Consider the CHE equation: Should I wear my seatbelt?
It is simple to see on a three-space Risk/Cost/Benefit vector graph that, yes, of course you should wear your seatbelt. It is irrational not to, if you value self preservation. What is interesting is that such indubitable Cartesian conclusions map into the same kind of epistemic grid as things that on the whole seem woo, irrational or nonsensical.
Consider the CHE equation: Should I salute magpies?
This one, when you flesh it out, has a few more nexi than the seatbelt one, but the structure is almost the same; where the two equations differ is in the two driving assumptions.
- Wearing Seatbelts: It is possible that wearing a seatbelt could save the wearer's life.
- Saluting Magpies: It possible that saluting a magpie could increase the saluter's Luck.
- There is something special called Luck.
- It is possible this Luck can be increased by agency.
- Im assuming that if there is a supernatural ("nonprobabalistic"?) reality to luck then it can be something that can be in some sense accumulated or bestowed on.
- If this assumption is not accepted then you seem forced to accept that there is Luck but it is distributed stochastically/probabilistically.
- Luck would be real but its distribution chanced, which seems absurd.
- It is possible saluting magpies could entail 2 (Luck increase).
- Saluting magpies is an extremely low risk activity.
- Saluting magpies is an extremely low cost activity.
- It is rational to solute magpies.
With anything abstract and potentially magical in a CHE equation it needs to be weighted. Is there evidence? Is there mechanism? Is there equivalence? Even then, unless there is a refutation, all we can ultimately say is IDK.
- I cannot be certain that there is Luck.
- I cannot be certain that there is no Luck.
That's a huge new guest to one's ontological buffet, and I think you cannot have Luck without that. So, if you think your rabbit foot brings you luck, you are tacitly assuming, and please CMV, that there is/might be a deciding and intelligent agent effecting your life.
Luck also has implications to do with temporal logic. The kind of arguments against the logical possibility of changing the past might apply in the case of Luck.
- At t1 x was not going to happen to P at t3.
- At t2 P has luck bestowed on them.
- At t1 x was going to happen to P at t3.
We cannot get evidence for Luck. Even if 1000 times out of 1000 I do better with my lucky charm than without it, that could always just be a coincidence.
The reality of Luck has no possible evidence, has a huge ontological payload and has a plausible mechanism in this universe. If I had to choose I would say I do not not belive in the reality of Luck - but I do not have to choose; uncertainty is certain in my world view.
Conclusion: Should I salute magpies?
Real Luck could be real or not. It is fundamentally unknowable which is the case. Luck, if it was real wold be something worth having - it would be irrational to think otherwise. Given this, and the minuscule cost and risk of saluting the magpies, in my opinion the CHE solution to the equation is that yes, I should salute magpies. Why would I not?
Some said that all was one. All knew that some were part of one, And none were part of all.
- Bloat - This is where the system expands in multiple inefficient ways which, in combination, produce a holistic inefficiency that is often both hidden and immense.
- Faff - This is where the time cost of processing information is greater than the comparative benefit of the actual information.
- Pantomime - This is where the system adopts behaviours that bring no benefit to the system other than to make other systems perceive the system as being beneficial.
So, there you have it: avoid, prevent and extinguish.
Applying Cartesian principles to the vegan question, I am forced by reason to conclude that some chickens' eggs are probably vegan.
I think there are many arguments supporting the conclusion that some eggs can be vegan. Here is one:
Veganism is hard. Eggs make it easier (in terms of both experience and wellbeing). Therefore, by eating *eggs, vegans are more likely to remain vegan. Therefore, by eating *eggs, vegans are increasing the maximum potential suffering reduction of Veganism.
*eggs- for example: the tenth egg taken from a feral chicken's nest, would, in my opinion, be totally cool to eat. Vegan healthy yumminess.
John Hutchison is an amazing hoaxer.
It seemed an ethical, moral and karmic nobrainer once the cartesian calculations were done.
And I lasted.. month after month after month (ie three months) until today when I became a faceeater once more.
It wasn't a drunken kebab implosion. Or a Christmas Turkey break. It was the result of a reasoning process that went a little something like this:
I am going to the woods with a bunch of men to do manly things.
It's my responsibility to provide lunch.
I will get some hunted game as this has not suffered much, if at all, and would have a good and wild life, far from industrial meat.
Moreover, I will casserole it, thus dissolving any remnant negative karmic payload.
So here I am, a vegetarian for about 6 hours, and thats Ok with me.
As a man who has spent years more than most with my face in a handheld screen, I have to agree. Now feel a low, but real, a shandy strength shame, even checking a message as I walk through the day. I feel something close to smug, scented with contempt, when I eye the many, hands up, heads bent, faces glued, eyes skewed. It's a time sink, and a waste, it's rude and it's crass, it's enslaving and ensuring and sucking out... the ripe of life and spitting it, with tapping fingers into the pointless aether or... This technology I was at the start of, the featureless set of features I have dreamt of and been close to the heart of, is a shackle for a shekel for a "like", for a score that makes me want to shout across the street or the restaurant or the forecourt, "Tech down!" "Phone away!" "Disconnect!" This is not great. This is not good. This is not any network to liberate, and yet, I am proud, I just got 512 on 2048;)
Firstly, let me say I enjoyed it. There is something incomparable to nice bread. I also ate a lot of it and a little of it on different days, to se if i could notice any effect.
Secondly, there were negative effects, in order of my perceived impact, 1 being highest:
- My appetite went up dramatically. This occurred in a general sense and in the sense of wanting to eat more wheat.
- I had Sloth. Especially after eating a lot of wheat. It was very discernible, and unmistakably negitavising.
- I had what they call brain fog. This might be a low level but persistent version of Sloth, or it might be a distinct effect. I would describe it as having a head a bit like a hangover but without any headache.
- My mood was down. This is a hard one to discern but it does seem that way, especially on the Friday night when I ate it first.
- I put on five pounds, which is the heaviest I have been for many months.
- My car, 7 years ago, had company decals on both front doors.
- Just over a month ago I tried taking them off.
- The first one came off a breeze, in one go. I think I even have it in my shed. A decal intacticus.
- The second one, I tried to take off right afterwards.
- It was a disaster.
- It would not come off except in tiny bits.
- Even after trying:
- Furniture polish
- Elbow grease
- Even after trying:
- It would not come off except in tiny bits.
- It was a disaster.
- The second, the passengers side decal, remains in a state that can only be described as a disappointing attachment.
- The Cause Of Difference must must occur in time.
- The COD can be:
- When decal P was made, decal D was made differently with regard to its adhesion.
- Decal P was applied differently to decal D:
- Perhaps the technician had a cup of tea before the driver's side, and after the passenger side, and this delay changed the properties of the glue.
- Decal P was applied differently to decal D:
- The COD is caused by change in the instances after application.
- These changes can be:
- Perhaps one side gets more weathering from wind or sun.
- Perhaps one side gets more heat from the engine than the other.
- The domain of the COD is most probably to do with heat.
- As opposed to:
- Gosh, what else?
- As opposed to:
If something is "disergonomic" then it negativises the the ergonomics of a system (ergonomics is an architectonic(system) property). Traditionally, diserganomics come about due to bad design or bad implementation skills, but there is a demonstrable sense in which diserganomics has been, and will be, intentional, that is, planned diserganomics.:
Consider the Godaddy Control Panel: you don't need to have seen the GCP to be able to understand the planned diserganomics of the GCP. It is designed not to be ergonomic but to be disergonomic; it approaches maximally awkward - it wants you to spend as much of your eye-time on its adverts and upsells as is ergonomically possible. That is business rational (Duh!), but it means that the Godaddy customers get their precious time wasted.
But today my other party could find no Cartesian path from where they saw our economic status to my new purchase of a two thousand pound wood burning stove.
"You did what?!"
But my justification for this outlandish purchase of elite camping equipment. Only available from Scandinavia.
This is the nub, the rub, the essence: it will turn pretty much anything into heat. Dry wood, wet wood, newspapers (you find yourself constantly tearing away at adverts to keep the beast fed) and , in a emergency plastic (this is not environmentally responsible, but if it would save your life and you could do it, you would do it.).
It has this stainless steel water boiler that forms its skin, its hard to explain. It never needs cleaning, just flush the ash (I am not sure of this claim yet, the glass is stained after a day. The glass is amazing, the inside shape is supposed to direct the fires light out through the glass, its like a 1 watt electric bar fire, really cool. My other half hasn't seen it in action yet.
Anyays, they are quite irked right now.
My Uncle Andy died a couple of years ago, he was a great man; all thought. My older cousin, and Andy's first male nephew, Yeof , he came to stay, from LA. Just the other day. He told me how Andy had been such a fertile influence on his life; as Andy was to many. He told me of the wise and pristine advise that his uncle had given him, without claim, many long, long years ago... .
"Chase The Butterflies"
Uncle Andy '47'10
This is what I found out about vitamins:
Vitamin A: 51% Positive
Vitamin B: 94% Positive
Vitamin C: 45% Positive
Vitamin D: 99% Positive
Vitamin E: 33% Positive
This is what I found out about Devon and Cornwall:
Cornwall: 99% Positive
Devon: 41% Positive
The rules are simple: If one person in the room calls a "Techdown," and someone else in the room follows with a "Techdown," then all in the room must remove switch off and disconnect from any technology; including, it transpires, tin-openers. It is quite a life enhancing game if you are a tecchy kinda family.
Today we got owned, my wife and I.
We called a Techdown, and the kids played the game and teched-on-down to past Analogue Town. But then... in a moment of glee revelation, they decided to play the game to its logical conclusion. They switched everything off. Electrical and gas all over the house (we narrowly avoided the great "Is water technology?" debate before they were done). So there we were, sat in a state of Luddite stasis, which, as you would expect is easily comparable as a slice of time to sitting, faces in interfaces; connected in disconection.
I think it is either a:
- Hoax: If it is a hoax it is a very elaborate and expensive one. If it is a Hoax it is one that has not been found out by the mainstream or alternative media for many months.
- Astounding Mystery: There is a designed and constructed large structure on the seabed of the Baltic sea.
- Astounding Coincidence: The strange apparent structure on the sea bed that contains many configurations (holes, right angles, symmetries...) that do not normally belong in nature and these rare coincidental configurations happened themselves by a statistically and demonstrably astoundingly unlikely coincidence.
- Erroneous Evidence: The sonar evidence, testimony, images etc is messy and unclear and it has been interpreted erroneously.
I have read a fair bit about all of these. Please read the article if interested and then let me know what you think of my conclusions:
- I think 1,2 and 10,11 are significant mysteries.
- I think 3 and 4,8,9, 12 are interesting but not overly mysterious.
- I think 5, 6 and 7 are either astoundingly mysterious or mysterious hoaxes.
- A mystery is a mysterious hoax if even if you accept that it is a hoax there remains a signifigant mystery to be solved. I figure this term belongs to Gerald Hawkins. Even if a hoax, there is a significant mystery to be solved, eg as with crop circle theorems).
- A mystery is astounding if it's truth challenges a paradigm. For example, finding cocaine in an Egyptian is astounding.
And any comparison of, who said what will show that these eight core POWs (or happy-ninja skills) are found in all the great belief systems of the world; often in uncannily similar senses.
Take one of the core suggestions/instructions, ABK. This is found in the great littérateurs time and time again:
- The highest form of wisdom is kindness - The Talmud
- Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a harder battle - Plato
- In faith and hope the world will disagree, but all mankind's concern is charity - Alexander
- Forget injuries, never forget kindnesses - Confucius
- Love Your Enemies - Jesus
- My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness.- Dalai Lama
- The Talmud
- No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted - Aesop
- “What wisdom can you find that is greater than kindness? Rosseau
- Crocker's Law
- To Two Minute Rule (from GTD)
- Archive Or Delete
- (There is a fourth, perhaps in the 80% Rule/Pareto Principle?)
I don't think it was that the ancients were necessarily much wiser than us, they just had a bit of a head start, and probably ate a healthier diet of seafood, olives, fruit and qworn which gave them special abilities to see the obvious:)
I can think of lots of mini strategies that I hope to employ to MMH but one that I think is going to be essential is the steadfast pursuit of AARing. I know and have known many happy oldies... and I would say that what unites them all is that they practice AAR in conjunction with the other more obvious POWs.
The practising of AAR requires simply the recognition of the value of AAR in MMH/ABK/ABH/ETC.
Recently many moments of mind have been spent thinking about the catastrophes of the planet, be them natural or man made. The New Zealand Quake and Lybia Major being two pertinent examples. Global charity, care, the passion for compassion; all noble ideals, yet fragile they are in the face of calamity within the very shores of this green and pleasant land.
Today I stumbled upon (not in) a disaster that, like Haiti, has remained unresolved for nearly a year. Like the Gulf Disaster there have been anonymous messages from persons unknown. A disaster, person for person, bigger than Tungunska and causing more disruption to traffic than the last ice age and yet it is has been suppressed and subdued by the British press. It if was half the size, it would still be exactly what it is.
Last weekend was my birthday and I was in hungover bed the next day, all day. I wasn't even drunk, quite tipsy, but not drunk.
I have two issues with getting older. One is an existential angst that smothers me as I gaze into the pointless abyss of nothingness that is filled only by my pleads of "WHY IS THERE NOT MORE THAN THIS!" and the other, is that my hangovers get worse. Thanks to Dharma the angst is much better now thanks but ever onwards, year by year, my hangovers become crippling ordeals that last all Sunday, even if they began on Saturday morning.
In my twenties I could party-hearty, turn up at some all-night-tavern beneath a meat-market (a real meat-market, I wasn't being sexalist) and drink on through, like a champion. These days, even my 70 year old dad recommends I go to a doctor to get it "checked out," as he nurses his lack of hangover.
I wouldn't mind so much if I was going out and getting smashed but it's the fact that I am just getting quite tipsy that makes it so unfair. Oh yeah, poor me, bring on the somber marching band. But there is no charity for people with Age Related Alcopocalypse Syndrome, no Earth Day for men who suffer from an unfair beer related fun to suffering ratio. Men like me are on our own, even our mothers refuse to help us.
As a lone wolf, I have tried to defeat the beast. I have search-learned (ie spent not very long becoming a shallow expert on the subject thanks to the the free (for now) internet) about the subject of hangovers. I have learnt that there is a process called "ageing" which makes the way our bodies do things do them not as well as they did. Moreover, I have discovered, using the search-learning technique, that this "ageing" process is not homogeneously applied to homosapiens, we age at different rates and - this will blow your mind out of the water that is your experience - we age in different ways.
Last night I decided to drink Bitter rather than Lager. This is not quite a paradigm shift (that would be the creme de menth switch) but it was a significant change of drinking technique. Bitter is considered the drink of old men, I knew this last night, and it is right; Bitter is the drink of old men because it is an actual hangover preventative.
It works! This morning I could have jumped right back in to the fray, probably even Flaming Zambucas with my Sugar Puffs. It may even be the case that Bitter actually prevents hangovers the next day and for weeks afterwards, but more research is needed.
Is it all good, now?
Assuming that the curse has been lifted once and for all, some less male readers may well consider my problems over. They are not, there are issues that still need to be solved before I can really, with any dignity, ask for a "pint of bitter" all night.
I will end this revelation with a poem: