inquiry

whatever comes to mind

We walked into a room straight from the 1970s last night, a so-called “Dyngus” celebration including a polka band that lots of people were dancing to, extremely reasonable drink prices, more than a few people downing blackberry brandy (just a dollar a shot!).

And today is another day: grey skies, precipitation on and off, the low yet still annoying hum of someone's running some sort of equipment down the street, more lonely read.write.as posts.

<partner interruptions>

I'm undecided whether I'm slowly losing my mind or slowly becoming enlightened.

But maybe those have always been The Same Thing?

What I do know is my thinking the last several years has been on a path where few others can go, mostly for having become more what-I-want-to-call “habitually meta”, by which I mean there's this persisting awareness that my experience is somewhere between mostly if not entirely of mind rather than some objective reality.

And that just doesn't seem to mix well with minds utterly convinced their experience is of some objective reality. Quizzical looks and expressions abound when merely attempting to describe that.

Oh well....

Holy fuck, this puts it way better than I ever could.

But, of course, far too little, far too late New York Times....

From a Washington Post article:

He bashed the billionaire class and its influence over American elections. “Democracy means one person one vote and not billionaires buying elections,” Sanders yelled in his Brooklyn growl.

“We say no to oligarchy,” he continued. “Yes to democracy.”

God, I'm so glad I no longer go into auto agreement bleating mode over hollow naivety like that.

Perhaps the essence of what seems like progressive cluelessness to me is incessantly attempting to find and blame and correct systemic unfairnesses, when in fact the greatest and most foundational unfairness of all is that some people are just plain stronger, smarter, better at tasking risks, and – at times – plain dumb luckier than others (a reality hardly unique to our species).

Somehow or another the progressive way of thinking has morphed toward not even being able to think that.

But how could any kind of sane – aka working – social plans/programmes be formulated ignoring something so fundamental and – when not hypnotically repeating/insisting otherwise – obvious?

The current state of society in the United States isn't because of some “oligarchy” making it so. Rather, it's the working out of hundreds of millions of egos doing what egos do – which includes oligarchies, faux democracy, crime, “outrage culture”, etc., etc. And some are smarter, stronger, where spotted unfair economic and/or “who you know” advantages, etc., etc.

And none of that can be fixed without starting all over with people that, well, aren't people....

I dare say Trump is the most accurate representation of what we truly are I've seen in the White House my entire life.

And along those lines, I suspect the root of progressive hatred of Trump is how inescapably plain he illustrates what we fundamentally are, and how what we fundamentally are can't possibly work regardless any “system” we'd be plopped into, because what we fundamentally are will perpetually steer the outcomes ship back to the loathsome self-ish (aka ego-ish) context in which ego belongs.

Obama and other presidents bombed the fuck out of others, and did Deity knows what other disgusting things.

But they did it with performance flair far exceeding what the Trump ego could pretend to muster.

Shit... I do believe that's it in a nutshell....

Much appreciation to adipatil for alerting me to '“Hey, this guy keeps posting random stuff” syndrome'. No wonder I'm so summarily ignored here! ;–)

So, yeah, this could have gone into a file, but ego wasn't liking the odds of that leading to ego notoriety....

Such a still, sunny day.

Scott Adams makes sense to me.

Near-and-dear responses to his political offerings the last couple years all but utterly confirm so-called “Trump Derangement Syndrome” as a thing to me, as one of my dearest and most thoughtful friends – who was once quite the Dilbert fan, by the way – somehow considers Adams both a Trump supporter and completely hoodwinked by conservative propaganda, despite Adams seeming (to me) like a bastion of attempting to be objective on political topics – or at least willing/able to admit when being biased/subjective on such topics.

It's kind of sadly funny to me that friend has faith in the likes of The New York Times or salon.com that easily rivals – if not exceeds – typical Christian faith in The Bible, yet can't see it as being at all similar (if not identical).

Then again, people are basically the essence of sadly funny.

Wait... make that “sadlier funnier” these days, for surely the species' favorite sport has become seeing who can most bombastically bludgeon through the boundaries of inanity with the straightest self-righteousness-molded face.

In some stupendously odd irony (given their past and present tendencies toward trashing other peoples' codifications of morality/righteousness), so-called “progressives” appear to be hellbent on proving the existence of “original sin”, i.e. that if one looks back far enough, nobody should tolerate anyone else ever again for so much as somehow being related to someone who – in some way worthy of having their life ruined over – did (or maybe even merely thought?) something that doesn't live up to the notion of the pinnacle righteousness being “progressives” seem to be convinced is the only being not deserving of having its life ruined.

And yet I'm supposed to believe Trump is the only monster on the field?

I'm beyond astonished how “more Trumpian than Trump” they've become in their “precise mathematical inverse of wokeness” hysteria to, no, not legislate, not solve problems, not do the peoples' bidding, but, rather, to demonstrate themselves more righteous than Trump.

Congratulations on reinventing the Fools Errand, modern day fundamentalists!

At the risk of sounding ignorably paradoxical, I'm apparently not alone in being alone.

My good buddy paradise got me listening to the Sneaker Pimps' “Bloodsport” album. And I had to admit to my good buddy I've spent all this time assuming they couldn't be much of anything without whoever they co-oped to sing “6 Underground” – which of course is a serious contender for what I want played outside the oven converting my meaty remains to ash.

Hey, you theoretical all.

Nothing too important. Just felt like barking at the sky again.

I could have even more easily barked into a file.

And I must say I've not found much compelling difference between the two.

And that makes sense, really, for who could possibly be interested in my thoughts and/or life?

It must the niggling hope of the width of a neutrino more chance of engagement here than in Fileland.

CJ Eller wondered the following:

So what does a good user of software look like? I don't know.

Wild stab: Attitude more in accord with “DOTADIW” > oceans boiled.

BS – aka BoredSofia – makes a heck of a good point, here.

But the ramifications, well.. it turns out a huge component of that brokenness is somehow not remembering/seeing it's especially true of one's alleged self.

So of course the broke find themselves sufficiently woke to poke a spoke at the yolk of other folk....

....without the slightest hint such behavior is the very essence of unwoke.