the weak talking, the Dark Side, insulting you, drawing you out, provoking you. "What are you a pussy? Hit me you little bitch! C'mon be a fucking man!"
But the true mark of a man would be...not caring so much if the Dark Side thinks you are weak. It is weak. It projects that singular view on to you. And this is a trick. To make you buy in to it's view. To get a rise out of you. To use that response as proof you are no better than it is. But that's yet another false binary. You can think about rape and murder (your two basic worst crimes) and so what? If you think about them, consider them, and then don't do them, then you are strong. Then you are in control. Weakness is about loss of, lack of, control. Give in. Do it. It's easy. It's fun.
So then. To really wrap this up, before I get lost in my word lust again. This is the choice humanity faces and the choice each of us face as individuals. Chose life. It's harder. It will make you a better person. It will make us all better people. I think Obama might be up to this task. But he'll be tested of course. Because, again, the thing about it, the Dark Side, is that it's always right there, that's what makes it powerful, seductive, the option is always open. Anytime you want. And the triumph of our better nature over the easy thing is what moves us closer to unity and Godhood. The ability to make the choice, not the giving in to urges and singular path stupidity. You can of course only DO one thing. 10,000 paths but only one bears your name. But if you see only one path, only two....
We are all alone in this, together. Let us comfort each other, support each other. Not predate and reduce and degrade. Raw power, exerted, is weak. Strange isn't it? Well, whatever to you jerk! *I* think it's strange. Counter-intuitive. But then maybe intuition lies? Maybe it's not really intuitive at all, maybe it's just the unexamined truth and our assumptions coming from that lack of knowledge with which we are judging the world we see around us. Maybe it's easy to choose the Dark Side when you've got nothing else in your paradigm. But then, it's always easy to choose that. Path of least resistance. Increase entropy. Building is hard, destruction is easy. Learning and doing is easy, teaching and understanding is hard. Hard is better.
There's something more here. I can't quite see it yet. Alteration and control of reality is the True Work. But understanding and awareness is the Great Work. Seeking to understand yourself. Seeking to understand others. Particularly that last one. Self is easy. It's always right there. We're never alone from our selves if we do not seek that out. But others....they are hidden, mysterious, inconsistent, they'll lie to you, lie about themselves...and...can we forgive that? Allow it to happen mercifully? Can we forgive them? If they can forgive themselves it's another thing. But we can forgive them for doing this easy thing, can't we? Isn't that exactly the Light Side *choice*? To forgive those who trespass against us.
(booyah 2k again!)
The darkside of light-chasers.
The yin and yang. It's, I think, simplistic to resort to binary sorting measures for most "real" things. But...binary is so fucking helpful!
Assignment\Alignment
When there is doubt, there is no doubt
and suchlike.
Self\Other
Internal\External
Good\Evil
It's not, at all, that these things don't exist, and often things will exist in a paired state, how can they not? Flip your slider bars the other way and.....there you go.
Inversion is easy.
So...in people what have we got if not this same dynamic?
I think that it's (stupidly) much like The Force. Dark side, Light side. There's that binary again.
It's easier to kill than to heal. It's easier to rape and take what you want by force. And it's hard to argue with results.
"More powerful? No. Quicker? Yes. Easier."
But this is...what, our Chimp nature instead of our Bonobo nature?
Most of life is an attempt to justify what you want, or rather it's a series of attempts to rationalize you doing those things.
This applies to the subject of murder. "They" are not "us". "They" threaten "our" way of life. "They" must be destroyed.
Not worked with, not healed, not anything except that false (IMO) binary of murder.
Often mercy comes from a place of strength. Steve Perry has a Ghandi quote I like, "better violence than cowardice" (paraphrased).
So then, why not be strong so that you don't have to use it? Be strong so that you can be merciful. Is this against the rape-ape nature of humankind? Survival is a brutal game, the weak are "Eliminated" and don't get to play any more.
Strike first to win. The person who is willing (and able) to take things that extra step farther faster is likely to win. The first person to resort to murder is likely to be the one left standing at the end of things.
There is a power to murder. I should stop to clarify that when *I* say murder what I mean is the taking of another human life. I do not like to sanitize this. Self-defense. Righteous Kill. Justifiable force. War. Whatever. It's murder. I don't of course mean this to in some way make it out that those who've done so are "bad guys". Again, it's just murder, it is what it is and I don't, personally, like to dress it up in soft language. There is a power to murder. People will fear you. You can resolve problems simply and easily...and absolutely. You can use the threat of your murder power to gain compliance.
This is the dark side. Murder is easy. Humans are fragile and there are so so many wonderful weapons out there. Strangle a person with a mouse cord. Gouge their eye out with a credit card. Fuck, just beat them to fucking death with your X-box or your HDTV. If the intent is there....
So. The only general paradox we (meaning I) find is that of course if another person is willing to use the murder power on you...you must be strong enough to be merciful when you defeat them. But...you still have to know how to, and be able to, defeat them. Which requires....that same murder power. IMVHO and totally unexperienced opinion. (I like it that way btw)
But that's the Light Side\Dark Side thing innit? You can gain the power of murder by using it. Or you can gain the power of murder by learning to access it and then not using it. One is easier. That base darkness in the human nature. Rape. Murder. Steal. Fuck those assholes! I do what I WANT!
Denial of a thing in the face of lacking that capability is weak and meaningless. If I'm a pacifist because I can't fight then, sorry, but it doesn't mean anything. Denial of an option as a choice. I think this is stronger and more better.
So. That's part of it. The essential human choice. It's easy to get what you want. But...does what you want really matter? Isn't the restraint of that impulse the noble thing? Isn't that the powerful thing?
It's easy to opt for Dark Side. Faster. Easier.
It's harder to chose life, restraint, and such. Honor.
It's the investment in that restraint that makes us noble I guess. Tho of course "noble" might just mean "royalty" and then...it's, historically, basic the opposite of the general contextual usage of the word.
It's easy to justify all of this stuff. The Bible. The Qu'uran. Yellowcake uranium. But it's a false polarization. The man who has, or sees, only two options, is just binding himself to blindness (insert s\he, pronoun of preference, qualifier) and restricting things, falsely to that binary. When you can submit or fight. Lame. What about going lateral? Outside of the box? This is the sign, I think, of control and power. Having options, creating options for others, allowing options to be exercised.
And if they are unreasonable? That's what you've acquired and refined this war knowledge, this murder power, for.
NOT so that you can use it. So that you can not use it. So that you are aware of it's existence. Face your fear.
I'm naked and fearless....and my fear is NAAAAAKED!
This is the Light Side path to power. Unrelenting, unwavering staring in to the place of darkness. And then...restraint. Not denial of the possibility but denial of the false binary choice.
It's such an easy little mindset to slip in to. If you are good at violence why not use it to get what you want? Because that would be weak and easy. Hard things are worth doing because they are hard. And denial is hard. It's of course easy to deny that which you reject or blind your self to. Which, for most people, I think, when I'm feeling judgmental and superior, is critical thinking. Examine your illusions. Examine your assumptions. Why? Just to see what happens.
It's easier to learn that to teach. Teaching is hard. You have to not just be able to do the thing but also be able to explain it. How it works. This is deeper. This is more noble. To teach others, to share what you have realized. I think.
And it's the same for the rest of it as well. Murder. To know it, learn it's ways, and teach them to others, but not to exercise it. If you don't know, if you reject, then you've just given up. Failure basically. How is that useful? "Math is stupid" "Martial arts are for violent people and the insecure"
A saying (it's mine AFAIK, or at least independently conceived) I like is: No judgment without knowledge.
This can be rephrased as "walking a mile in somebody else's shoes".
The "mercy" of the weak. What is it worth? I let you live because I cannot (not "am unwilling" but "am incapable")kill you. I let you return to me after cheating on me because I am unable to reject your love. Meaningless.
The Dark Side is easier, it is faster, but it is not more powerful. Each day we all get to make that choice. In so many small ways. So many big ones. Often we are constrained by the invisible bounds of our upbringing and culture. The mental force walls of those around us. "Permission" and yet....does this mean we should not examine them? Does it mean we should not delve in to our options to fucking kill people? I do not think so, personally.
Cops often seem to get the short shrift from civilians. And, of course, to be fair, as should be obvious, cops are just people too, they can make that Dark Side choice as easily as anybody else. It's easier to hate than to love. To project instead of accept.
The doing of hard things is inherently noble. Challenging limits.
Doing easy things is....somewhat less so. Do the drugs. Fuck the sluts. Drink the beers and drive home. Steal stuff from work. It's easy. And corrupting. Once you can see past that barrier that society projects in to the mind....if one line of blow is good...two must be better. If bustin' yo' nut in a sluts butt is good then...more sluts, more nuts, that's the answer?
But what about loving and fucking only one person for the rest of your life? Harder. More noble? I would tend to think so. But what about even harder options? Loving somebody who strays. But this is only if you can do this from a place of choice. If you back down and show your belly because you can't fight. Weak. If you do so voluntarily to resolve a situation. Stronger? More noble? I think so.
The weak want things to matter, because they project their weakness on to the world around them. This is their singular vision. Their only option. They must fight. There's no other choice. They must take him back after he fuck their best friend because otherwise who will really love them?
So....wrap this up. Only 1500 words. But then, it's such an easy subject. There are a lot of rewards for being powerful (able to control reality) and there are often few rewards for restraint. In fact you'll be mocked more for that won't you? Being powerful and not "using it"? But then that's the weak talking, the Dark Side, insulting you, drawing you out, provoking you. "What are you a pussy? Hit me you little bitch! C'mon be a fucking man!"
But the true mark of a man would be...not caring so much if the Dark Side thinks you are weak. It is weak. It projects that singular view on to you. And this is a trick. To make you buy in to it's view. To get a rise out of you. To use that response as proof you are no better than it is. But that's yet another false binary. You can think about rape and murder (your two basic worst crimes) and so what? If you think about them, consider them, and then don't do them, then you are strong. Then you are in control. Weakness is about loss of, lack of, control. Give in. Do it. It's easy. It's fun.
So then. To really wrap this up, before I get lost in my word lust again. This is the choice humanity faces and the choice each of us face as individuals. Chose life. It's harder. It will make you a better person. It will make us all better people. I think Obama might be up to this task. But he'll be tested of course. Because, again, the thing about it, the Dark Side, is that it's always right there, that's what makes it powerful, seductive, the option is always open. Anytime you want. And the triumph of our better nature over the easy thing is what moves us closer to unity and Godhood. The ability to make the choice, not the giving in to urges and singular path stupidity. You can of course only DO one thing. 10,000 paths but only one bears your name. But if you see only one path, only two....
We are all alone in this, together. Let us comfort each other, support each other. Not predate and reduce and degrade. Raw power, exerted, is weak. Strange isn't it? Well, whatever to you jerk! *I* think it's strange. Counter-intuitive. But then maybe intuition lies? Maybe it's not really intuitive at all, maybe it's just the unexamined truth and our assumptions coming from that lack of knowledge with which we are judging the world we see around us. Maybe it's easy to choose the Dark Side when you've got nothing else in your paradigm. But then, it's always easy to choose that. Path of least resistance. Increase entropy. Building is hard, destruction is easy. Learning and doing is easy, teaching and understanding is hard. Hard is better.
There's something more here. I can't quite see it yet. Alteration and control of reality is the True Work. But understanding and awareness is the Great Work. Seeking to understand yourself. Seeking to understand others. Particularly that last one. Self is easy. It's always right there. We're never alone from our selves if we do not seek that out. But others....they are hidden, mysterious, inconsistent, they'll lie to you, lie about themselves...and...can we forgive that? Allow it to happen mercifully? Can we forgive them? If they can forgive themselves it's another thing. But we can forgive them for doing this easy thing, can't we? Isn't that exactly the Light Side *choice*? To forgive those who trespass against us.
(booyah 2k again!)
Monday, December 15, 2008
Tired
You know how you are tired sometimes, all day, didn't sleep well, didn't get enough sleep, and then...finally, time to sleep again, get "caught up" and....you can't sleep? And then it's not very good sleep and then you wake up too early? Yah. Like that.
So I asked for a topic and got: Mumbai stuff.
One thing I find interesting is that people often blame technology, read a bit today about how technologically advanced the gunmen were. Like they used Skype and GPS and Google Maps and stuff. Wow! So advanced! They are computing at a 3rd grade level!
So of course Google Maps is to blame! and cell phones (evil evil cell-phones!) and Skype!
What? I mean, really, What!?
Here is the issue, one more time, slowly: You can't prevent terror attacks very well.
That's it. You can stop them, counter-intel, infiltration, fronts, informants, etc, etc. But you are very unlikely to be able to prevent them at all period. Particularly in a very poor country were many cops don't have guns, most of them don't practice with them, nobody gets serious CT training, high population density ( = target rich environment) and non-exotic weapons. So, yes, good idea, let's blame Google. DAMN it if only they hadn't had those maps why....uh...yah, I don't know either.
Responses. Because you kinda gotta do something. Particularly when it's a provocative attack from a hostile and mostly lawless nation. But...what? Attack them? Good answer, kill more people, yours and theirs, waste resources, make yourself MORE vulnerable to attacks, etc. Pressure? Yes, obviously, of course you do this. International conglomerative pressure is best. Still tho...then what? The attacked has happened. They are unlikely to do it again. Particularly not in the same place in the same way. Sort of like being suspicious of your girlfriend AFTER she cheats on you...ain't likely to do much good then.
You can catch those that did it...maybe make somebody feel better. It's hard for me to relate to this one, never had much sourceable trauma myself. Not sure how I'd feel. Seems like the damage is done.
In general state sponsored terror, which this seems semi-likely to be, tho I think it's again a example of using terror for domestic control and international intrigue. The US wants in to Pakistan, wants to get out of that bad press we keep getting about accidentally murdering a bunch of school kids, or random dumbfucks, poor unlucky bastards, that Kashmir, Waziristan region of fuck is no doubt an operating base for many bad motherfuckers. You know, freedom fighters. Of course we don't really have a lot of spare forces to invade and occupy that shit (thanks George), and if we did they'd be attacked constantly (we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here) and make more enemies than we'd kill. And the Pakis themselves can't do it, for...basically the same reasons, tho at least that'd be internal shitstorms. India can't do it, for obvious reasons.
You can't likely get your security apparatus (as they like to call them) upgraded to...as mentioned, not do much of anything about anything.
You can get pissed and angry (what?! India?! Angry at Pakistan?! Surely not!). You can plan counter-terror attacks and covertly support them with your own internal secret police types. That's likely to be productive.
But I think the generally agreed upon standard is that...you have to kill the source, cut the root, etc. Poor angry people without hope make good terrorists. See Chechnya, see Afghanistan, see Ireland. Angry rich socially and culturally isolated people also make good terrorists. See the 9-11 dudes. Or Usama B.
It's a newer smarter world now. Terrorism doesn't provoke sympathy and change, it doesn't draw good attention. It's a tool you use against yourself. "I cut myself...just so I can feel...anything! My life is so daaaaarrk!"
Yes, I think terrorists are basically the emo teens of the international set. They can't get their way so they wreck daddies car and have a lot of unprotected sex and cut themselves. Develop drug habits. Anything for attention. And just like in real life with real teens the attention the get will just be used to oppress them further. Grounded. Restricted. Ganged up on.
Invest invest invest. But. These are "culturally backwards" parts of the world. They are not clamoring for more TV and consumer goods. They really don't want us. But, at the same time, they are fucking dirt poor, easy to infiltrate, intimidate, extort, and control. So...what?
Give Pakistan money to give money to them? Wells and schools and such? We are actually doing this, but there's a hitch in that Pakistan can't reveal to them that the money is coming from America, AND Pakistan is a corrupt country so a lot of that money never gets to where it's supposed to go, and if we bring in our folks to monitor and direct that money...then people know where it's coming from.
I suppose one answer would be to...move a bunch of new and friendly people in there. Equip them well with cash, hardware, and guns. If your next door neighbors suddenly have lots of cool stuff, are happy, and smart, AND well armed...maybe eventually...you want some of what they've got? And because they've got big guns and APCs in their yards you can't just take it from them, which is what would normally happen. Maybe that would work.
Ultimately it's going to be a solution that is sneakier than force, sneakier than building allianances against them to force them to do whatever, or allow us to do whatever. That's the tricky part these days I think, trying to be sneakier. The problem isn't the problem, it's the source of the problem and probably the source of the source. Water in the basement is an issue, but less so than a leaking hot water heater, which is less of an issue than the broken pipe under the foundation.
I discussed this on the other blog, but I think it's the same solution really. Fuck them in the butt and stab them in the back and do it so they think it was their buddy and so he thinks it was them. Sneaky. The new world of economic warfare.
So I asked for a topic and got: Mumbai stuff.
One thing I find interesting is that people often blame technology, read a bit today about how technologically advanced the gunmen were. Like they used Skype and GPS and Google Maps and stuff. Wow! So advanced! They are computing at a 3rd grade level!
So of course Google Maps is to blame! and cell phones (evil evil cell-phones!) and Skype!
What? I mean, really, What!?
Here is the issue, one more time, slowly: You can't prevent terror attacks very well.
That's it. You can stop them, counter-intel, infiltration, fronts, informants, etc, etc. But you are very unlikely to be able to prevent them at all period. Particularly in a very poor country were many cops don't have guns, most of them don't practice with them, nobody gets serious CT training, high population density ( = target rich environment) and non-exotic weapons. So, yes, good idea, let's blame Google. DAMN it if only they hadn't had those maps why....uh...yah, I don't know either.
Responses. Because you kinda gotta do something. Particularly when it's a provocative attack from a hostile and mostly lawless nation. But...what? Attack them? Good answer, kill more people, yours and theirs, waste resources, make yourself MORE vulnerable to attacks, etc. Pressure? Yes, obviously, of course you do this. International conglomerative pressure is best. Still tho...then what? The attacked has happened. They are unlikely to do it again. Particularly not in the same place in the same way. Sort of like being suspicious of your girlfriend AFTER she cheats on you...ain't likely to do much good then.
You can catch those that did it...maybe make somebody feel better. It's hard for me to relate to this one, never had much sourceable trauma myself. Not sure how I'd feel. Seems like the damage is done.
In general state sponsored terror, which this seems semi-likely to be, tho I think it's again a example of using terror for domestic control and international intrigue. The US wants in to Pakistan, wants to get out of that bad press we keep getting about accidentally murdering a bunch of school kids, or random dumbfucks, poor unlucky bastards, that Kashmir, Waziristan region of fuck is no doubt an operating base for many bad motherfuckers. You know, freedom fighters. Of course we don't really have a lot of spare forces to invade and occupy that shit (thanks George), and if we did they'd be attacked constantly (we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here) and make more enemies than we'd kill. And the Pakis themselves can't do it, for...basically the same reasons, tho at least that'd be internal shitstorms. India can't do it, for obvious reasons.
You can't likely get your security apparatus (as they like to call them) upgraded to...as mentioned, not do much of anything about anything.
You can get pissed and angry (what?! India?! Angry at Pakistan?! Surely not!). You can plan counter-terror attacks and covertly support them with your own internal secret police types. That's likely to be productive.
But I think the generally agreed upon standard is that...you have to kill the source, cut the root, etc. Poor angry people without hope make good terrorists. See Chechnya, see Afghanistan, see Ireland. Angry rich socially and culturally isolated people also make good terrorists. See the 9-11 dudes. Or Usama B.
It's a newer smarter world now. Terrorism doesn't provoke sympathy and change, it doesn't draw good attention. It's a tool you use against yourself. "I cut myself...just so I can feel...anything! My life is so daaaaarrk!"
Yes, I think terrorists are basically the emo teens of the international set. They can't get their way so they wreck daddies car and have a lot of unprotected sex and cut themselves. Develop drug habits. Anything for attention. And just like in real life with real teens the attention the get will just be used to oppress them further. Grounded. Restricted. Ganged up on.
Invest invest invest. But. These are "culturally backwards" parts of the world. They are not clamoring for more TV and consumer goods. They really don't want us. But, at the same time, they are fucking dirt poor, easy to infiltrate, intimidate, extort, and control. So...what?
Give Pakistan money to give money to them? Wells and schools and such? We are actually doing this, but there's a hitch in that Pakistan can't reveal to them that the money is coming from America, AND Pakistan is a corrupt country so a lot of that money never gets to where it's supposed to go, and if we bring in our folks to monitor and direct that money...then people know where it's coming from.
I suppose one answer would be to...move a bunch of new and friendly people in there. Equip them well with cash, hardware, and guns. If your next door neighbors suddenly have lots of cool stuff, are happy, and smart, AND well armed...maybe eventually...you want some of what they've got? And because they've got big guns and APCs in their yards you can't just take it from them, which is what would normally happen. Maybe that would work.
Ultimately it's going to be a solution that is sneakier than force, sneakier than building allianances against them to force them to do whatever, or allow us to do whatever. That's the tricky part these days I think, trying to be sneakier. The problem isn't the problem, it's the source of the problem and probably the source of the source. Water in the basement is an issue, but less so than a leaking hot water heater, which is less of an issue than the broken pipe under the foundation.
I discussed this on the other blog, but I think it's the same solution really. Fuck them in the butt and stab them in the back and do it so they think it was their buddy and so he thinks it was them. Sneaky. The new world of economic warfare.
More of the same
What to write, what to write, what to write? This blog is so small, I send so much around to my peeps in teh emailz, I can't remember what needs talking about and what does not. Only fools and friends read this thing anyhizzle (and some of them might be one and the same!) and the fools are a figment of my fevered...ff..ff.f..some work for thinking involving and f. To be sure.
On another blog there was talk of getting people off of the planet, permanently, in order to reduce environmental impact. It's not my blog (obviously) so I'll stick to questioning it here.
This isn't really what I want to write about.
But let's go with it, a thought experiment as a guy I know likes to say.
Energy costs go up, resources diminish, people pile up, over crowding, not enough of anything for anybody, this is the Malthusian Crisis. Already we consume more energy per person than at any other time in history. Unless my theories about recurrent human civilization transcending the dimensional boundary as nano-tech reduces their ruins to atomic rubble are correct. And they probably are.
Of course we also *generate* a lot more energy now than ever before (as indicated by the fact that we're consuming so much more).
Stress and strain, ecosphere in the balance, what results?
Pessimistic: A lot of people die. I don't think people as a people will die, but lots of us will, this reduces our footprint, causes weird planetary consequences, and life, as life, if not as human civilization, goes on. Woo. But I think we are likely to survive such a scenario as well. Will the post-fuckup be like the pre-fuckup? Unlikely. Of course, obviously. But...you know..so fucking what right? Shit happens. More precisely shit IS FUCKING GOING to happen. To you. To me. To people we love. Etc. Does this mean we should lay down, roll over, and spread our cheeks for the cosmic dildo coming from the sky? Not anymore than it does in MA\SD circles. We should work to prevent it. We should certainly work to prepare for it.
Meh. Lost interest, lost the thread. Posting....
On another blog there was talk of getting people off of the planet, permanently, in order to reduce environmental impact. It's not my blog (obviously) so I'll stick to questioning it here.
This isn't really what I want to write about.
But let's go with it, a thought experiment as a guy I know likes to say.
Energy costs go up, resources diminish, people pile up, over crowding, not enough of anything for anybody, this is the Malthusian Crisis. Already we consume more energy per person than at any other time in history. Unless my theories about recurrent human civilization transcending the dimensional boundary as nano-tech reduces their ruins to atomic rubble are correct. And they probably are.
Of course we also *generate* a lot more energy now than ever before (as indicated by the fact that we're consuming so much more).
Stress and strain, ecosphere in the balance, what results?
Pessimistic: A lot of people die. I don't think people as a people will die, but lots of us will, this reduces our footprint, causes weird planetary consequences, and life, as life, if not as human civilization, goes on. Woo. But I think we are likely to survive such a scenario as well. Will the post-fuckup be like the pre-fuckup? Unlikely. Of course, obviously. But...you know..so fucking what right? Shit happens. More precisely shit IS FUCKING GOING to happen. To you. To me. To people we love. Etc. Does this mean we should lay down, roll over, and spread our cheeks for the cosmic dildo coming from the sky? Not anymore than it does in MA\SD circles. We should work to prevent it. We should certainly work to prepare for it.
Meh. Lost interest, lost the thread. Posting....
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)