Duplication

As immodest as it may be, I continue to be enthralled with some of my earlier writing. This particular post from a few years back I always enjoy immensely. And since my travel blog doesn't get quite the attention I give to the others, I'm linking to it here for your perusal and enjoyment.

D-Blog

How to get skinny eating pancakes

This insight actually came from my pre-Raw Bar-B-Q days. Suffice to say I was a HUGE (in every sense) fan of the smoky deadals back in the day and that my quest to find the perfect baby back led me to revelations about food that stick with me (and in me) to this day.

The biggest one relates to flavor-shock. That is, the best part of eating a Bar-B-Q rib or what not was that first bite. Each subsequent chew diminished the pleasure of the incisive snap such that by the 4th or 5th chew, what was once a poignant delight had now become a banal chore.

Why was that?

Well the answer was largely in the flavoring. That vinegary sting from the first bite had largely worn off by the second. And so as one continued in the chewing one was left with only the smoky meat in one's mounth, which, though potentially delicious in its own right, was inevitably lackluster when compared to the zingy, tangy Bar-B-Q sauce which excites beyond what mere flesh can do. (this is getting kind of gross. sorry)

It seemed unavoidable. Short of injecting sauce into the meat itself, somehow, it appeared that we were all doomed to enjoy 4/5 of out Bar-B-Q experience in diminishing turns less than that 1/5 at the beginning.

As an Ameican, of course, I found this conundrum impossible to accept. There must be a way out of it. There must be progress.

And then I found it: Bar-B-Q Soup.

My friends all laughed at me at the time. . .oh the burn. . .but my beliefs held firm. With the bar-b-qed meat separated from the bone, shredded, and doused in a blood red soup of bar-b-q sauce, the pleasure could go on forever. Each soupspoonful would provide a sauce to meat ratio that allowed for swallowing all the flesh before the sauce's tang wore off. The thrill of each zesty moment would be repeated over and over again without relenting, liberated, as we had become, from the tedium of chewing past the point of pleasure.

To me this was the American dream. A limitless supply of stimulation with the absolute bare minimum of actual effort. What could be better?

Bar-b-q soup would be my ticket to immortality, having freed the masses from their slavish addiction to chewing and suffering through boring tasting meat. . .a hero amongst the people.


Ahhhh. . .the road not taken. Hacked soup, ground soup, brisket soup, duck soup, pork soup, vinegar, sweet, sour, vegan. . .the road seemed endless. Perhaps another day.



But you wanted to get skinny eating pancakes, right? Otherwise you would have been reading the one about dads calling their kids buddy.

Well, I may have mislead you a bit there. You're still going to get fat eating pancakes, there's not much to be done about that. But there is a way you can get less fat while eating pancakes and at the same time save the environment.

The principles are the same as in bar-b-q: What makes most pancakes tasty is not the cake itself, but the smack of sugar you receive when first biting in to that drippy, buttery maple syrup. No matter how good the cake tastes on its own, the syrup will always taste better.

Some of you may have discovered that when you pour your 1/4 cup standardized serving of syrup all over your pancakes, by the 5th or 6th bite, you need to reload, as it were. Where did all the flavor go? Did it disappear?

No, but it did get absorbed into the cakes and its flavor dispersed. So while the syrup-soaked cakes may be mushier and floppier, they have yet lost much of their flavor, thus requiring you to re-douse them with another shot of maple syrup to get your fix.

Now this might not seem so bad- until you realize that while you are only tasting one serving of maple syrup, you are nonetheless eating both that syrup and the syrup that was already absorbed in the pancake! You're double dosing.

And even if this, gentle reader, doesn't seem so bad- just wait. Because by the 10th or 11th bite, that second dose of maple syrup will have been absorbed, and you will be left to add yet one more "serving" to your plate. Now, though you are tasting only one, you are actually eating three servings of maple syrup in one batch- though two are merely filler.

Now, depending on how big your stack is, you may go through this ritual four or five times- or more- particularly if you are engaged in conversation, thus allowing more time for the syrup to withdraw into the bread. So for the intent of eating one serving of maple syrup, in the course of a sitting, you may in fact find yourself eating 6 or more. Unbelievable.

Fortunately, the solution to this is easy. And I thank the cheap-ass restauranteurs upstairs at Fariway for showing me the way out. At Fairway, they serve real Vermont maple syrup with their silver dollar pancakes. And being super tight, they don't give you one of those syrup pitchers but basically what amounts to a plastic shot glass filled with syrup. What I quickly discovered was that if you want to have enough syrup left for your last pancake at Fairway, casually dumping the shot glass over the stack wasn't going to cut it. You had to conserve. And the easiest way to conserve was to just leave the syrup in the cup and use it as a kind of dipping sauce rather than a topping. Ingenious. In this manner, much like out bar-b-q soup, you get the up-front hit of the syrup with each bite you take. There's no double-absorption, there's no waste. Just smack after smack of deciduous goodness.

So for those of you who want to lose weight (or gain less weight) while still enjoying your pancakes in the morning, give this notion a try. Ask for your syrup on the side. Apportion your dipping appropriately, and voila! You will be amazed at how little syrup is actually required to coat an order of pancakes- but that's just the point: "coat" not soak. It's the flavor-shock to the tongue that gives you the stim, not the dull processing afterwards or the deep innards of the cake.


So I'm glad I've gotten that one out of the way, immortality or not. Oh. . .did I mention something about saving the environment? Probably a stretch, but think of all the sap you're saving from those poor maple trees- or the corn you're saving if you use Aunt Jemima's. That should make you feel better about getting skinny right away!

Thanks,

D-Blog

"Hey, Buddy"

I'd like to register my objection now to the current trend of fathers calling their sons "buddy." (You can hear one such utterance here.)

What's up with that? Is this but one more abdication of parenthood roles for modern Americans? Maybe kids can start calling the TV set 'dad' and maybe the microwave 'mom' so their parents can just get back to being pals. As it is, 21-year old school teachers spend more time with kids than parents do. Is this just an admission that we no longer have any idea how to - or perhaps any desire to - parent? I guess that would be something. Or perhaps it says something about the modern American male and his total lack of paternal backbone. Couldn't say, but like I said before- my objection is hereby registered.

D-Blog

My Farm

So I may not have told you, but I've been going over plans for some time now to purchase land to grow my own food and live a more peaceful life than the one I do now. This has been a dream of mine for years and has only intensified as I have become more and more committed to the raw food lifestyle. Unfortunately, part of the raw lifestyle for me is about balance, and for me that will no doubt mean balancing country life with at least some degree of city life. And I'm fine with that. But what about the farm? Who will tend to the garden and keep things running smoothly while I'm not there?

Well there are several options that would solve this problem. The first is, obviously, to get married and have several kids who could tend the farm in their father's absence. Let's move on quickly to the second option which would be to "hire" some hippie-help to tend to the farm in exchange for a small stipend, a roof, and fresh food. This is the approach most commonly employed by organic farmers around the world. There is a huge stock of willing and able green people (as I once was myself) who are delighted to spend 9 months or more out of the year planting, weeding, composting, and harvesting their way to a natural lifestyle. While the organization Willing Workers on Organic Farms (WWOOF) has served as a link for farmers and hippies for ages, in the internet age, the hookup can be done even without the middleman.

But then I thought of a better idea. And it has a philosophical twist that I'm sure you will all love. It's wrapped up somewhat with my Southern (U.S.) revival, and then again with my new friendship with Mac. The idea started when I began referring to the hippies I would have work on my farm as "hippie slaves," since, at least when I did it, my hourly wage came out to something like 6 cents an hour for 75 hour weeks.

But after I met Mac, I began to look at slavery in a different way. After all, Mac and his kin have lines out the door of people willing to serve for no money - indeed most are willing to spend money for the privilege. And this got me thinking, is slavery such an evil if people really love doing it - and in Mac's folks' case, actually derive enormous pleasure and satisfaction from it? My answer had to be, at minimum, not completely. And then I found an answer that satisfied both my Yankee, Abolishionist sentiments and my BDSM-sympathetic sentiments: In the Ante-Bellum U.S., the problem was not slavery, but compulsory slavery. If people are willing to give themselves over to the slave lifestyle, then how, as an American, can you object to them exercising their free will to surrender that will? After all, we surrender our will every time we ride a bus or go under the knife. As long as we have a safe word, a right to say, "enough," then it should be between the slave and the master to make their own arrangements.

Well, as a Libertarian, I find this very satisfying. It has been my position on schooling, medicine, and other areas forever, and I am pleased that slavery can now be added to the list of permissible, seemingly harmful activities, so long as it is voluntary.

And so, for my farm, I decided to ask Mac if he might be able to put together a small volunteer cohort of farm slaves to take care of things, just like in the old days. Except on my farm, the people would not necessarily be black, penniless, or truly indentured. They would be free people, making the choice to serve without compensation. Fabulous.

Of course, for those of us on the land, getting our delicious slave-grown vegetables, it would be paradise. I am sure, though, that if word got out, the Feds would want to bust us like they did that Mormon commune in Texas. Of course, there would be no valid reason to do so, but that's not always the point, apparently.

A friend of a friend recently went down to do a report for the New York Times about segregated proms still happening in Georgia. I imagine somebody like that would be sent down. And because I have a journalistic bent to me, I thought I could save them the trouble of a headline:

Mac-Grow-Economics: Grow the Carrot, Get the Stick.

This had me laughing for about a half an hour.
D-Blog

Hearing Things

I've started hearing strange music in the overtones of my air conditioner while I'm trying to go to sleep at night. Sometimes it's such that I have to triple check that my iTunes is turned off. It's usually electronica, if that's what I've been listening to last, so my mind must create the continuity. But then it can also be 70s funk brass stuff, and even some indiscernible vocals. Maybe it's some kind of Rorschach for musicians, like the way artists see things in clouds.

Or then again, maybe it's just the little green men trying to fuck with me again.

Either that or the drugs. . .

People ask me why I don't shave

D-Blog to iTunes:

Hi there. Of course I love iTunes, but I have one special request for purchasing music.

Sometimes the 30 second clip you provide as a free sample is not enough to know if you want to buy the song. This is especially true in longer classical pieces (sometimes 8 or 9 minutes) where you may hear the introduction but not how the orchestra plays the main melodies later in the piece.

If you are a professional musician, say a clarinetist, who is studying the piece, the clip may not contain the big clarinet solo you're looking for. So either you wind up buying a lot of recordings you don't need or you wind up not buying any.

My solution to this would be to give the option of buying a one-time listen to any song/movement for a discounted price, say 10 or 15 cents. There could be something in the legal agreement saying that a charge for under 25 cents would not need to be authorized, so you could just click on the option to charge a dime to your account and get to listen to the song all the way through- but just once. Then if you chose to buy it, iTunes could charge the remaining 89 cents to your account. Easy.

There have been at least a dozen occasions where I have not bought recordings from you guys because I didn't get a good enough idea of the piece from the 30 second clip provided. Can you imagine buying Bohemian Rhapsody from a thirty second clip from the heavy metal segment of the song? You wouldn't even know what you were getting. Same for a lot of the late Beatles stuff and most classical music compositions which have many segments in them and all kinds of details that different instrumentalists and singers would want to pick out.

I hope you find my solution both feasible and intelligent and that you are able to implement it without too much difficulty (and that you offer me a percentage of the profits you will undoubtedly make from my idea!).

Thanks very much for listening and for a terrific product.

Sincerely,
[D-Blog]

Education, cont'd

I'm going to paste this one it. It's from Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish blog, and it's a thoughtful commentary on the practical value of a Liberal Arts Education. Having received one of these myself, I take for granted a lot of the points the author makes, and in my arguing elsewhere for a more accountability-oriented education process, it may seem that I do not share these values. Obviously, as a polymath myself, I am well aware of the value of ambiguous answers and bucking conventional wisdom, and so it my admonition to make education responsive to students' real needs I see the addition of critical thinking and multi-cultural, multi-discipline courses as invaluable. Presumably, if Wallace is right, then this would be factored into the curriculum in an appropriate and balanced way.

In terms of using the degree to prove to other people that you can do unpleasant work, I find that a little less satisfying of an answer, since I feel that conforming your life around fitting other people's expectations is a little too slavish for my way of thinking. After years of prep-school, the thought of working for others became intolerable to me- whether that's a personal failing or a mark of deep entrepreneurship, I suppose, will be determined by my life. But in general, I think New Hampshire's state motto is equally applicable to wage slaves as to slaves of the state. But just my prejudice.

Here's the article:


In Defense of the Liberal Arts

By Lane Wallace

We're entering commencement time, which means all kinds of notable people (the President and First Lady included) will be giving well-crafted speeches about the importance of education and a college degree. But is one kind of degree better than another? Much has been said about the importance of science and technology degrees in terms of keeping the U.S. competitive with the rest of the world. And as the economy has worsened, and fears of joblessness have risen, the voices advocating pursuit of more "practical" degrees have grown in both number and volume.
A recent New York Times article noted that Humanities now account for only 8% of all college degrees, and that proponents are having to work harder than ever to justify the worth of a humanities, or liberal arts, course of study. The article quotes Anthony T. Kronman, a Yale law professor, as saying, reluctantly, that the essence of a humanities education may become "a great luxury that many cannot afford."

I passionately disagree.

(Full disclosure: I graduated from an Ivy League university with a liberal arts degree in Semiotics, which most people would consider a highly frivolous subject. Although I have to say, the degree did turn out to be useful in getting me job interviews in all kinds of fields, simply because nobody knew what the word meant.)
However. Three points worth considering in the debate:

First ... I figured out the true value of a college degree not in the lofty halls of Brown University, but in a corrugated cardboard factory in New Zealand. I'd taken a "leave of absence" as they call it, after my sophomore year, to figure out if I really wanted to pay all that money learn things that seemed, well ... a tad non-essential, at best. I packed a backpack and took off for the romantic frontier-land of New Zealand with nothing but $500 and a working visa in my pocket. The six months I spent there were a far cry from what I thought the adventure would be, but it was educational. Culminating in my job at the cardboard factory--where I was surrounded by people who hated their jobs but had no other viable option.

In a flash, I grasped the true value of a college degree. It didn't matter what I majored in. It didn't even matter all that much what my grades were. What mattered was that I got that rectangular piece of paper that said, "Lane Wallace never has to work in a corrugated cardboard factory again." A piece of paper that was proof to any potential future employer that I could stick with a project and complete it successfully, even if parts of it weren't all that much fun. A piece of paper that said I had learned how to process an overload of information, prioritize, sort through it intelligently, and distill all that into a coherent end product ... all while coping with stress and deadlines without imploding.

I also realized that I'd do far better at all that if I studied what I was most passionate about learning, practicality be damned. Hence my switch to Semiotics (which, for anyone wondering, is a four-dollar word for communication). If you want to be an engineer or physicist, you'd better major in the subject. But only if that's what you truly want to study and do. Pro forma dedication is discernible from 100 paces away.

Second ... In an increasingly global economy and world, more than just technical skill is required. Far more challenging is the ability to work with a multitude of viewpoints and cultures. And the liberal arts are particularly good at teaching how different arguments on the same point can be equally valid, depending on what presumptions or values you bring to the subject. The liberal arts canvas is painted not in reassuring black-and-white tones, but in maddening shades of gray.

What's the "right" solution to the conflict in Sudan? What was Shakespeare's most important work and why? Was John Locke right in his arguments about personal property? Get comfortable with the ambiguities inherent in a liberal arts education, and you're far better equipped to face the ambiguities and differing viewpoints in a complex, global world. (The late David Foster Wallace expanded on this point in his acclaimed 2005 Kenyon College commencement address, which, if you missed it at the time, is worth taking the time to read.)

Third ... Yes, the U.S. needs technical expertise to keep pace, economically and technologically. But we also need innovators and entrepreneurs creating break-through concepts and businesses. And while knowledge in an area is important, I'd argue that the most important trait a pioneering entrepreneur needs is the confidence to buck convention; to believe he or she is right, despite what all the experts say.

Last year, I interviewed Alan Klapmeier, founder and CEO of the Cirrus Design Corporation, which revolutionized the piston-airplane manufacturing industry with its composite Cirrus aircraft (discussed at length by James Fallows both here at The Atlantic, and in his book Free Flight. I asked Klapmeier what gave him the idea, back in the mid-1980s, that he could take on an industry as conservative and entrenched as general aviation. His answer:

"I think it was my college education. I went to Ripon College, which was a liberal arts school. And that kind of school teaches you how to think for yourself. My professors didn't tell you you were wrong. They convinced you you were wrong. And if they couldn't, you might end up changing their minds on something. Figuring out for yourself what right and wrong is builds a huge bit of confidence. The kind that makes you think maybe we can take on an industry."

Worth thinking about.

Duh

Hmmmm. . .


After 9/11 Don Rumsfeld apparently said, "Either they will have to change or we will have to change- which is impossible." It seems that we lose either way.

For what it's worth, a gentle and intelligent transition to a raw food diet solves all of these problems at once. Once one feels the benefits in one's body, the process becomes all carrot and no stick, thus obviating the need for command and control dietary strictures.

I don't think we'll make it all the way there as a culture, but the model exists already for solving all of these problems at a tiny fraction of the cost of other proposals. But maybe that's the problem. . .

Good-Mart

I stumbled upon this one today from a few years back.

It's a horrid, dystopic idea Scotty and I came up with once, chatting on the cell phone while I was driving through the desert. I got to my hotel room that night and jotted the whole thing down.

To me this would be the most horrendous mode of living imaginable, but I have a feeling I may be in the minority on that. So here's my Good-Mart proposal, guaranteed to turn any developer into a king.

Read at your own risk, and make sure to have one of those "comfort" bags at the ready.

D-Blog




Good-Mart and World Domination


It started with J-Mart- a small chapel in the back of the Wal-Mart where people can go for church services before they go shopping. Originally the J stood for Jesus, but in certain districts, it could stand for the other thing, or (as they do in Aspen) have a Saturday version for Jew-Mart and a Sunday version for Jesus. A little tweaking would be in order for the Muslim neighborhoods lest Jihad-Mart take off in undesirable ways. Maybe we could consider Burka-Mart embedded in Burka-King. . . lots of possibilities.


Anyway, we soon realized that once the church is part of Wal-Mart, there literally is nothing else required for life (except for those who believe in compulsory schooling), therefore it will be the end of civilization as we know it and the beginning of the Brave New World of Good-Mart, named after its founder, [D-Blog].


At Good-Mart, we combine all the convenience of Wal-Mart with the bustling metropolis atmosphere of a real city. Improving community and cutting down on waste through intelligent eco-management of resource, Good-Mart represents the future of American living.


The concept begins with the Wal-Mart, the center of everything retail. But Wal-mart, Sam’s Club, and associated strip mall retail outlets form not only the cultural foundations for the complex but the architectural ones as well. Once re-enforced, the Wal-Mart will serve as the ground floor for a series of high rise towers with elevator service leading down into the Mart itself.


We therefore are able to create an entire gated community with a Wal-mart at its base. Elevators would run up and down the 4-40 story towers. There would be a swimming pool, fitness center and other amenities. Restaurants could be provided downstairs in the style of a Las Vegas casino – buffets might work especially well. A medical facility could be “on campus” as well as any other requirements specific to the community (legal and accounting services, for example- Law-Mart).


Parking would remain street level as in a normal Wal-Mart/Mall, but it would be covered, providing protection from the sun as well as additional acreage for more towers and public spaces. Parks, fountains, jogging tracks would all be part of this “virtual city.” A light rail system (modeled on the one in the Detroit airport) would connect different parking sectors as well as different segments of the compound. Driving would be held to a minimum, and walking/rail systems would provide most of the transportation. This would increase exercise and physical fitness while diminishing carbon emissions and driving. In fact, 95% of one’s daily needs would be provided by the complex itself- especially shopping and retail needs. Of course, delivery service would be provided on demand from downstairs businesses. In fact, an optional Good-Mart card can be used to charge all expenses to the monthly rent bill. A simple card swipe or fingerprint ID is all you would need to shop “on-campus.”


There could also be ‘virtual,’ multi-purpose office space in the complex. In this way, people from most cubicle-style jobs could work close to home over the internet. Xerox/fax service would be provided as well as messenger service, and secretarial service. In this way, people from several different businesses could all work from the same office through video conferencing and email.


Retirement communities would transplant well into Good-Mart. The close proximity to neighbors and medical help would be a plus as well as the benefits of reduced driving and increased exercise. General communal sense would be improved as well- compared with traditional planned communities based around separate homes, fenced off from each other.

Also, waste would, in general, be reduced, as trash removal/recycling would be more efficient, lawn care reduced, and mass transport clean, swift, and available round the clock. If desired, solar paneling could be used on the exterior of the buildings to harness energy, and wind farms could be placed on the roofs. Electrical efficiency strategies could be employed as well, plus energy could be re-harnessed from alternators in elevators, escalators, and light rail. All energy would be fed back into the grid itself.


Public gardens may be made available in certain locations, tended to by local residents. Movie theaters, different sporting ground facilities (depending in part on Good-Mart theme, e.g. shuffle board for elderly focused residents, ‘beach’ volley ball for younger), and music and art installations would be available as well. Day care would be a given. Also, with office space so close to home, having lunch with the whole family (at one of Good-Mart’s dining establishments or prepared at home using ingredients from the downstairs Wal-Mart) could become a new tradition.


“Bulk” discount home furnishing packages and items could be available for purchase (if desired) for the units- for example, Good-Mart Living Co. could purchase 500 flat screen TVs and sell them to residents at a discounted cost. This way, state of the art home amenities could be made available at an affordable price, thus incentivising the young and trendy (or at least young and professional) to live in a Good-Mart unit rather than a private home. Ikea-style pre-set home furnishings could also be purchased in bulk and sold at discounted prices for Good-Mart residents.



Finally, projecting out into the future, an interconnected network of Good-Marts would span the nation. Modeled loosely on the VOR model of aviation navigation or the interstate highway system, regional Good-Marts would serve as "hubs" of culture and civilization with light-rail ‘spokes’ connecting them all at greater distances. Bullet trains would parallel the highway system (as a reminder to drivers that alternatives exist to long highway travel- and at quicker speeds) taking families speedily and easily between Good-Mart ‘loci’ across the country. In this manner, visiting friends and families would be a cinch, with holiday commotion and travel costs kept to a minimum. (Also, as with some cell phone calling plans, this incentivises family members to become part of the Good Mart community as well- perhaps discounts/bonuses could be made available for ‘signing up' new members to the network.) Most importantly, all light rail systems on Good-Mart locations and between locations would be crystal clean- only being ridden by ‘citizens’ of Good-Mart who have an interest in preserving their quality of life.


Ideally each Good-Mart hub would have its own "Vegas-style" theme. For people who have always dreamed of living in Paris, there could be a Parisian-themed Good-Mart. A "rural" themed Good-Mart would be appropriate for gardeners. There could be Good-Marts for different tastes in food, clothing, and entertainment- Jazz-based Good-Marts, Meat-and-Potatoes-themed Good-Marts, or Trendy-Chic-based Good-Marts. The possibilities are endless. Of course, some Good-Mart communities would prefer not to be the envy of their neighbors or be visited too frequently by Good-Mart "Tourists." Exclusive or Reclusive Good-Marts could also be available for Americans desiring a quieter lifestyle.


Good-Mart will always be improving its services and efficiencies- while always maintaining the quality lifestyle desired by its residents. A new America is dawning. Wal-Mart was only the beginning. Now, Good things are happening at Good-Mart.

Consistency

For some reason it's important to me that I not come off as sounding like an uneducated, Philistinic (?) goon when I talk about science and my objections to it.

I do presume to push the envelope on this topic, as I think challenging fundamental assumptions requires a little extra "umph" to budge the complacent mind. And unfortunately the scientific group-mind is more complacent than it is billed as being.

I'd like to reference the last few chapters from my old mentor, Robert Anton Wilson's magnificent book, "Quantum Psychology." Wilson was a huge influence on me back in the day, even before I cared that his initials were RAW (see here for an explanation).

Wilson was a hard-core skeptical rationalist, though he was as perturbed about scientific fundamentalism as he was about any other sort of fundamentalism. His play, "Wilhelm Reich in Hell," was his creative take on the subject. The references is to the burning of Reich's library after his incarceration by the US government in the 1950's. Reich's scientific studies were considered too controversial, and so it was deemed that no record should be left of them. Reich's work would be resurrected by dedicated students not a generation later and then bolstered by the entire modern yogic movement in America as well as by the entire field of mind-body medicine, somatics, and tantra. Hooray.

As far as expending our own views of science, the subject litters much of Wilson's oeuvre, but towards the end of "Quantum Psychology," he makes, I believe, his densest contribution. To summarize, he contends that for modern science, there is no "one" model for explaining the universe. There are only many. And, as one explores, it turns out that the "correct" model for structuring the universe turns out to be whichever one is most appropriate for the particular question you're asking of the universe. This means that the person asking the questions is as much a part of the answer as the answer itself is.

I like this. I like this a lot. It underlines my argument for Geocentrism in Astrology as the one accurate means of locating oneself in the cosmos- that is, in oneself. It gives due value to the subjective, personal experience and puts the systemic perspective in his or her individual service rather than he or she in its (the far more common version). In other words, we get to choose what questions we ask and therefore what models we use to answer those questions. This is as close to scientific "fact" as we're likely to arrive at.*

It also undermines one of our most insidious of biases in the modern west- that for something to be "true" it has to be consistent. The assumption that the universe is consistent is really an appalling projection of our own mortal insecurities onto the world around us. Consistency is something desired by humans for the purpose of predicting and therefore controlling outcomes. It is a fear-based impulse to order, based around what our limited minds can comprehend. And it is utter nonsense.

Thus the search for "one consistent model" will always elude us. Such a unified theory would be the externalized, crystalized projection of all of our fears into a system which would have the authority to dictate to us what we can and cannot do, what we must and must not do. And it would carry the full weight of that authority in punishing any deviants (which, in theory, there should be none of if the system is perfectly consistent). This is, in our hearts, what we are looking for in science. A grand master of truth whom we can slavishly follow, trusting in its eternal, objective accuracy- its consistency.**

But why would the world agree to be consistent? If you were the universe, what joy would you find in being utterly predictable, the same in every way? You wouldn't, because then you would be static and unchanging, and therefore devoid of purpose. After all, if you were consistent, once you "got it," the rules, the order, etc., there would be no reason to continue existing, no purpose. You will have been completed.

Creativity, inconsistency, leads to motion, to the endless question of "what's next" that keeps the storyline of life suspenseful and intriguing. Inconsistency is Scheherezade's 2nd night which leads all the way to her ten thousand and first. It is the tipper of the scales that keeps the game of life unfolding.

The presumption, then, of consistency is founded in the human ego-based drive for security against unpredictable threats. Fair enough. But we shouldn't imagine that the whole world is as fearful as we are- or at least that if they are, they would respond to that fear in the same way. The Lion in the jungle, after all, is just as desirous of eliminating threats to survival as we are. He simply goes about it differently.

I use this example, of course, deliberately, as the Leonine principle is opposed to the Consistency principle in astrology. Why should we, then, as astrologers look at the universe only from the perspective of 1/12 of the zodiac? Because we are humans and not beasts (supposedly)? Maybe that is the cause of the bias, though I suspect it is simply the first churnings of the Aquarian Age, regulating and fixing our minds. May I say, Oy.

My point here is that when we look to "explain" events, we ought to fight off the urge to disprove our explanations if they diverge from other "facts" and therefore seem "inconsistent." There are varied sorts of truths, and the adoption of any one of them is the native's choice, based perhaps on their archetypal disposition.

But the ignorant pygmy in the forest who sees the lightning strike as a message from a deity of sorts rather than the result of alternating currents generated by the cycles of precipitation should not be dismissed as "wrong" simply because the two views appear to be inconsistent. Each is consistent within themselves, because the experiencer is asking a certain set of questions.

The scientist declares that the pygmy is "merely" finding superstitious means of controlling his fears of the unknown. But is science doing anything different? Why do we chase after our formulae, after all, if not for exactly this reason of eliminating fear of the unknown?

Whether we have more success in controlling the outcomes than the pygmy making sacrifices to his god can not be objectively measured, because success can not be objectively measured. The pygmy may make his sacrifice and live out his days content that he will never be struck by lightning. The modern my spend several generations, untold quantities of money, and enormous amounts of anxiety in the mere hope that at some point deep in the future, someone may learn how to control the weather.

Who is better off? It depends who you ask. The modern does not believe in that animist rubbish, and so he would be just as anxious after the sacrifice as before. The pygmy might say, why would I want to live in a constant state of suspense for 400 years until somewhere there's a breakthrough to control what I've just controlled through killing my little bunny? (A modern person might add that there was no guarantee that the pygmy would be able to afford the benefits of the scientific breakthrough technology anyway or that local politics wouldn't interfere with his access to same.) One's definition of success is as much a product of one's environment or culture as anything else- that is, the answer to what is success depends on the questioner.

So this brings us back to subjectivity. Who is asking the question? What does each one want? And therefore what models will be most appropriate to fit which desires? These desires will, mercifully, be as inconsistent as the days.





*When I was researching this stuff myself, I realized that the top 10 best minds in science would offer at least 10 differing theories of how the cosmos works (forget about why it works). If this were the case, then how were we, the laity, to make up any sort of informed decision for ourselves? It seemed fruitless to me and confirmed my suspicions that nobody knew what they were talking about. Therefore alternative strategies of living would be required apart from trusting some expert to tell me what was truth. It is us who whose which experts to listen to, after all, and this confirms the model described above in which the subjective experiencer is as much a part of the equation as that hich is being experienced.

**What I'm describing here should sound awfully familiar to anyone who has lived in the West over the past 2000 years or so. It is the monotheistic worldview disguised as science. I have written elsewhere about this link and the search for the one "true" (i.e. consistent) truth which has plagued the world since Abraham. The scientific revolution was meant to correct many of the problems of Christianity, but, in keeping with the old maxim that 'what we fight, we become,' the modern scientific culture has all the trappings of monotheistic dictatorialism, only with much more sophisticated gizmos.

Collections

Last time I was on the train, the friendly, automated voice came over the speaker, "Soliciting charity on the subway is illegal. We ask you not to give. Please help us keep an orderly subway, and have a nice day." Or something to that effect.

It struck me that if they were serious about stopping begging in the subway, the MTA would consider setting up an alternative for people right there in the subway station. They could have little "donation hubs" where people could slip their loose change into a permanent bin and the money could be distributed to shelters or other charities benefiting the homeless.

If people knew they could make a difference while it was on their minds, they would be less likely to give to panhandlers on the subways themselves, thus discouraging panhandling as a whole.

An alternate collections measure (if they could find someone to design the software) would be to allow riders the option of tacking on 50 cents or a dollar to their metro card purchase at the kiosks. This could be done for every, say, 100 transactions per machine so that every time you refilled your card you wouldn't be bombarded with charity advertising. But it would give everybody a chance to do something for the homeless without encouraging subway panhandling.


Speaking as a New Yorker, though, and despite the unpleasantness I associate with subway panhandling, it's kind of comforting in a strange way to know that the City hasn't been completely sanitized. Maybe NIMBY will eventually move back to the suburbs where it belongs.

Culture of Life

So we have created an ingenious system in which power is pitted against power for the benefit of the masses. This deconcentrates power from the centralized monarch and therefore (ostensibly) removes the corruption that has been the mother's milk of tyranny for centuries. Marvelous, truly marvelous.

But in a closed system - and the human psyche remains a closed system until we decide to "open" it - the energy for tyranny has to go somewhere. The founders remind us that tyranny does not only lie without - in the monarch - but more insidiously within, in the desire for servitude and the certainty a powerful Patriarch provides. In many instances they urge constant vigilance against one's own inner laziness and cowardice that would sacrifice Freedom for Surety. But even by the presidency of Quincy Adams and Jackson, it must have been clear to them that the virtue they sought in their countrymen's hearts had waned. By Johnson, it would be all but extinguished.

Vigilance is an uphill battle, and whenever we turn our vigilance too far outside of ourselves, we leave our minds and hearts vulnerable to the infestation of sloth. Yes, we are vigilant against our government (some of us still), but what, again, of that inner slave/tyrant? Where does he go?

I spoke of the human psyche as a closed system. By that I mean that all of the biological elements remain in force regardless of our efforts to squelch or suppress them. Therefore, the mammalian desire to be led by an alpha-species leader does not disappear just because we form an ingenious system of government. It simply must find another avenue to express itself - only, since we have suppressed it, the avenue to submission will not be the obvious one, but will rather sneak up on us as if from behind.

That which we tame, that which we control, does not simply disappear, it rather morphs into shapes that we do not recognize. This is the true danger of "repression." Not that it is amoral to suppress biological needs (the liberal perspective) but simply that it is ineffective and dangerous. Better the Devil you know than the Devil that walks around disguised as your buddy.

And for every suppressed impulse, we 'create' a buddy who is in fact a hidden devil.

So what, I ask again, has become of that basic human urge to follow? Where has our inner serf turned for enslavement? Who is our latter-day Devil disguised as friend?

Well, the mammalian impulse that creates the alpha-leader is, quite simply, the fear of death. We pack-animals fear the invasion of neighboring packs and so look to the biggest and the strongest to protect us. We gladly give up our women and our best food for the dominating strength the alpha has proven, as it is our best hope of survival against our enemies.

So protection from death is our primary concern, and it is hard wired in people as it is in animals. But where are those enemies today? Who are the alpha-males we have given our food and our women (and our money which may buy both) over to?

Well it is obviously the doctor class.

We have created an entire caste of high-tech warriors to defend us not from the Scots or the Turks, but from an even more insidious foe- an invisible one! The swarming herds of unseen microbes lurking behind every lamp post. The rogue germ just waiting to attack us from any corner - these, these are the new terrorists, and they are everywhere!

Orwell, Huxley, and Gilliam postulated a constant state of warfare against political terrorists as a fabrication to maintain centralized control over the people. The constant threat of terror and sabotage by socialists, communists, and Jews have held potentates in place for centuries. But having de-potentated out potentates through adversarial democracy, we leave a vacuum to be filled for those who wish to manipulate power to control us.

It used to be that any time a prince would need some extra funds to pay for his extravagances, he would gin up some conflict with the neighboring country and send his armies over there, effectively, to loot. This would not be the stated purpose of the war, of course. That would always be the mammalian watchword of "national security," or "keeping us safe." But it was rather understood by the princely caste that this is how you made money- a kind of back and forth of conquest.

Well the Medical class does the same thing for us moderns. New terrorists are discovered every day. Avian flu, human papilloma, ovarian cysts - all of these mysterious killers threaten to destroy you and your loved ones. But no need to fear! The magic pill, injection, or "procedure" has just been discovered to fend off these impending disasters. Just thank heaven for the new warriors with their scalpels at the ready.

Now I am not saying necessarily that it is the doctors who are conjuring up this rouse to keep you in fear and to take your money. Just as the patriotic, well-intentioned army solider is the unconscious agent of a deceptive tyrant, the modern doctor - usually earnest in his desire to help - is the stooge of a larger industry who controls him. The modern doctor has no time to do rigorous research of the drugs he peddles, the procedures he endorses, or the equipment he prescribes. Just as the soldier is too busy doing push-ups to study geo-politics, the doctor simply has too much to do to really check if what his masters are telling him is true. He simply goes along with it.

As futile as the Hippocratic oath may be, it must be stated that the executives - to say nothing of the shareholders - of giant pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment companies do not take it. They are under no obligation to serve the interests of the patient. In fact, they are explicitly in business to serve the financial interests of the shareholders. This is business, and it's a good one- even better than looting the neighboring kingdom.

The human desire for protection - like the human desire for sex - will never disappear. By denying people access to their sexual feelings, a massive underground industry of pornography and prostitution is created- wholly disproportionate to actual need. By denying people access to their desire for monarchical daddying, an enormous medical-industrial complex emerges, most of it entirely unnecessary. Both are huge earners, as they exploit a never-ending sea of desire for sex and safety. You will never make a bad bet on either.


Is there a solution to this problem? Some may not conceive it to be a problem at all. After all, yes the doctors are controlling our lives, but still, aren't they at least keeping us safe?

I highly dispute this. First of all, I don't believe in germs. I know that makes me a philistine to some, but I am generally unimpressed with the idea that the human system is so weak that it must live in an entirely sterile environment. I do believe, however, that through vaccination, massive ingestion of chemicals, and lack of exposure to challenging environments that the human system can become this weak.

That our medications make us sicker is something we would rather not think about. Nobody studies it, since the people who have money to do the studies are the people hawking the drugs- so why would they question their own monopoly on truth?

The answer to the problem is the same answer that we have found to deal with overweening government, and that is self-rule. In much of rural America, gun-ownership is still seen as the antidote to too much government. As nuts as you may think these people are, they have decided to take alpha-male protection - once the monopoly of the state - back into their own hands. They have accepted responsibility for their physical safety, and therefore enjoy the freedom of living unencumbered by princes and potentates. I salute them.

Well the same thing can be done for health. It is simply a matter of taking responsibility for it and therefore enjoying the freedom that good health has to offer. For me, nutritional healing has been the most effective way to accomplish this. There are simple, relatively inexpensive and permanent ways to undue the harm caused by a toxic society and establish a pattern of health that will not only extend your life quantitatively but will increase the qualitative enjoyment of the life you are living today. This is the promise of natural medicine, and it has fulfilled that promise since time immemorial.

The germ theory of Pasteur - which he recanted on his death bed as a hoax - leads to endless struggle and endless fear. The ecological approach, which balances the body's natural ecosystem with its environment makes any kind of microbial "attack" a moot point. A healthy body will not be hospitable to "invaders." In fact the alkalinity model has it that microbes are actually generated within our own tissues as a response to acidic environments in our system. An acidic condition is naturally produced in the body when the body dies and is ready to decompose. That is the signal for the fungus and bacteria to start breaking us down. When we produce these toxic conditions while still alive, however (through toxic chemicals and cooked food), we send mixed signals to our environment- it is time to break down, and yet we are not dead yet, so we must fight off the "pathogens." It's like the US drug war in which we are funding both sides of the battle with our own resources. It is an enormous waste of energy and will make us twice as sick with half the energy.

Nutritional healing solves this problem by eliminating the circumstances that create the "disease" and therefore eliminating also the wasted energy we spend in fighting the disease. It is a holistic, win-win solution for the body. The subjective experience of alkalizing in this way is that one wonders what one was fighting with one's whole life. Everything just seems so much easier.


But perhaps this is too simple for our culture. We believe in progress and so we must continue the fight to advance medicine - indefinitely.


But before we get there, medical "advancement" will kill this country as surely as the lust and greed of a prince will destroy his own kingdom. They will both bleed the state of money until it is dry.

Universal health care, having the stated purpose of protecting us, will seal us all in our graves. The medical industry is profit-driven, not health driven. And the sole arbiters of what makes us healthy will be the medical industry itself. Describing this as the fox guarding the chicken coop is the understatement of the new century.

Once they are given full power to control, diagnose, and prescribe to all of us, their power over the country will be complete, and they can start sucking the wealth out of us - with our own willing consent - until we are bled dry, the industry having turned itself into the very leeches they have disowned as quackery.

What new forms of quackery await us? Only the imaginations of the Medical Industry will tell. But understand this: that as long as Americans are unwilling to die - or to be born - naturally they will keep wanting more- more props in old age, more promises of longevity, more easement from suffering, more, and more, and more, and more. Our desire for immortality will be insatiable so long as we fail to live fulfilling lives with the days we are already given. And so the research into new gizmos and new pills will be literally endless.

Will health care costs ever stop rising? No. Because who on earth would want to stop cancer research, AIDS research, Alzheimer's research? We're just "one breakthrough away" from a new discovery that could add years of life to someone with Parkinson's. How can we stop now? And we won't. So like a hopeless gambler, plugging away for that next big win, we will spend every last penny of our grandchildren's money to stay alive just a little bit longer and with a little bit less distress, forgetting what our own grandparents taught us- that the house always wins.

If Americans could ever say "Enough. I'm healthy enough," we might be able to stop the ship from sinking. But the medical people make us unhealthy from birth- through unnecessary interventions, vaccinations, and food additives, that we never really "get here" in the first place. The American work ethic undermines our enjoyment of the life we have, and the chemical-foods we eat numb us to our real life experience. Death, then, is an endless terror in this supposed "culture of life," and so like our mammalian predecessors, we will fight it off at all costs. And for us, unfortunately, it will truly be at all costs. "Think health care is expensive now?" wrote George Will last year. "Just wait till it's free."

Indeed.

I'm encouraged by this

Kristof comes close here. He "gets" it, like in his last piece, but his closing exhortation that "we can do better!" is moronic.

Again, the intellectual conceit rears its ugly head. One liners like that at the end of the piece miss the point. Nothing is going to happen. No interested party is going to police themselves when there is no real accountability anywhere.

The Republicans know this; that's why they don't bother trying to control people. It's a less rosy view on human nature, to be sure, but it's one that's not buried in denial the way Kristof's is.


Still it's nice to hear that experts have no idea what they're talking about. Being an expert myself at so many things, I've known this for years. But people looove to look to experts to tell them what is and what isn't. People love to be led, which is why the founders of this country wrote obsessively about the need for vigilance when confronting tyranny. What many of them were unable to see, however, blinded by the enlightenment, was that the tyranny on the outside isn't nearly so dangerous as the servitude and passivity on the inside.

Tyrants don't just pop out of nowhere- they are the expression of the collective will every bit as much as an elected president. The difference is that the president can get voted out after a while and so is more on guard to public sentiment than the tyrant who rules by the sword.

But democracy or not, we still have tyrants everywhere. They've just moved out of government and into science, education, and medicine. These are the people who tell us all what to do- even the presidents. They are experts who rule by the study rather than monarchs who rule by the blade. But the effect on people is no different. It is arbitrary enslavement.


As for me, I've more or less stopped minding this. Truth is squishy, and there's no sense in trying to flatten it out. That's not what it's there for. Truth is ammunition and can be fabricated and manufactured to fit any weapon. It is only the pre-programmed biases of the observer that interfere with his being shot down (by a particular argument). Being pre-programmed, however, the observer is almost never aware of this, and so he receives the expert's "wisdom" as if it were truth.

And round and round it goes. . .why not take a ride? People will believe anything.

MC

A quick plug:


My new friend Mac is an unusual fellow. He is actually the character that broke the back of my idea to give up and start writing a blog about all of the weird people I know and have met over the years.

Mac Kohler is an enigmatic polymath and the one person I know who I might actually admit in public to being smarter than me.

So we have a good time. The story of how I met Mac is an interesting one, but I will save it for another time. As will I some of Mac's more fascinating quirks and talents.

But I am posting a link to a lovely post on his blog. The topic of "Rope Springs Eternal" is mainly the art and play of bondage, which I feel probably lies without the scope of this blog. But this particular story has more to do with nature itself, and I find it a good read without reference to Mac's other "passions." (that's a double entendre, not a slur)

So please enjoy, and say hello to Mac's blog for me. If you can remember what the operative verb is by the time you get to the end of a given sentence, you will have a good time.

So long for now.

This brings back some memories. . .

This makes me laugh so hard I fall out of my chair

"Uh, U-huh." - that's what makes it art.

Literally, it's been like 20 times, and it still cracks me up.

Quick critique

I'd say that one paragraph in the middle about the system not being broken could use some elaboration. Under the current system there really is no way to know that the good ideas move forward and the lesser ones get trampled. The open democratic review allowed to government is the only real way to approach a larger "truth."

The author hints at this in his final paragraph- that we must discover our "inner" scientists. That doing this on the scale required to adequately judge science's results is practically speaking impossible. No single person has access to the body of materials (to say nothing of the time) to conduct all the experiments required to make an informed judgment - that is why it is so insidious.

Perhaps a version of "League of Women Voters" could emerge to challenge scientific dogma on behalf of the voter/scientific recipient. But such interest groups would lack a core constituency the way AARP or the Sierra Club do, for example.

The real solution is to dispense with the illusion of scientific truth in the first place and find some other more subjective anchoring for our world view. As I mentioned above, the "truth" arrived at by science is only temporary anyway- so far there have been no scientific experiments that have not been undermined by some later ones. The terminus of that sequence of undermining comes in the quantum physics movement which suggests that our experience is, in fact, at least as subjective as it is objective (as ying as yang, you could say). Yet we persist in the delusion of "eternal objectivity" which is science's claim on "truth" and therefore authority.

This is the where the system is, in fact, broken, just as the Medieval "indulgences" indicated the brokenness of the old Catholic system of truth. The West favors the masculine over feminine - "truth" over subjectivity. This is so much a part of our culture that when we decide to 'liberate' women, we allow them to be formed only in the model of men. We do not honor their changeable subjectivity in its own right. The prejudice is do ingrained in our culture that we hardly even see it as such, but rather convince ourselves that it is a moral virtue to be non-feminine, orderly, "correct," and rational. It would almost seem immoral to Westerners to value such things as chaos, irrationality, and subjectivity. Yet taken to the extreme, our masculine-driven scientific machine shows itself to be wholly subjective, confused, and irrational.

This is the classic Chinese case for balance, as the Yang cedes to the Ying in its extreme. We, having little or no place for the Ying, have nothing for the Yang to flow into, and so it just breaks, as science has already broken.

As you can imagine, if we were to all of a sudden "dispense" with science, what would emerge under our feet would be total chaos. We have so linked our fate to the fashions of the university mind that we are lost without them. So we will fight to maintain our system and further harden the yang principle against the ying until nature simply rebels uncontrollably and balance is restored.

The hippies have been predicting this, Krugman-like, for years. Thomas Friedman recently made the case that Mother Nature and the Stock Market conspired to bring about the catastrophic downturn of 2008. Could be. My personal feeling is that while we attempt to squish the irrational principle into oblivion, she nonetheless lives through our daily lives unseen. She takes the form of sickness, obesity, unhappiness, malaise, and futility that mark so much of modern life. So perhaps nature's revenge has been upon us all along. Perhaps, then, it is us who have chosen to notice her now, rather than squeeze that much harder.

I'm just gonna copy & paste this one in full

By now, gentle reader, you should know of my disdain for the scientific establishment- particularly in its medical aspect. I am pleased that the Washington Post has been brave enough to publish this article. Hope you enjoy.

If you want to read it on their own site and get some of the links, you can do so by clicking here.
D-Blog

When Science Is a Siren Song

By David A. Shaywitz
Saturday, March 14, 2009; Page A15

When a group of British academic researchers reported last spring that women fond of eating breakfast cereal were more likely to give birth to boys, the story was lapped up by journalists the world over. "Skip breakfast for a daughter, eat up your cereals for a son," advised the Economist, just one of many publications to seize on the report.

The problem with this fascinating study? It appears to be wrong. An analysis led by Stan Young of the National Institute for Statistical Sciences found that the original conclusion was based on poor statistics and is probably the result of chance.

So far, Young's rebuttal, published in January, has received little notice. That it is ignored by many of the media outlets that lavished attention on the original report isn't surprising; in fact, the most remarkable thing is how ordinary that lack of attention may be. A lot of science, it turns out, can't withstand serious scrutiny. Thoughtful analysis by John Ioannidis suggests that more than half of published scientific research findings can't be replicated by other researchers.

Part of the problem is that we've been conditioned to trust university research. It is based, after all, on the presumably lofty motives of its practitioners. What's not to like about science carried out by academics who have nobly dedicated their lives to understanding the unknown, furthering knowledge and serving humanity?
ad_icon

Within academia's ivied walls (where I spent more than two decades), the view is a bit different. The university is not a peaceable kingdom, and life is far more Hobbesian. Henry Kissinger was on to something when he observed that "university politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." In contrast to the academia-vs.-industry trope, hubris, self-interest and ambition are not checked at the university door; arguably, they are essential for admission and required for professional success.

University researchers are in a constant battle for recognition and the rewards associated with success: research space, speaking engagements, funding and autonomy. Consequently, while academic research is often described as "curiosity-driven," the reality is messier, as (curiously) many researchers tend to pursue the trendiest technologies and explore topics that happen to be associated with the most generous levels of research support.

Moreover, since academic success is determined almost exclusively by the number and prestige of research publications, the incentives to generate results are exceedingly powerful and can encourage investigators to see patterns that may not exist, to disregard contradictory observations that might be important, to overvalue data that might be preliminary or unreliable, and to embrace conclusions that deserve to be viewed with far greater skepticism.

Does all this mean the system is broken? Surprisingly, no. Ultimately, science tends to be self-correcting, and flawed ideas are eventually recognized and disregarded. There really does seem to be a marketplace of ideas, and many good ideas eventually gain traction and persist, while many attractive but incorrect hypotheses eventually fall under the weight of compelling evidence. The system is far from perfect -- especially with regard to the exploitation of the most junior (and most vulnerable) researchers, who support much of this ecosystem -- but like capitalism, it may represent the best available option.

What we must focus on, and fix, right now is the way science is understood outside the academy. Above all, university research needs to be recognized for what it is: an intensely competitive business, employing people who are desperately seeking recognition and frequently leveraging preliminary data that deserve to be taken with a large grain of salt.

We also need to get past the facile industry-university dichotomy, a false contrast that is as misleading as it is convenient.

University research is not a pure enterprise; its researchers have feet of clay and are subject to an array of professional biases.

Consequently, our myopic obsession with industry conflicts of interest may have the unintended consequence of distracting us from some of the more important sources of prejudice and concern.

The realistic view of science carries important policy implications. The Bush administration may have erred on occasion by disregarding even the best science. However, it is critical that Obama -- who pledged in his inaugural address to "restore science to its rightful place" and who vowed just this week to "harness the power of science to achieve our goals" -- not reach for the other extreme and embrace politically attractive but preliminary reports because they happen to be wrapped in garlands of knowledge.

Researchers are unlikely to become less self-serving -- just as reporters are unlikely to become less opportunistic in their hunt for news. Ultimately, it is up to each of us to develop a more skeptical ear, to approach received wisdom cautiously and to pay more attention to data than to narrative.

Only by discovering our inner scientist can we fully delight in the hope of new research without being seduced by its charms.

The writer, who worked as an endocrinologist and stem cell researcher at Harvard University, is now a management consultant in New Jersey.

Brazil

I haven't watched this movie since college, but when I was a kid, it was one of my absolute favorites. For the time, the sets and costumes were extraordinary, and even in my youth I could already relate to the "rage against the machine" mentality of the story.

Looking back some 15 years later, I'm pleased that there's not too much that's new to me other than the dream sequences fitting nicely into a Jungian context. But what I love, what I *love* is that all of the terrorists have American accents (that is deNero and the girl lead). Obviously they meant it in the pre-9/11 context when Americans were seen as the rebels to the British social straight-jacket. But it's really funny hearing Robert de Nero in his best NYC Medallion voice saying "bloody ducts."

Great stuff.

This is just too fabulous

Occasionally I have my faith restored in the good ol' US of A.

Click here for a wonderful story.

On Structure and Simpsons

Tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em.

Tell 'em.

Give three examples to back up your point - but only in cursory form.

Tell 'em what you told 'em.




Tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em about point 1.

Flesh out point 1 using at least three sentences to elaborate.

Tell 'em you told 'em about point 1.




Tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em about point 2.

Flesh out point 2 using at least three sentences to elaborate.

Tell 'em you told 'em about point 2.




Tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em about point 3.

Flesh out point 3 using at least three sentences to elaborate.

Tell 'em you told 'em about point 3.




Remind 'em what you were going to tell 'em in the first place.

Remind 'em of the three points you made in the middle paragraphs.

Remind 'em that you told 'em.


The End




When I was living in Colorado I was living deep in the woods - far from the things of man. So one of the things I brought with me was a satellite dish. This helped a lot with the whole passing of the time thing.

What I discovered with my satellite dish was that I could watch between 3 and 6 different Simpsons episodes a day, and that really there was very little else I wanted to watch.

I was slow on the uptake with this show. I was a fan during its incipient days on Tracy Ullman but lost touch soon after when it got its own thing going. So most of my experience with the show has been through re-runs.

What's interesting about watching the show in such deep concentration is that the structure of the episodes emerges more clearly. There is some variation, but by and large the structure is consistent.

It is a kind of A.D.D. rhapsodic, if you had to name it. Almost every episode starts with the family doing some project- they go to a movie, they go shopping, they buy a gadget- whatever. A logical story begins to unfold that should have a clear beginning, middle, and an end.

And then, inevitably, the story line breaks away into a tangent, and then that tangent usually carries the piece the rest of the way.

Because the moment to moment content is so funny, the piece can support this random, unsupported structure. Indeed, it is a wonderful underpinning echo to the main characters' own lack of directionality and focus.

And I really like this.

As a writer, I am a big fan of the preamble. I enjoy words for their own sake and for their own melody and mouthfeel. As I stated in an earlier post, I don't really believe in proving things- particularly not by scientific examples which are entirely transposable and/or Protean. I prefer to argue by exhortation or by acclaim. This seems to work a lot better. My old history teacher whose name I forget used to tell me that it was the spoken word that was more powerful than the written word, and on this I agree. The written word has weight over time, but time has no power, only wisdom. Hitler could not have pulled off what he did by writing bi-weekly columns in Die Zeitung. It was the power of his oratory that moved the masses. Facts be damned.

I'm still a demagogue at heart, I suppose. I find substantiation tedious and finally lacking in real power. I am alright with the world coming undone periodically by the whims of dictators. They are, after all, only speaking for their constituents. It's their endurance that I don't like. Demagogues should come and go- to cling to power is unseemly, and that is where the real destruction lies.

With music, my feelings are a little different. Pardon the inconsistency here. Schenkerian structures still make the most sense to me, and even the most beautiful melody becomes intolerable if it is unsupported by a reliable urlinie.

This is why atonal music sucks. There is no beginning and no end. Its demarcations are arbitrary and unmoving. The only way someone like Stravinsky gets away with it is by writing very short pieces with highly simplistic, repetitive forms (ABAB, for example, or even just ABA). In this way, the melody can reveal its charm but the piece will be over before one grows sick of it. This is how we get through Stravinsky's most successful pieces, the Rite of Spring, for example, and the lovely Suites for Orchestra.


His less successful pieces (or tracts from the more successful ones) are those in which he tries to out-endure himself with tiring tidbits.

But for most modern music it is far worse. Randomness, not in the service of satire, is simply random and unappealing. The Simpsons writers have mastered form and moved beyond it, using, like Stravinsky, the short form (this would not carry in a movie). The typical modern composer has no such mastery of classical form and simply tries to weasel his way out of it by blowing it up altogether. This is why we listen to Britney.

I, myself, am bored with much form, largely due to its lack of playfulness and its sinister left-brain bias. I think that a message that unfolds through story, narrative, and circuitousness penetrates deeper into the mind and convinces more through art than through logic.

The form outlined at the beginning of this page is almost a satire itself, were it not the prescribed way of making one's case in academic circles. But nothing comes of this write-by-numbers style other than the gold-star or check-plus of a bored or addled professor. Surely we can do better.

In keeping with my purpose, I have left out any specific examples of Simpson episodes to back up my case. This is due almost entirely to laziness and not principle- something I am happy to admit at present. But I urge you, my reader, to follow up on this essay and do your own homework. Turn on channel 11 and see for yourself the acute twist that each episode's plot takes. Pick out your favorites and send me a link. Although right now, I am surrounded by so many things of man, that I am sure more TV is something I can do without.

D-Blog

Why I don't believe in proof

When I was a young musician, I took a radical stance vis a vis musical performance and interpretation. In order to defend my stance against an entrenched and complacent musical culture, I took to the books. I read and I read discovering precedent after precedent, proof after proof for my views by which I hoped to convince my colleagues to pull their heads out of the cave and see the light.

This was an exhausting endeavor - not the reading, but the convincing. I hadn't yet learned that convincing people with logic is the least effective way of changing behavior, my faith in civilized debate and persuasion notwithstanding.

Still I got pretty good at it. I could quote Baillot, Quantz, Carl Phillip Emmanuel, Mozart, pere, Gemianini, and all the others. From Gregorian chant treatises to Gustav Mahler I had ample description by the masters of what I divined to be authentic and universal musical technique. I believed myself to be unassailable from a scholarly perspective, and incontestable from a musical one.

And yet budging the classical behemoth, as I expected, was not as easily forthcoming. That would have to come from my performances.

And yet I was certain that I needed this intellectual stubbornness and groundedness in order to make my musical case valid in the eyes of my many critics. Whether I won most of them over or not, I don't know.

But I knew for sure what i was describing was "right," and I had my loyalist adherents who would validate through their own example, and whilt that was not really enough for me at the time, that is where I left things.

Looking back, my experience taught me much. Trying to convince people of something is a fool's errand. Power, zeitgeist, and the motion of the spheres is what changes people's minds far more than intellectual reasoning. Even for those who are willing to be intellectually persuaded by a reasoned argument find themselves in conflict with their bodies unless the reasoner pushes all of the correct biological buttons of superior alpha-leader. That most intellectuals are entirely disconnected from their bodies makes this point in practice less relevant, it is nonetheless difficult to effect change without moving the body and the passions of the heart.

So this is where I find value now. In passion over reason, with reason, of course being given its due, but only in moderation,

For this brings me to my point. That, if you want to, you can prove anything with reason.

In studying music, quotes from historical authorities were a primary source of precedent (the mother's milk, of, you know, making your point and being right, according to Donna). There were so many wonderful quotes from the masters regarding rubato, tempo variation, portamento, vibrato, ornamentation, and such, that making my case was easy.

In my searches, I found, interestingly, others using my very same quotations to make opposite points. These, of course, were bastardizations of the original meaning and context of the quote (I was sure I was right about that), and I was always able to disprove my disprovers. It was fun, a kind of intellectual warfare on the villainous and the dogmatic.

But eventually I stumbled on one quote that has always stuck with me. Doc, my teacher and mentor at the time, referred me to an article in Organ Times from the 70's extolling the virtues of (if memory serves) the tracker organ and legato playing. I don't remember anything about the article, except for the quote from the opening paragraph:

"You can prove anything with quotations."

Well, despite my being right about everything, I would have to admit that this was true. Precedent is handy, but it is really just a tool to fool the foolish and bring more ballast into your argument's camp.

Truth, finally, is not a fixed thing. It is the word written by the winners that is locked into history. That truth will then be shimmied from side to side by scholars (winners of tenure) and their updated views will be disseminated to the public by journalists and educators (winners of Pulitzers and Board of Education elections). What is "true" in the classical sense is anybody's guess and in the end is not so much important as the reality. What happens and what "is", and what is "true" or what is "right" have almost nothing to do with one another. And bio-fascism (as Mac might put it) is entirely indifferent to truth but entirely in the service of the winner.

So let's be clear about this. Proofs by quotation are not only logically unsound, they are also historically subordinate to the wielding of power.

Fine.

But the same goes - and triply so - to proofs by science. You can prove anything with quotations, but you can prove *anything* with scientific experiments. We are trained to believe this is not true, that science has miraculously sucked all of the subjectivity out of life and that truth can be revealed - the real truth this time - by objectively observing the results of a laboratory experiment.

This is the 9th grade version.

The grown-up version asks the following questions of the so-called objective scientist: Who decided to do the experiment in the first place? Why did you do that experiment and not another? And more to the crux: Who is paying for the experiment? Where did you get the equipment and the laboratory itself? How are you able to do scientific experiments and not have to work for a living? And finally: What experiments and what results will get you into peer-reviewed journals and therefore advance your careers?

You see science is a marvelous concept- objectivity, reason, detached observation - but in the world there is no way - no way - to firewall science from money, economics, policy, and politics. None.

Why are there studies about the number of antioxidants in pomegranate juice? Do you think somebody was just curious? No, there was a financial profit to be had by backing up a product advertisement with "scientific facts." Why are there infinite studies on diabetes treatment and yet virtually none on the cures available to all through a plant-based diet? Because there is a fortune to be made in diabetes treatment and virtually none in eating asparagus.

And then there's the truly frightening statistic. We would love to think of egg-head scientists as being fully committed to truth and objectivity. But what about career advancement for them? How do they get their name in the right journal so they can get the authority to do more experiments?

Here it just gets ugly. After all, what the hell is a peer review, anyway? How are we to challenge our assumptions if our work is only reviewed by our peers? Would we tolerate this from congress, from legal representation? Never. And yet we defer to the expertise of scientific boys' clubs to tell us what is right.

But here's the kicker. None of us can disprove the findings of scientists. Why? Because we can't afford to. None of us has access to the lab, to the materials, to the journals, to the equipment. We can not, on our own, collaborate and compare with researchers around the world - the requirement for passing scientific muster.

And so we are utterly powerless in the face of the scientific monopoly on truth. And to speak out against science is at its best, lunacy and at its worth blasphemy- with all of the state-sanctioned punishments once reserved for non-believers in the cloth.

And this is very important. Because the same lack of review was (again) the mother's milk of the modern scientist's medieval antecedent- the priest. In days of old, everyone was illiterate- even many kings and queens. Maybe they could read their vernacular - maybe - but they could certainly not read Hebrew, Latin, Greek, or Aramaic.

This put lay people, with respect to medieval bible-driven truth in exactly, *exactly,* the same position as the modern "laity" with respect to science. If a medieval priest told you that the bible said to give him an extra bushel of wheat each week in order to get into heaven, the farmer would have no way to dispute that. If he said you must pray 5 instead of 10 times a day, then that was truth. Entirely incontestable, since the common person lacked the resources (in this case intellectual) to challenge him.

This is why Luther's revolution was so monumental. It would be the equivalent of giving each world citizen his own laboratory and endless funding for research. Only in this way - through democratic, not peer, review - can some sort of truth be arrived at.

And what we find over history is that this democratic review shows "truth" to be much larger than fact but a kind of organismic, biological truth that transcends fact. Objective, or factual based truth is only possible within a small collective of like-minded thinkers- the peer review group, or the Washington Post editorial board. These people can have a lock on truth because their ideas are self-referential and are not seriously challenged by opposing viewpoints.

The beauty of the mish-mash we call democracy, or the House of Representatives, is that these truth-groups are constantly pitted against each other in order to form something even more precious than truth: reality.

Democratic review should be the overriding procedure for all inquiries of consequence. Science should not be given cloth-like deference to espouse truth. You can prove anything with science, anything at all. And everyone does. It is the coin of the land every bit as much as Leviticus was in days of old. It is a hidden monopoly, a hidden tyranny in our midst, and it rules us right under our very noses.

It is for this reason, by the way, that I am such a fan of the religious nuts in America. They have the audacity (through their own narrow-mindedness) to challenge science at its seams. I love this and urge them to continue on their quest to undermine the dominant paradigm- as their own was undermined generations back by the scientific juggernaut.

As for me, I'll hang back from that particular fray and say what I'll say. Not interested in proving anything, just being what is. Who could ask for anything more?



Addendum -

I was looking for this piece for a while. Listen up and enjoy. Note that the interviewer, despite being brave enough to launch the interview in the first place, is unwilling to challenge her own underlying assumptions about science. The final question about whether his own research would apply to himself is a kind of self-reassurance that what he's saying isn't as monumentally important as it really is.

Clarification

Wish I could find the youtube clip of this. . .





Norm from Cheers:

"Women. . .can't live with 'em. . . Could you, uh, pass the beer nuts."

Too much. . .

While I'm all for kids getting high, I think it should still be of their own volition.

Dentists. . .pass the beer nuts. . .

Unpacking Oedipus - Part III

(cont'd)




In listening to that same lecture set, Solomon mentions in passing that Oedipus's father had been the recipient of a curse. Somehow I had forgotten that. And so I thought, how foolish of me- in all of these myths, the ancestral patterns are relevant, why should Oedipus be any different?

In the old testament, it is said that the sins of the father are visited upon his children. The 10 commandments assure that disobeying souls will be punished 10 generations out. Native American traditions consider the implications for the 7th generation after them of any of their important choices. And yet we in the modern west continue to think that we just sprang out of nowhere with no ancestral antecedents or debts. (this is fundamentally an American delusion with our mythology of the immigrant surrendering all loyalty to Prince or Potentate, and presumably all inherited emotional baggage. Would that wishing made it so. . .).

So to look at the "fate" of Oedipus, with its apparent cruelty (as Solomon puts it), it would behoove us to look at the 'system,' i.e. the family of which Oedipus was but a unit, his centrality inflated by our attention to him and not his ancestors.

Did you know Oedipus's father was cursed? That he was cursed to bear a son that would slay him? Well that certainly takes some of the pressure off of Oedipus, no? After all, he might not have been such a bad guy if he were just acting out an arrangement made by his father and another actor.

In the stories, King Laius, Oedipus's father was a guest at the court of King Pelops. During his stay there, he became sexually intrigued by Pelops's son, Chrysippus, and in the night, abducted and raped him. (It's almost hard to believe this part of the story doesn't get more air time, what with our open embrace of pedophilia and homosexuality). Upon discovering the violation of his child, Pelops curses Laius that his son should murder him.

Well.

That certainly puts a different spin on things, doesn't it? Does the 'evil fate' of Laius, to be murdered by his son, seem slightly less brutal in this context? Does the guilt Oedipus experience as the agent of vengeance in another man's sensible call for justice seem somewhat overwrought? Maybe.

What is more, in the stories, both men try to avoid their fate- one out of selfishness, one out of selflessness. Laius, understanding his curse, exposes Oedipus in order to outwit fate. Oedipus, when learning of his own curse, *runs away from home* in order to spare his (adopted) father the curse of his own fate.

Would that Oedipus and Laius had had the council of Dr. von Franz. This is just the kind of ‘fate evasion’ practiced daily in psychologists’ offices as people try to outsmart their complexes through intellectual analysis. And so perhaps the ancients and their oracles were as foolish as we and our shrinks.


But to our original point. . . That the Oedipus myth is somehow central to our psyches is an arbitrary assertion. It can hardly be said that every young man born in the world is the son of a father who was cursed by a foreign king for raping his son. Furthermore, even for those fathers that did go down that path, some of them might have accepted the cosequences of their actions and raised the son anyway. Laius, however, decided to murder Oedipus, and so his son’s unconscious desire to kill his father is not some kind of ‘psychological predisposition.’ It is simply revenge.

And yet the notion persists. But perhaps we enjoy the avoidance of our fate as much as Laius and Oedipus – and all the others – did. Woody Allen, a psychological devotee, was in analysis for some 30 years before he married his daughter. So perhaps the psychological religion is destined to fail us as much as the Judeo-Christian one.



The Oedipus Complex has distorted our cultural sense of who we are by replacing the Judeo-Christian mono-myth with an equally preposterous, limited construct that simply does not apply in most cases. And still, in our search for meaning through the new religion of psychology, all manner of mythic conditions are referred back to the alleged primogenitor of complexes, the Oedipal.

Solomon, in his lectures, quotes Nietzsche as saying we shall not be through with God until we are through with language, since our notion of God is embedded in our everyday speech. Well the neuro-linguistic programmers, to say nothing of the GOP, are working on that. But in the mean time, getting rid of our notion of monotheism as the governing myth of mankind would set us well in the right direction.

Unpacking Oedipus - Part II

So from my perspective, it is arguable about which (if any) of Freud's legacies has contributed most to public health, but certainly the one that has most captured the public's imagination is the famous "Oedipus Complex." And it is no wonder- modern man, particularly in America, is sorely lacking in mythic exposure, and it is just the function of imagination that is most touched on by mythic analogs such as Oedipus.

Jung, Freud's prodigal student, complained that Freud emphasized the Oedipus Myth above all others, not realizing that the entire psychic world is the interplay of different myths, stories, and legends- infinite in number, concocted by the collective human imagination through eons of experience. Myths of childhood range from Attis to Narcissus, from Hippodamia to Mirope, and well beyond . . .the Oedipus myth is but one, and yet it is the one which has stuck with us.

Last night I was listening to a recorded lecture that the late Bob Solomon and his wife, Kathleen Higgins, were giving on the life of Nietzsche. It was the lecture on the notorious "God is Dead" theme in which the lecturers decry the lack of a "foundational myth" to replace the Christian myth, which is the one Nietzsche was referring to when he spoke of God as being dead.

I was struck by the way the lecturers described this quest as the search for a "foundational" myth. They are absolutely right that that is what the culture has been searching for for some time. But the idea itself rests on a fundamental assumption whose validity I would vigorously dispute: the modern Western bias towards Monotheism.

Monotheism, historically is not the norm. It is an aberration from the great religious traditions of mankind. The pretension that there is only one god, and with it one "foundational myth," is a fence we have wrapped ourselves in so tightly these past 4000 years that it seems almost impossible to get out of it.

And yet even in our supposed monotheism we pray to different aspects of the deity for salvation- Jehovah, Yahweh, Hashem, and others described different subtle aspects of the Hebrew God. Even the Holy Trinity and the recently assumed Virgin Mother (Congratulations, Mary) are differentiated, albeit grossly, mythic aspects of the supposedly one deity. So, as so many religious people display in everyday life, we are hypocrites- even foundationally. For while we feign to believe in one god, we in fact worship many.

And yet it is monotheism that has endured even into our 21st century. Perhaps it was Freud's ambition that latched onto this fact, or perhaps it was society that latched itself onto Freud, but the supposed ubiquity of the Oedipus Complex satisfies our modern craving for a monotheistic, "foundational myth."

Particularly for the secular educated who themselves hold the hilarious pretension of being immune from religion, the psychological mono-myth of Oedipus forms a sort of Rock of Gibraltar on which to hang their psychological theories while evading the complexity, turmoil, and irreducibility that accompanies a wholly more accurate and honest version of the psyche: the polytheistic.

The mono-myth of Oedipus has usurped the thousands of other childhood mythologems that comprise the human experience just as God-the-Father has usurped the thousands of Gods and Goddesses who have woven the story of mankind since time immemorial.

It is certainly very comforting for us to have such a strong protective father, whether in the guise of an inaccessible deity, or an equally ephemeral urge to kill our father and bed our mothers. Indeed these two parallel mono-myths share primarily the fact that lay persons rarely, if ever, experience them directly. We just have to take somebody's word for it. How convenient.

On the other hand, the multi-mythic outlook is as rich as can be, and can be experienced - indeed is always experienced - viscerally, personally, and primordially- three religious attitudes that are all but forbidden in a formalized, monotheistic setting. That these experiences happen whether we identify as monotheists or not, Oedipists or not, is the cause of much disturbance to the formalized religious structure. So there should be no wonder that over the past 2000 years especially, the monists have done their damndest to stamp out any diverging mythological threads and condemn them to the realm of "hell"- either figuratively by denunciation or physically by aggravated murder.

And yet the church didn't act alone. They extinguished polytheism by representing the interests of their constituents. After all, the Christian cult, by expurgating the notion of violence and embracing the notion of lamb-like surrender, left itself extremely vulnerable to aggression. The cthonic Roman culture of violence, out of which the original Christian sects arose, became the repressed shadow of a culture based on martyrdom and self-sacrifice.

The unconscious need, therefore, for manly protection and security grew exponentially. And what could be more secure than the mono-myth? The one sure truth in which one could take refuge.

Polytheism is sloppy. How do you know which God to pray to? How do you know (psychologically) that you are living out the Persephone Myth and not the Artemis Myth? How reassuring, then, to know you're either an Oedipus or an Electra, a Jock or a Cheerleader, as it were? This kind of Judeo-Christian-Freudian reassurance was absolutely necessary for a culture that consciously rejected militarism and the mortal protection it offered. (The Christan wars of aggression in subsequent centuries would be further evidence of the repressed violent side acting autonomously, but I find the protective violence of a fixed belief system to be a more compelling study.)

When one actively engages the polytheistic "lifestyle" things start to make a lot more sense. The "grid" into which we must force ourselves in mono-culture transforms into an ocean of connectivity. For some, this ocean remains terrifying, and the risk of drowning without proper flotation equipment is real. Fortunately, disciplines such as astrology and other mytho-temporal interface studies offer a sort of "Coast Guard for the Soul" and help us navigate our mythic waters with greater assurance. Jungian Psychology, I Ching, Tarot, and good old-fashioned Animism all offer compelling maps of the ocean's depths and can even lead one back to land, should one so desire.

Judging by the Solomon lectures, it seems as if Nietzsche with his reverence for the Greeks was very much on to this. But the unwillingness to break with the monotheistic ueber-paradigm hampered him from engaging fully in the mythic on a personal level. This great wash of different possibilities of human experience he believed were only available to the ancients but were somehow lost to himself. In fact Nietzsche's obsession with the Dionysian-Apollonian split reflects this. What he meant by this was essentially a monotheistic (Apollonian) - polytheistic (Dionysian) split, which is a false one created by the unconscious monotheistic bias. (It could also be described more simply as a masculine-feminine split with Apollo being the former, Dionysos, the latter. It is no coincidence that the great patriarchal religions are monotheistic.)

After all, polytheism *includes* the God of monotheism. There is no Apollo-Dionysos split in Pagan thought. The two are brothers, but they are also brothers with Aries, Hermes, Hephaestos, and countless others born to Zeus's concubines. Add to this Athena, Demeter, Hecate, and all the rest, and you have a vast psycho-mythic framework that is wholly compatible with itself and underpins fully the stories of our lives.

And taking us into the 21st century, in the post-Matrix era, I would have to add that we may no longer be in the age of discovering our mythic substructures but actually choosing them- or at minimum realizing that the myths we experience presently are myths we have already chosen. To wake up, therefore, while still in the dream is to choose consciously- to choose joy, suffering, endurance, exhaustion or whatever story catches our fancy.

Surely nothing could be more terrifying to the fundamentalist monists out there. But the gradual loosening of the death grip on mortal security has in fact been the stated intention of the Church teachings for 2000 years. Perhaps it took two millenia of pretense to arrive at a place where we can actually do what that god demanded of us- let go of our attachment to mortal protection and flow with the ever-unfolding stories that are our lives.

My intention in this piece was to undermine a bit the particular notion of Oedipus and its centrality in modern psychology, so I would like to say a few things about that (although I confess the detour may have been much more interesting than the destination may yet be!). We'll take them up in Part III.