Privacy

Our culture is roiled by assassinations and mindless mass shootings. A cry goes out to “do something”. But what? There are only a few options. Greater limitations, higher protection, or decreased privacy .

In the US, greater limitations are difficult. Everyone wants access to guns – often the biggest baddest guns that exist. Locking potential perpetrators up hardly addresses the problem, since that only addresses low-level “gang violence” where adolescents mostly shoot each other. Higher protection – a security officer everywhere, domes of bulletproof glass for speakers _ is extremely expensive and often impossible .

And that leaves surveillance. Already video footage is so ubiquitous, cell phone records so complete, that those who assassinate are always caught. Most of them know it and embark on suicide missions, almost impossible to guard against .

No doubt, as in China, we will be willing to sacrifice more and more privacy for greater security. Online and in public, all will be known, evaluated, stored, and used for prediction and “interdiction” of potential terrorists. Most of us will welcome the calm .

But such a blessing can easily become a curse, and I foresee no way of preventing that from happening .

Fame

Brought up in an era when singers and pop bands got wealthy, as an admirer of famous artists, I always understood that fame was one of the keys to becoming rich. Unfortunately (or not) I never had enough ambition nor stamina to pursue it seriously – I was more focused on everyday life. But as I created computer programs or paintings it always remained a quiescent dream of maybe .

So I watched the art world sizzle with huge rewards for outrageous works. Was bemused by respected galleries selling what seemed to be junk. Gave up on exotic modern art exhibitions as displays became more and more incomprehensible. Also, living in the sedate suburbs, found the local scene excessively bourgeois. Lots of watercolor from photographs. Lots of super realism from photographs. Lots of purposely kitsch designed to sell online. I happily, isolated, burrowed in and followed my own path. Always secretly hoping the future would vindicate me and (even posthumously) deliver fame .

Now I read that the high end art world has “collapsed.” “Patrons” have moved on to play with crypto. Galleries are failing right and left. The froth – like the tulip bubble – has vanished. Perhaps never to recover .

The other cliches about fame are that it is capricious and fleeting. Now the goddess mostly dispenses it in viral form on the internet. I remain solitary and happy .

Joseph Campbell

I was brought up through excellent public schools in the scientific aura of the 1950s. I consequently have always had a cosmopolitan outlook. I firmly believe in shallow history, deep history, human evolution, geologic changes. I know there have been innumerable people just like me living in vastly different cultures .

And I accept that religion in some form is necessary to human health. I also went to Sunday church (and Sunday school, and choir) during my formative years .

Joseph Campbell spent a lifetime documenting and comparing all the religions he could get a handle on. He tried to tie together their great concepts and the underlying intuitions that supported them. I have friends who found his work exceedingly shallow, but I accept it and enjoy the widening of my own mind by doing so .

That is why I have such antagonism for the current religious right fanatics. I have rarely met such vacuous minds. I know most of it is probably just a defense mechanism against a turmoil of our times, but it bothers me to find intelligent people crawling into shallow tribal superstition, not to mention side ventures into crystals, astrology, guru’s, and whatever .

I’m happy at such times to reread “The Masks of God” and understand that this too shall pass .

Conceit

“A sucker is born every minute” proclaimed PT Barnum. The “average American voter” has often been vilified for ignorance, prejudice, whatever. Frozen in collective memory by Menken’s “booboisie.”

And yet, we often found that speaking with each other one-on-one revealed a fairly complete interesting human being. Somehow we trusted that – informed by a free press – such good would shine through in the loneliness of the election booth. Mostly, it seemed to work .

But several generations of being assured that “you are just as good as anyone else” have had evil effects. Even in simple conversation, we discover everyone is as conceited as a god, certain that they know everything, sure that anyone claiming to be an expert (except the internet influencers they follow) is a charlatan.

So conceit has fallen on an entire population, certain that at any moment what they believe is true, fortified by warped electronic propaganda. No longer much fun to talk to. Anything but complete interesting human beings. Conceited know-it-alls, who unfortunately carry their very real ignorance and prejudices into the ballot box .

I used to agree that democracy was “the worst form of government except for everything else.” Now I tend to drop the qualifier .

Clinical Trials

In the last 150 years, biological understanding has increased tremendously. Much is understood at the molecular level. Statistics on detailed populations and outcomes are massive and readily available. A doctor from the 1800s would be astonished .

Yet we cling to ancient rituals, reinforced by old legalities. Once upon a time “clinical trials” made great sense. They were truly a “gold standard” not only at seeing if something worked, but also if it caused harmful side effects .

True clinical trials required “equivalent groups”, one that receives treatment, one that does not. This is quite cumbersome and expensive – and for that reason is embraced by the pharma industry as a barrier to entry.

In fact with the modern state of knowledge and history, the “control group” is no longer necessary. There is a long detailed chart of what happens to those not treated. There is also a much better idea of what will happen because scientists understand mechanisms and do testing on animals .

Clinical trials have become an annoying barrier to progress. New remedies can be tested on those in need of them, with no necessity to subject another select group to the false hope of improvement .

Self Fulfilling

Long before anyone thought of “attractors” there was the concept of self-fulfilling prophecy. What you expect to happen (good or bad) happens, not because of fate but rather because you unconsciously work to make it happen .

These days we have an administration that glories in self-fulfillment. They decide cities are hell holes and work actively to make them so. They say people are unhealthy and act to make their idea come true. They decide most people are criminals and – lo and behold – “criminals” pop up everywhere .

Mostly they say we need a “glorious leader” to bring us out of a political malaise. Their desire for a dictator who makes the trains run on time is coming true even to the point of considering all American armed forces a feudal militia .

The trouble with self-fulfilling prophecy, of course, is that it is usually a distortion of reality. And by ignoring reality, the eventual decay and destruction is much worse than it should have been .

So, “attractor” as such attitudes may be, they leave me fondly wishing for the good old days when logical and informed leaders were willing to admit they weren’t quite sure what was best to do .

Sensible

We often forget that the modern world of science and technology began with a devotion to our senses. The medieval intellectual mind was immersed in logic, perfection, and revealed vision. The senses were regarded as imperfect or evil distortions of higher truth .

The earliest proto-scientists rejected all that. They claimed that “true reality” was only what we could actually perceive with sight, sound, touch, etc. Truth was not what we could imagine, but what we could grasp .

Unnoted at the time and little considered since is that evolution has also provided massive checks and filters on our senses. It’s important for survival to know if what you see is a real lion or a hallucination. Our senses are superb at separating “sensible” from “imaginary” most of the time .

The trouble with generative AI is precisely that it thinks in a medieval manner. All is words, revelations, logic. There are no senses, filtered or otherwise, to evaluate reality. Its answers are only as good as the vast storehouse of words that form its higher truth .

So in any normal human terms, generative AI will never be truly sensible. It may be fully logical as were medieval scholars, and yet totally wrong about reality. That nobody seems to recognize this may be the most dangerous thing about it at this time .

French

France has fallen on hard times. As a long-term francophile – mostly from afar – that saddens me. I love the culture and the language, and both have enriched my life since I encountered them deeply in my youth .

My first experience was in high school, since learning a foreign language was just something college-bound kids were supposed to do. I’m not much of a linguist – as an introverted autodidact I have trouble even pronouncing English correctly. But a summer bicycle journey in 1968 exposed me deeply to French and the cultures of France. It vastly shaped my future outlook on life, and provided a slightly un-American perspective on what was important .

Since world war II France has been dealing with what the United States is experiencing now. That is, how to reconcile or preserve what is good about the past – “heritage” here, “patrimony” there. Dwelling in nostalgia is expensive and ultimately fruitless .

For decades, France has been able to survive mostly as a world tourist destination. Lately, not so much. French is no longer useful to most – cell phones do adequate translation work .

Yet I continue to treasure the revelations of “thinking in French” whenever I can .

Literature

An editorial in WSJ told young men they should read more fiction. Broaden outlooks, deal with inner complexities. A different editorial, written by a wealthy young twerp, advised that one’s 20’s should be completely devoted to the task of “becoming a billionaire”, after which, presumably we can live a decent life .

Spending one’s twenties (or any other decade) in a narrow obsession is madness. Believing one is in absolute control of the future is an immature fantasy. Perhaps literature is an antidote to that, or at least a window on alternatives. But there are other ways – falling in love, laughing with friends, having adventures. The list is of course endless .

We currently have made heroes of the wrong people. Life is a gift, not a test. It can only be “won” by living it fully and in balance. Hiding in an obsessive foxhole and thinking you are in charge of your fate will only earn scorn. And, of course, the premise is wrong. Reaching a goal does not mean the rest of your life is taken care of .

We all learn that eventually, unless we damage ourselves too much. Usually, such wisdom and reflections take time and effort. Literature, particularly fiction, offers a shortcut .

But the young rarely take the advice of the old. They know better .

I pity them .

Asocial Rulers

There have been ruling monsters throughout history, often exemplified as evil Roman emperors such as Caligula. But more critical has been the constant stream of asocial rulers. Those who care more about systems than people.

If there is one single distinguishing feature about classic Western civilization, it is recognition of the individual. Each person – even children, women, and slaves – has a human universe. Each feels pain and joy, plans and schemes, thinks and experiences. All are valid. We often lose sight of that in practice, but there it is .

Asocial rulers do not think that way. They may respect people in their immediate circle. Beyond that, folks are just objects, masses of creatures to be used or eliminated, to achieve whatever goals are felt desirable. And the fact is that the truly asocial leader does not care at all how the individuals in the masses are affected. In fact, often does not notice that masses ARE composed of individuals .

I understand the social dynamic, and accept that increasingly dense civilization makes asocial rule increasingly necessary. Perhaps that is an attraction in AI takeover. But just because I see it does not mean I have to like it. I want to keep some perspective .