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 .

Naked Rhinoceros

It was fashionable for a while to say that the current administration, like the ancient vain king, “had no clothes” when he claimed to be clothed in resplendent (but invisible) robes. Over time, however, power prevails.

The more appropriate fable is Ianesco’s “Rhinoceros” where normal people keep looking out the window and seeing everyone else, one by one, turning into that beast. Written in the ’30s it was of course a metaphor for everyone becoming nationalistic fascist .

At a gross level, the current rhinoceros is the nationalistic white supremacists. But the more troubling deeper change is that everyone, on all sides, have become sloganistic liars. They take one true “fact” and amplify it to great generality. As if finding one rotten apple in a barrel means there is an apple disaster, or one perfect apple indicates the crop is magnificent .

The “elite” used to at least pretend to intellectual rigor. No more. Anything can be said, and anything can be used to support what is said (and done) and if necessary anything can be fabricated as “virtually” true .

I look out the window and am becoming terrified. The horned herds grow bigger and bigger .

Robespierre

The 1789 French reign of terror has come to symbolize how a revolution can get out of control, turn on its leaders, and devour itself (along with lots of other people) . Robespierre is seen as a kind of parody of Hollywood kings constantly shouting “off with his head” to anyone who talked back or looked at him in a strange way .

Yet Robespierre was not really an evil guy. Throughout his short life he held ideals familiar and endorsed by most of us – the rights of citizens, abolition of slavery, women’s empowerment, rational society. He wanted a just society maintained by an uncorrupted government, where merit counted for more than class of birth .

What went wrong? Did power corrupt ?

No, not really. It seems to have been a sad, unintentional slide into hell. Things went wrong at home and abroad. Robespierre tried to deal with them. “Opponents” became “enemies”. Then “traitors” then “evil incarnate” which had to be eliminated for the glorious new world to arrive .

No matter how many went to the guillotine, troubles continued and multiplied. Finally Robespierre and the rest of the directorate fell, ending the senseless internal slaughter and opening the way for the senseless external slaughter of Napoleon .

We may rightly call Robespierre a fanatic, especially at the end of his life. There may be lessons there for many of us .

Hippodrome

According to Edward Gibbon, the Roman Empire did not completely fall in the late 400s, but continued at Constantinople, speaking Greek and a little Latin for about another thousand years. The Byzantine Empire ruled parts of Asia, the Middle East, Africa. It fought and traded with all the other world powers of the time (Charlemagne, Persia, China). The city inhabitants were, it seems, mostly well fed and well off for those times, going about their daily business as we do ours .

But in all this eon, did the masses care much about the larger issues of civilization? No! They spent most time rooting for and betting on the horse races in the hippodrome. Rulers rose and fell depending on support of the “blue” or “green” factions. Mercenaries fought all the wars, while the citizens rooted for charioteers .

Today it is hard to find an equivalent to blue and green mobs, unless it is maga versus woke. Mostly our obsessive enthusiasms are splintered on the internet. We still hire mercenaries, don’t think much about the larger issues of civilization, and go about our “normal lives” .

Who knows? Maybe this civilization will also last a thousand years .

But if I were one of those gambling fanatics, I know where I would place my bet …

Certified versus Experienced

Now that hiring is solely based on “merit”, it is useful to ask what, exactly, signifies “merit”. In a lot of cases that is otherwise described as nepotism, social class, or presentation. Proof that one is a member of the existing tribe. But let’s pretend “merit” means how well one can do the job required.

Throughout history, the main measure – outside of actual performance once hired – has been experience. What someone has done and how well they have done it is almost always the main traditional criteria of “merit”, even if the skill is simply being flexible enough to learn new skills, or showing up on time. The normal route for all that until very recently was apprenticeship .

Today, increasingly specialized experience can be hard to come by, so learning with eventual “certification” became common. It worked a little. But most trades and professions want to be in a guild – which turned out to be well served by erecting barriers to entry involving more and more numerous and baroque certificates.

Certification often fails miserably in telling how meritorious a job candidate is, but it certainly thins down the stream of job seekers. And it’s self-serving since the last employee in wants new applicants to “at least go through what they did” .

The only folks who love all this are the lawyers. And the teachers. For the most part, newbies entering good professions are now facing that tried and true nepotism, social class, and presentation – plastered over with certification .

No Return

One thing I learned over the years is that social stability is often a kind of mass illusion. People, for example, tend to believe that prices remain steady, or always go up, or will go down. Or that the future will be better. Or that they should do certain things. Until, almost suddenly, everyone changes their mind.

There are parallels in science. Supersaturated solutions will suddenly crystallize. Some “tipping point” is reached and a structure fractures. All of a sudden, equilibrium is different. Or lost entirely to chaos .

Science prefers – which is to say we prefer – a smooth glide and predictable gradual transitions. Our forecasts generally assume trends are known and that the future will mostly resemble today. We project our own ambitions into a future that in most ways resembles our past .

That all works pretty well until it doesn’t. And, like those supersaturated solutions, things can change fast and in really unrecognizable combinations. Society reaches some point of no return – bread lines turn to looting, the king is killed, whatever – and nothing is ever the same again .

I guess things could all turn out to the good. But. Inflation, AI, automation, internet, fusion energy, ecologic disaster, endless lists. Any one of them could unexpectedly end what we assume to be forever .

And, really, not much we can do to predict or direct the outcome .

Modern Socialism

Politicians are once again concerned about “socialism” almost as much as they were about “communism” in days of yore. They predict bread lines in New York, no houses for anyone, and dust and empty shelves for all. Just as in the USSR, China under Mao, North Korea now. That economic vision (whatever it is) has been proved by history to fail .

Yet today, there are elements of socialism everywhere, as there are elements of capitalistic free enterprise almost everywhere. There are few bread lines, and few any worse than in the “food pantries” set up for the (more fortunate) indigent in the United States .

The fact is that none of these systems is as it once was. Socialism, communism, capitalism are all far different in current practice than their conceptions of 100 years ago. The ongoing industrial and information revolutions have changed economics mightily. A world of (at least temporary) abundance based on possible ecologic disaster fails to fit any of the classic patterns.

What is unfortunate is that every thinker with an ax to grind pulls out the old unvarnished philosophies instead of coming up with something new, positive, and relevant. Our current drift may sooner rather than later be disastrous .