The Tyranny of the Noisy and their Subjugation of the Ramblers

Mary Beard recounting and analysing Caligula’s excessess with fellow professors is a metaphor for how I think the obviously sociopathic emperor would have responded to any plebian queries…with total disinterest other than to serve as gladiator food.
The enticement of power is to offer freedom from consequences and what follows from such an unnatural state is, naturally, social insanity
Social insanity: the demonstration of insane thinking if and only if there is an obedient audience able to fulfil the acts.
A not infrequent attribute of those who have power over others and virtually a permanent record keeping audience.
When it is ones professorial duty to analyse,are such roles coupled with an acknowledgement that any hints of motives and agenda in the subjects of interest may have been totally shrouded from the subject’s consciousness by the momentum of the action itself
When you expect instant obedience and results do you even care about the meaning of your actions?
That you don’t, it seems to me, is the private understanding of those of us who peer over at the other side where excess amd indulgence seem to defy any unwritten codes of civil conduct…
Of course those on that side that even begin to contemplate such matters will stop at the point where they recognise they are in the group that does not actually need to pay any heed to others concerns for any reason other than populist posterity and even then notoriety for ignoring the masses is a pretty effective and probably easier alternative for recruiting a loyal cult fan base,at least.
So the chin stroking erudition of professorials is strictly for the plebs and other prfessorial types…
But is of no interest in determining the actions of future tyrants whose role ,by definition,is not to worry about their own motives…thats for the profs.
So this ridiculous division between opera and the other arts as an example of elitism or the two equally ignorant camps of classical vs pop music…however such sweeping terms are defined .. just shows that the analysis is far too often done by advocates who are either self flattering or see their role as a misguided philanthropy to “educate” the “stupid masses”
(whats a blog then?)
(exactly that…i prove my own point by my own self flattering convictions which are of interest only to the converted)
Bollywood was notorious for churning out formulaic movie equivalents to western one hit wonder pop tunes.
Does that mean the average Indian cinema goer lacks sophistication?
what is sophistication other than another badge that some are purportedly trying to do away with.
Apparently some poorly serving pundits insist that the virtues of opera and classical music are their complexity, their scale, their openness to interpretation.
When classical music pundits define themselves as such they have obviously already declared a huge degree of stereotyping in their thinking not to mention by their subsequent banding of all other music under the term “pop” which is so ridiculously ambiguous it is even worse than the term “classical”.
how does “jazz” fit into such a restrictive picture?
it used to be considered the “devil” music presumably for its disregard for established norms about timing and tendency to break from (an authoritarian) structure..that structure probably being the established and presumably restrictive “classical” conventions of the day.
is it complex to make a tune based on 3/4 time?
is it high brow to go off key?
surely the ability to appreciate it requires only the facet of feeling…which i dont believe is a privilege of any elite and in fact those who seek simplicity in art forms usually lack that simplicity in their own lives and those who have the time for opera and extortionate seating prices probably enjoy a degree of stability/predictability/simplicity that only going to opera manages to rock about a bit.

even those who probably see themsleves as underdog in the war of elitism lack the restraint to articulate their annoyance thus maintaining the division.
and whilst the oligarchs can bask in self certainty the proles ( which are statistically probably the fastest growing group however loosley defined) can immerse themsleves in the consolation of any palestinian knows and any illegal West Bank settler fears.

at the end of the day complexity or not music offers the most widely accessible fix for our pattern recognising needs.
And something as simple as the anticipation of the next note and either having that gratified or not can evoke all sorts of rich and,on the face of it ,incongruous emotions that our brain then ties up with stories, wordless or otherwise and based on what bits it recognises and what bit sit doesn’t.
Is that complicated?Pretentious?

But it comes again from our need to sense patterns.

And tell me that oxytocin ,that new wonder hormone that is exciting New Scientist journalists and readers as being the miracle socialising hormone acting at the “socialising” receptor that makes women cry at weddings even when theyre happy, isn’t just another case of being preached to by the most avidly converted zealots.
That women arent actually making all sorts of empathic connections with another woman who is being lost to one family (her own) and gained by another isnt enough of a contrary emotion to explain crying than to have to pinpoint it to oxy-bloody-tocin.

never heard such a load of bollocks before.

when i shit myself (metaphorically) i release adrenaline by the bucket loads however if i am given adrenaline i will not shit myself…i promise.i will probably just die of adrenaline overdose because it was given in a completely inappropriate physiological situation totally regardless of my particular requirements.

stuff you dont need is probably bad..thats why you dont need it doofuss.

All good fit ,ligand/receptor and yes/no models are hopelessly pathetic simulations of reality.
Because after such an all or nothing description why does even the best randomised controlled trial settle for odds ratios which are barely decimal points greater than one (one meaning no difference at all) to be deemed as significant.
Seems more desperation than confidence for what are often very victorian mechanistic descriptions of purported phenomena.
We cannot nitpick for isolated factors for more than a fraction of our understanding.
And in contemporary times art has tried to tackle the heterogeneity far more seriously than science.
An arbitrary division of disciplines that the greeks would not have approved of.
We have acknowledged the difference between in vitro and in vivo for a long time.
But the power of digital efficiency has led us into Newtonian illusions of cause and effect.
Phenomena which Newton in fact never tried to explain but only to describe and Hume himself recognised as only extrapolations of our pattern seeking needs.
And that obsession with describing events used in current approaches to rationalist problem solving has warped our perspective about what is actually going on.
As far as capitalist ventures are concerned we have become very fast button pushers rather than original thinkers.
And since capitalist ventures are the drivers for most of current human progress this could be leading us down a huge data choked black hole of statistical mine fields.
And what Prof Joe Edwards identifies as the cellular location of consciousness still falls short of trying to understand what consciousness actually is and how it is related to insight and thinking and the need for a story in everything.
Feeling cannot be matter because as soon as we ascribe matter to it we lose the “feeling” in it.
Like position and momentum uncertainty looking for one excludes the other…the only conclusion that acknowledges both their existence is that neither truly exists

and if youre in the elite it doesnt really matter.
and the rest of us try to be citable as thats the only immortality available that can offer a weak and unconvincing substitute for the powerless and relatively impoverished masses.

Last Temptation
Last Temptation

The Consolation of the Weirdo

Dissecting human interactions and exposing their ambiguities is the pastime of those unlikely to be immersed in significant enough interactions for them to be socially relevant.
But by the normal distribution of randomness messers Hume, Bertrand Russell, Wittgenstein and Schopenhauer would have snuck through by virtue of some populist facet or other and by their very position on that poisson curve they would inevitably define a new viewpoint ,that being of one who observes from a distance ie from outside a statistically large confidence interval of mainstream thought.
That is not to say they don’t go on to be fully engaged participants in society but their thinking seems to have crystallised during a formative period of relative isolation.
Einstein did not record the highest human IQ ever.
IQ may be a partially quantitative value but it lacks qualitative value.
Intelligence is as subjective a quality as the value of any IQ test itself.
We have no objective measures for the qualitative X factor that he and other unique individuals had.
Precisely because that quality is a function of people’s myriad of perceptions and depends on time and space (sorry couldnt resist!) ie context amongst an array of increasingly complex social and unquantifiable prerequisites.
So originality is that x factor and it is not proportional to individual IQ.
Does it help to articulate a original critique of human interactions or does the strength of view only serve as well as the ubiquity of its authors quotability which is essentially his catalogue of elegant sound bites which in practice is what populist debates make or break themselves on?
Godel showed that Russell’s logical codification of axioms still requires an axiom outside the scope of that code.
So there is no logically accessible higher reference from which one can seek truth but that is not to say that it is beyond the realms of human imagination and inspiration to understand truth.
The failure is only in the articulation of that truth in coded form be it language or numerical logic…because the act of expressing it converts the description like collapsing the unitary into a reduced wave function.
The truth is there,accessible in feeling but by definition,inexpressible by any code that follows rules because rules by definition are logically consistent and logical consistency is an axiom that is outside the realm of logically demonstrable truth.
Extrapolation is the non robust leap of faith we make in many proofs and it can be shown to fail although the inferences may be made about the likelihood of any particular extrapolation to be valid but these are still only imperfect probabilities that inevitably enter the arguments once you accept the use of such inferences.
All such human critiquing may provide is the gratification of ones own personal qualms for those who find comfort from such things and a pre written set of arguments like a set piece in chess which you can refer back to because somebody else has already taken the time to think through a particular line of enquiry.
But in human societies the power of elegance through sound bites, aphorisms and anecdotes and to a lesser extent from poetry , song and quotes from literature preferably coupled with a certain intonation and physical manner to appeal to all the higher senses is as effective as music in swaying our unconscious biases and hugely more influential over and above the theories that they actually come from in an age where technology has given us the power to maximise our human instinct for instant live messaging.

Revisiting the Ruffly Intelligent

So it was during this week of Ramadan that through accidental reminder and subsequent guilt of my not fasting that I am suddenly drawing to the inescapable conclusion that i am actually a Buddhist.
And that everything in my previous blogs points to my constant downplaying of the uniqueness of any one persons identity.
And the surprising realisation that I do accept I am of equal worth as the flies that I still like to de wing or splat with this cool electrocuting racket (possibly the greatest invention since the fly swatter) every now and then.

For as I discovered a commonlaity with Schopenhauer recently I now appreciate that the only objective way to quantify suffering seems to be by the strength of the need that is being denied and where needs are denied suffering can be expected to be an evolutionary necessity to encourage that satiation of that need.
So it the sense of suffering that binds us with all things living.
And only through denial of any centrality of my own identity can I reduce the impact of my own constant frustrations.

And since ultimately the only evolutionary goal is to sustain yourself through your progeny and live for as long as you have the desire to live (which is evolutions way of deciding whether or not you have yet served whatever your esoteric purpose may be – which is more or less indirectly consistent with an abstract desire to maximise the “spread bet” of your genes through vague notions of a desire for historical immortality/legacy/status/etc)

ok a very carnal Freudian angle but then Freud referred to Schopenhauer as an influence.

So therefore the denial of life of any type must equate with suffering if we take the silly conscious self empowerment notions away from it and just look at it from the outside.

So I can see how if I tread on grass I am causing suffering.
Without ever being able to disprove the conscious state of a blade of grass I cannot know otherwise.
So if I cant stop treading on grass maybe I should fast to try and share the suffering.
Or I must deny the centrality of all things altogether and then I can walk about on grass quite oblivious because I am no more relevant than the grass I walk on and my treading on it or the extinguishing of my own life all become meaningless and inconsequential events in the cycle of all things.

Which is a level of insignificance I think most of us suspect of ourselves anyway…and when we think we have outperformed it more often than not we wil be left with a nagging feeling its still not enough.

That is until we have well and truly done our time by when the body and the mind are ready to dissolve into timelessness and omnipresence once more and always

So I must fast in Ramadan to satisfy my Buddhist instincts because seeking consistency is a rationalisation for gratifying the instinct for pattern recognition.

patterns that all ruffly intelligent living things are in fact distinguished by.

Franklin vs Churchill

Everything in your world is a function of your personslity.and it is as areligious to see that your essence is no more a fixed or sacred entity than to see that this malleability can empower us to engineer a world of our own choosing.
We can’t influence the circumstances we came into but history has shown that our greatest attributes reveal themselves in adversity.
We all forge our own paths.
Having the insight to understand your own motives…cognitive behaviour modification …or changing your mind… the enabler for conscious control of our destiny…or maybe it is the retrospective post hoc causality that we conjure up if we care enough to think about it… Which most self empowered individuals don’t worry about.
Belief in self empowerment is presumably the definition of a meaningful consciousness but could be a phenomena in any entity where there is a perceived causality and necessity.
Cells may be ” conscious”. Crystals may be conscious if consciousness is not the objective causality but only the phenomenal correlate of action for which some other causality must be ascribed.
Schopenhauer’s will is in all things and his consciousness seems a byproduct of convenience.
Maybes only during sleep that can we minimise the corrupting outside influences that automate that why we need sleep?
Only through sleep might we tap into our true unfettered conscious.or turn into the empty breathing unconscious shells that we really are?
The physiology of tiredness is an elephant in the room of most medical textbooks but it is the gateway to unboundedness.
Masters of our own universe.gods in our own black holes.infinite in our own singularities…