Disease Control

- Someone with your background, what you've experienced, is uniquely situated to write about the people facing life on the street in the midst of this rapidly growing epidemic.
- And if I don't want to?
- Why wouldn't you?
- If I said because it is not real, you'd understand me?
- No. What do you mean?
- Not real, as an imitation is not real. Capitalism, we said,* is a form of slavery in which the part time slaves bought back the objects they made at a price higher than they had been paid to make them.
- With the consequence that the difference had to be made up by sales to colonies.
- Colonies that now are also capitalist, so the difference between wages and sales price has to be made up internally by periodic deliberate recessions (no waiting for epidemics with trillion dollar bailouts to big business and pennies for individuals) forcing bankruptcy and forfeiture of the property the slaves have accumulated over time.
- It's a theory.
- Sure. We've said also that capitalism for the capitalist has a ritual structure, in which the strain on human nature involved in having to treat each market transaction as between enemies leads to a sense of strength and security represented by the profit made out of the transaction. Something similar goes on with the slaves making the products traded, who are stressed by having the products made by them taken away from them by their masters, but acquire strength and security when consuming the same products now associated to images of power and security by advertising. It could be that the ritual nature of capitalism gives it back some of the stability it loses by being an inherently irrational, even absurd undertaking, doomed to end when all the property bought by the slaves is reacquired and there is no source in the world left to give the masters the profit they seek.
- And you want to say capitalism is not real? And that is why you don't want to write about the poor people caught with no place to live in the epidemic made worse by the late-stage, post-colonial capitalist idea that it is immoral for the government to have any other purpose than to be a useful agent for the looting of the slaves' property?
- I do, in the sense that imitation is not real. Ritual enacts in a group the story of each individual's death and rebirth, and that story becomes a picture, an imitation of the individual's stable relation to the world.
- The masters have their ritual buying and selling, the slaves have their ritual consumption. You don't want to write, make an imitation of that imitation. But really you can't think the people on the street are traders or consumers?
- They are both, thinking non-stop how they can sell the things they find or scavenge from the garbage and how best to use the money they make.
- Then what about your life and your relation to them?
- I've spent my life trying to keep away from this particular American form of unreality.
- Obviously you failed. Here you are, with them.
- New Zealand looks good.
- Why don't you take action then, get into politics like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or be a public intellectual like Noam Chomsky?
- Those people can't succeed.They pit one unreality against another. Chomsky speaks with a detachment expressive of a lifetime of security as an academic and his millionaire status from book sales. He habitually assigns blame to 'institutional factors' rather than people. Sanders (also a millionaire from book sales) and Ocasio-Cortez wave their hands around and show their passion, but what is the relation to their adversaries? Do they call them out with the contempt and disgust human beings naturally have for those who would destroy the sympathy and kindness they are capable of? Or if they do, do they not immediately afterwards compromise with them and let bygones be bygones?
- If our leaders are too involved with themselves, not real enough for you, then why don't you, as they say, get real? Get into politics, show your contempt and disgust for these capitalist ritualists, write a story about the plague we are in the midst of and what it means for those most vulnerable.
- I'll make a deal with you, my friend.
- You'll make a deal!
- Yes. I'll give a try at what you ask if I can laugh a little while I'm at it. You know when our dear leader was elected president I realized that the mystery of how anyone took Hitler seriously was daily being clarified. And then, two days ago, the mayor of L.A. issues a ten o'clock curfew, threatening to round up all those on the streets after that time and taking those who didn't have homes to tent camps in public parks.
- Like the Nazi's rounding up the Jews!
- Just my thought. I can't say I felt exactly terrified. What I felt was more like a stubborn resistance against being compelled to take as real what I had been strenuously insisting was not. And do you know what I then realized?
- What?
- That just like the Jews who had a chance to leave Germany but stayed, even after a number of very clear warning signs, I too was staying in L.A., facing being locked up in a real, honest to god concentration camp!
- And that thought made you laugh?
- It did.
- Did the roundup actually take place?
- No. Apparently the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta issued an advisory to mayors and governors not to do it as concentrating the people of the street close together would increase infections, and unless there was a willingness to bring in the national guard, conveniently already authorized by our dear leader, to patrol the camps with attack dogs, the newly infected people would each morning escape to the larger community to infect all those they came into contact with.

Further Reading:
My Friend Joe Biden
Killer Metaphysics
The United States & Totalitarianism

Watch:
Rising
__________________________
* What Is Capitalism?

My Friend Joe Biden

- I have to give you credit, you did warn me about Bernie Sanders four years ago.*
- Remind me. What did I say?
- You were telling me about the anarchist theory that leaders in democracies tend to form class loyalties with other leaders, then act in their class interest and against the interests of the people who elected them. Bernie Sanders had just conceded defeat in the democratic primary and instead of disputing the election when the Democratic Party was caught cheating proven by leaked emails, or running as an independent, he threw his arm around Hilary Clinton and endorsed her for president. This 2nd time around, after a set of unexpectedly disappointing results the past week in the primary, but still only ten percent in delegates behind his principle opponent Joe Biden with again as many more delegates up for grabs, instead of changing his strategy to achieve his own surprising results he speaks as if defeated. In the comments to the YouTube video of his speech you can read Sanders' supporters' complaints about his failure to attack the reactionary positions of his rival, and confusion and dismay at the description of him as "his good friend". Biden has decades of history as a U.S. Senator in which he worked towards tax breaks for the rich, mass incarceration, mass surveillance, militarization of the police, bankruptcy protection for the rich but forbidden to students who've taken out loans, job outsourcing trade agreements, wars waged on false pretenses, subsidies to bankers who through financial fraud crashed the economy, elimination and privatization of social programs, the list goes on and on. What I have trouble understanding is why Sanders can't just be amiable with the people he has to work with without actually joining in a group with them and acting in the group's interest. 
- That is of course what Sanders would say he is doing.
- You think that he is serious that he really is friends with people like Biden who pursue policies destructive to the interests of the people and in the interest of his campaign contributors?
- I do. I think he is serious. I can't see any other way to explain his betrayal of his supporters four years ago and his betrayal in progress right at this moment. 
- But why? How can he make friends with someone who acts on such different beliefs about how life should be lived? Sanders believes in cooperation, Biden in winner take all. 
- Not just winner take all: first rig the game. The kind of friendship Sanders is talking about is that expressed in group loyalty: it has no specific content or rules of conduct other than violence is never to be used within the group or against the group, only against those outside the group. We find throughout human history a basic social technique of forming groups which use violence against those who haven't protected themselves by forming groups and not practiced in or willing to use violence. Joining groups of individuals loyal to each other and violent against everyone else is what I mean by rigging the game: you are almost certain to win.
- So you think that our leaders are rigging the game in this way against us, the led? 
- Don't you?
- I guess I do. Still, it's hard for me to accept that Sanders means by friendship warmth of loyalty to those in his group of leaders engaged in war against us.
- Then you tell me what you think he can mean. 
- That he is a naturally friendly guy and his ability to like those different from himself allows him to make deals and make political progress otherwise impossible.
- Then the question is, is that possible? Is it possible to be genuinely committed to reasoned cooperation, and also friendly with someone whose concept of friendship is mere loyalty, which loyalty involves violence against those not their friends? Does such loyalty-friendship, sometimes called 'bonding', necessarily involve animosity against those outside the group?
- I know that anarchist political theory says so. Group loyalty is a sort of tool that, once possessed, possesses you with an irresistible temptation to use it against those outside the group. 

Further Reading:
Philosophy And Science Of Betrayal
Leaders Who Betray

Watch:
Biden's Lies
____________________________
* Spectacle & God

The Impeached President & Applied Mathematics

I'm sitting with coffee in the lobby at UCLA's Institute of Pure and Applied Mathematics. At my table is a smiling Swiss professor of mathematics. He tells me he is in his last professional years before reaching mandatory retirement age. And me? Where am I from? From here. Los Angeles. No institution. Why am I at there, at IPAM? General interest. What sort of general interest? I ask if he happens to work on the problem machine learning has of not leaving a record of how the machine is learning. In fact, he does. He uses machine learning to complete, based on probabilities, partial body scan images. And the problem, I add, is that sometimes the probabilities assumed in completing the image gaps meet with a case of improbability, and produce false results, and because we don't know the rules used by the machine to calculate probabilities that have been constantly adjusted with experience, we don't know what sort of errors to look for. Is that an accurate statement of the case?
- You're well informed for the general public. Are you some kind of journalist?
- I like to think about things. Lately I've been thinking about the incredible, literally cannot be believed, lying of our American president and his political party. I think his kind of lying has a lot in common with what happens in machine learning. Imagine every lie is a new image used to teach an artificial intelligence, making in the case of your work the completing image supplement more accurate by comparing its results with the actual object. What if the president, and members of his party, are repeatedly making claims about the world - secret enemies are destroying us! -  and those claims are answered ritualistically by the president speaking to his followers: we are fighting back, recovering our strength now that we have woken up to our danger, and we see more and more the real weakness of our enemy. Our waking up is our correction, our education confirming the probabilities that define our danger and our capacity to face up to it. This cycle of education, scripted in advance, with no relation to truth in the world is on display in how Facebook selects what is allowed to go on users' timelines, singling out posts that are predicted to make them angry and afraid, teaching them to respond with increasing certainty and intensely to the posts they are sent. Russian false accounts in the 2016 presidential elections similarly arranged for the world to confirm the probabilities of passionate response, increasing hysteria of posts confirming increasing fears. Like you mathematicians in your machine learning world, the politicians in the midst of these educational cycles have no record, no access to the constantly adapted calculations of probability done in their training of each other, telling stories to each other of their perilous situation. Lies produce an artificial learning environment rather than function as a description of the real world; the real world doesn't enter into the calculation at all. But it can: the identified enemy can be put in a concentration camp, in conditions in which their physical state begins to conform to the previously false taught probability of unnaturalness, sight of which leads to further adjustment of probabilities, finally justifying torture and murder of the unnatural enemies within. Or again, when a political party educate themselves in the ideology of small government / no regulation, the result is the flourishing of groups willing to use power in the form of money or violence to take control of government institutions; with this accomplished they more efficiently indoctrinate the people in small government / no regulation ideology allowing them to take further control. Employment agencies find employing older people to be of improbable benefit to employers, causing older applicants stay unemployed for long periods, a further sign of their improbable benefit making it more likely they remain unemployed, and remaining unemployed they become poorer and have to move to areas with zip codes residence in which is linked to additional improbable benefit to employers.
- Vicious cycles.
- Yes. So you see we have two levels or stages here. First, the construction of group ideology of 'us and them', learned without knowing how. And then the application of this ideology to the world, changing the world, adjusting the probabilities in the direction of confirmation of the ideology. At first the enemy doesn't look so different, but there is no certainty in life, all is probability, and anyway in no time at all reality is adjusted to fantasy. You know Chomsky's theory of language acquisition? That speaking is not learned by working out the probability of particular words referring to particular things, but through listening for inborn models in our minds of word relations or logic. If the American president's people look at him and see only a statement of probability,* cues to adjustment of social relations in imagination, and also potentially in practice, a normally functioning human being looks at another with love in which there is no doubt about the beauty seen. Beauty is knowledge of something good. Error seems to enter into love because knowledge is incomplete. Maybe you look on your loved one with consciousness of her beauty and she at that moment is terribly upset and you don't see it, immersed as you are in your experience of love, only her anger at your apparent inattention wakes you up to your mistake. So what do you do? You look back on your past with her, seeking other things you know about her aside from her general lovableness. You look for models, that is, habits of perception: you did this and she did that. You look for a model that fits her present dissatisfaction. In machine learning, there is no mechanism that brings together such a history of decisions and adjustments with present decision to be made, but with us there is: the body, with its habits of perception, habits gained in the past leading us to our present perception. What you see now includes your history, is what you have learned to see developing habits of perception. There is no certainty in love, in individual moments of contemplation, but there is certainty in memory of travelling the path to love, in the history of your repeated attempts to apply models to the world. Its certainty is like the certainty of science: that models are made and improved is real, their truthful relation to the world does not end but is supplemented, improved. You could be mistaken in the timing of what you see in the one you love, but it is a fact that your love, errors and all, is teaching you to love more and more, is helping you stay close to the beauty of the world. 'All things that are, are with more spirit chased than enjoy'd.' I'm getting off the track here. To summarize: the lies of the president and his followers are social acts, first constructed to secure power relations in imagination between the president's group and all outsiders; then the lies are brought to the world, training the world to exist in accord with their self-trained selves, the at first dissonance of trained view of the world to the world as it really is being allowed to sink into the silence and uncertainty of education by probabilities rather than models. Well, you listened to me to the end. What do you think?
- Very enjoyable.

Further Reading:
Selfless
Prostitution & Torture
Technology & Magic
________________________
* See: The Love Of The People
P.S. 'To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.' - George Orwell, 1984

The Love Of The People

 Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring's 'Vermeer'  

Many are the things that man seeing must understand. Not seeing, how shall he know what lies in the hand of time to come? - Sophocles

- The populist leader of Poland, President Duda, says that populism is love, nationalism and xenophobia are hate. He wants to use laws to help the people love each other. It doesn't help the Polish people love each other to say they were complicit in the Germans killing Jews in World War II, therefore it is illegal now to say such a thing. What do you think of that?
- 'Wine comes in at the mouth / And love comes in at the eye;  / That’s all we shall know for truth / before we grow old and die. I lift the glass to my mouth, / I look at you, and I sigh.'* Love in populism does not come in at the eye. It is not aesthetic.
- Meaning by aesthetic?**
- The feeling that arises from seeing something being done right.
- A feeling arising from a perception of good.
- Yes. Staying in the neighborhood of Poland: one of our impeached President's Ukrainian-born fixers employed to try to force first one Ukrainian president then the next to announce their government was investigating the American president's believed principle rival, this lover of Trump says he has a sort of shrine to him in his home, that he loves the man, really loves the man, this loved man who now repeatedly falsely claims he doesn't even know him, never met him. Is this also 'populist love'? If as you say it is not a coming in at the eye, how is it getting through to people?
- The President and his Ukrainian fixer as human beings are two remarkably ugly specimens: ugly to you and me but not to each other or to the people who love them. We see expressed in their appearance all manner of depravity: lies, self-absorption, delusions of grandeur. We see their physical ugliness: their obesity, their off-kilter posture, their incompetent use of cosmetics and ill-fitting clothes increasing the appearance of deformity. What do the people who love them see? Any of that?
- None of that. I've met more than one woman in the business of personal appearance, experts in make-up and hair treatments, who actually call themselves aestheticians, who are equally blind to the ugliness of their leader.
- Their leader Trump. And your explanation?
- The Dutch painter Meegeren*** famously painted and sold fake Vermeers to, among others, Nazi leader and art collector Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring. He fooled his buyers with paintings that were remarkably unlike originals. The difference from the original, it seems, is what fooled buyers: a kind of cartoonish awkwardness in the figures and their arrangement completely unlike the subtle expression in original paintings. The populist's love, to be expressed in the lawmaking of government, was called by Rousseau 'the will of the people'. The will of the people is invisible. It is felt in ritual. In ritual, people regain strength acting together passionately, that is, with a feeling of loss of individual self. Populist love is this selfless group action. Populist laws are made against anything that would interfere with this process forming the will of the people and the people's love for each other helping each other regain strength.
- And the fake Vermeer's?
- Your experience looking at the faces in the original paintings is aesthetic. You recognize, as a result of your own trying to do good and avoid evil, knowledge of life. In populist love what do you see? Cues that reflect back not to your knowledge but to your power, or lack of it, to your being in progress to recovery of strength and security. Cues that come from outside your personal experience directing you to give yourself over with others to the guidance of a leader. Cues that are effected by painting faces and figures with simple cartoonish expressions standing out against the highly worked, detailed background of Dutch painting of the period.
- In the passionate feeling of return to power out of weakness, true aesthetic perception is not possible.
- Yes. Instead is sentimentality, being told what to feel, instructed what feeling to imitate as part of a story reenacted, and the imbalance, gracelessness that results from falsity. Awkwardness, gracelessness are themselves cues that here are to be found instructions to ritual. Aesthetics are based on individual life. In performance of ritual, individuality is replaced by selfless action in group under guidance of the beloved leader. The leader is loved not for knowing anything about how best to live, knowledge and experience visible to the eye, but out of a feeling of gratitude for identifying for followers enemies to their love, guiding them in passionate opposition and so helping them make a return to personal strength in the midst of other people doing and feeling the same.
- Though it is interesting to be able to explain what's going on in, for lack of better word, the minds of Nazis and their sympathizers and other populists, more important, I think, their absence of aesthetics in body and art tells us why it feels so bad, the world appears so ugly, having to live around these people.

Further Reading:
The Impeached President & Applied Mathematics
Einstein & Intellectual Physics
Renaissance & Palingenesis
Who This Man Is
__________________
* A Drinking Song, William Butler Yeats
** See: Trump vs. Schiller
*** Henricus Antonius "Han" van Meegeren

Call Of The Wild / The Last Day Of Hanukkah

- I'm going to tell you a story, I know I've told you many stories like it, but I have a observation to make. 
- Go on.
- I'd been to the temple a few days before for the morning service, where it was announced that the next service would be today, the last day of Hanukkah, followed by a breakfast.
- Which temple was this?
- Sinai Temple. 

Bike locked to the traffic sign at the corner, I appear at the guard station in my cold weather biking clothes, set my leather shoulder bag on the desk. The guard, a tall young black man, stands, orders:

- Empty your pockets.
- All of them? I have a dozen, or more.
- Everything. 

I describe each object as I lay it down on the desk: 

- Sunglasses. Wallet. Keys. Telephone. Reading glasses.
- That's all?
- No.
- No?

He waves his metal detecting wand over my body. 

- Empty all your pockets. 

I announce:

- Sample size bottle of perfume, half empty. Earphones: two pair. Comb, broken. Another comb, broken. Seen enough?

The guard picks up one object after another, holds it close to his eyes.

- What are you doing?
- If you don't stop talking I'll get the rabbi to ban you from here.
- I don't think you can do that. I think it's more likely you'll lose your job. And there's no chance you're going to control my language.
- There's a camera recording everything you say.
- So what?
- I'm calling my boss for back up.

He speaks into his communicator: 

- I need special search here at the door.

- A young man with shaved head arrives wearing a combat thickness bulletproof vest loaded with extra ammunition cartridges and a pistol at his hip. I greet him:

- Just in time. Your employee is going crazy. He keeps threatening me.
- How is he threatening you?
- With getting me banned from the temple.
- Why?
- He's trying and failing to bully me and he doesn't like it. He shouldn't be working here. Obviously he's not Jewish. He doesn't know a Jew when he sees one. You know I'm Jewish, don't you?

He doesn't answer. I continue:

- Ever hear of a Jewish terrorist?
- This is all routine.
- Not true. I've been here eight or nine times before and the guard never did anything more than take a glance inside my bag.
- Was he here then?
- No. Someone else.

The big subordinate guard keeps breaking in with accusations of me as committing the crime of being uncooperative, this met with his boss's 'Stand back. I'm handling this now.' But the big guard doesn't want to stand back, he goes on interrupting, he's seen me smiling at his discomfort at being reprimanded by his boss right in front of me, his intended victim. Instead of him standing back I theatrically take two long steps backwards, declaring:

- I'm standing back the better to watch this comedy. 

Finally the subordinate guard quiets down. Boss guard orders me:

- Take your jacket off. 

The removed jacket (I still have on my inner, leather jacket) is held at arm's length by the bulletproof guard with one hand while with the other it is closely rubbed with the metal detecting wand which goes off continuously. The bulletproof guard then moves the wand over my body, with it again going off continuously, especially stridently at my knees for some reason. He hand-searches my chest and back, looking for a suicide vest. He asks,

-Anything else in your pockets?
- Sure. I told you. A lot.

Once more I announce each item as it is set down on the desk: 

- Pens and pencils. Five count. Paper glue. Super glue. Foam ear plugs for bike riding. Eight or ten pair. 

The glue stick and eighth of an ounce sample bottle of perfume receive fascinated examinations.

- Alright? What about my bag?
- Set it down on the desk. Is there anything metal inside?
- Almost everything inside is metal. Computer. Computer charging cable. Telephone charging cable. Memory sticks. An old book, non-metal. Some papers, also non-metal.

The boss guard slips his hands in the bag's compartments, unzips the cloth sleeve my computer came with, looks carefully at what he sees inside, a book in a clear plastic envelope: a 117 year old first edition of Jack London's Call Of The Wild. Call of the wild? a revolutionary manifesto? 

-Ok. You can go in. Leave the bag here at security.
- No way I'm leaving anything valuable with that maniac. You can keep the bag inside at your office.
- It will be alright out here. There's a camera.
- I know all about your camera. Your employee was threatening me with it. Later when I ask to see the recording you'll tell me there was a malfunction or I need a court order.
- Fine. Go in.

- Did you get your breakfast?
- I did. Finishing off my second bagel with lox and cream cheese, the boss guard with the combat vest twice patrols the hallway past me, a third time he stops and sits down beside me. He apologizes, hopes my day hasn't been ruined by my experience there.
- So they tried to get you banned by the rabbi and he refused, instead ordered them to apologize.
- I guess.
- You're right, you're always getting yourself into these situations. You said you were going to say why you wanted to tell me the story? 
- Yes. First I want you to read this paragraph about a French historian of technology's debunking the Chinese claim to having technology superior to the West until the modern era:

In the case of printing, Gille denies that it originated in East Asia. He declares that the movable types that were invented by Pi Cheng  (990–1051), along with related technological elements, had some defects, such as insufficient hardness, low paper quality, the absence of a press, and the unsuitability of Chinese ink. Because there were no other suitable technological elements to match Pi’s movable types, it is difficult to regard the invention as a successful technical complex. The invention does not seem to have been absorbed into the technical system, and it was quickly forgotten after Pi’s death. And then, Gille declares, “true printing was really invented in Europe around the middle of the 15th century”. (Gille, 1986a, p. 397) The invention should be attributed to Gutenberg, and the Far East does not seem to have had any influence whatsoever on it... It is only in a system that a tool or machine can become a technical element and obtain its own value as something technical.* 

- Hans Jacob described modern science as a continuous cycling from model making, hypothesis forming, experiment, new technology, new experience with technology, new model making. What Gille refers to as systems could also be described as the beginnings of science cycling in the pre-modern period. Observe a leaf's impress in the mud, come up with the idea of movable type. But paper unsuitable? Examine different kinds of paper, experiment with different ways of making paper.
- Ok. Obviously you remember our previous discussion. We talked about our democracy being a kind of social technology. To be practiced it also must cycle from model, which is a description of how the parts of something relate to each other and to the world, to experiment, to technological practice. This can only be done through the constant test of disconfirmation which is dialog. And do you want to know when you can be sure there will be no practice of dialog, therefore no social technology?
- Tell me.
- When people act on the basis of statistics, probability, rules of thumb. I'm selected by the guards for special treatment because I am in many ways statistically aberrant as a visitor to the temple: arriving by bike a little too energetic for that time of the morning, not rich enough, not old enough. Yet if instead of statistics-based rules the guards were working within the cycle of technology, I would be immediately identified as conforming to the model of American Jewish Intellectual, a life-form with its own natural habitat, a classification strangers put me in all the time. Unlike statistics which offer nothing to perception, when you work with models, you can investigate each component, you can talk it through. The guard has some doubts about me being Jewish? All he has to do is ask for proof. I had in my wallet an Israeli residency passport from a few years back. Statistics, rules of thumb, cannot be disconfirmed in dialog. They are the enemy of social technology and democracy.

Further Reading:
Whole Foods
Birthday & The Man
Beverly Hills Jews
Interference
Watching
_______________________
*Transforming the Narrative of the History of Chinese Technology: East and West in Bertrand Gille’s Histoire des Techniques, Dazhi Yao & Per Hogselius, 2015

Renaissance & Palingenesis

Renaissance, the period of growth and activity in the areas of art, literature, and ideas in Europe during the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries, from the French phrase renaissance des lettres, used by the 19th century historian Jules Michelet. In Old French renaissance means "rebirth." 

Palingenesis, from the Biblical Greek for “re-birth,” is increasingly used in the Anglophone human sciences to connote the reversal or transcendence of decadence in a new order. The archetypal palingenetic myth is that of the phoenix arising from its own ashes, suggesting an organic process by which degeneration is the prelude to a regeneration in which the old is subsumed within a new form. This theme is taken up in the regenerative connotations assumed by an idealized national or racial past within the fascist mindset.*  

- I've read that professor in Oxford's essay.
- And are you convinced?
- That fascism is a nationalism of rebirth? Yes. He makes a very good argument.
- What do you want to talk about?
- "Degeneration is the prelude to a regeneration." The rebirth in fascism is a ritual, ritual involves self-forgetting through passionate action in a group. The Italian Renaissance was a rebirth that involved remembering. Do you accept that distinction?
- Yes. Perhaps to avoid confusion we should speak of Renaissance as a conversion rather than rebirth, an individual's turning away from degeneration towards the truth.
- Would you also agree that the United States is ripe for fascism whenever distractions do not suffice to cover up the fact that it's every man for himself here?
- I would agree.
- That even if the government decided to take indoors the million people who sleep on the street in our country, that wouldn't change the fact that people don't like each other here, don't care about each other? It would be a practical government policy, not a conversion.
- Yes.
- Is Renaissance possible then?
- Can change here be based on remembering instead of forgetting?
- Yes. Remembering the art, literature, and ideas of another time and place, when at every moment you're in the midst of life and death struggle? Do you think that is possible?
- For some.
- Very few. So then what? Should we simply count our blessings fascism that has to come sooner or later hasn't got here yet?

Further Reading:
Killers
Who This Man Is
The Love Of The People
The United States & Totalitarianism
Eve In The Garden Of Eden
Two Kinds Of Mystery
______________________
* Roger Griffin, Modernity, Modernism, And Fascism

Who This Man Is

- I'm sure you are as tired as I am at hearing our president described as a leader of a cult, and of warnings how management of such cults historically has paved the way to totalitarian dictatorship. There clearly is some truth to these claims, but I don't think they express the significance of this president. He does lead his followers in ritual: recounting to them a story of the American people's lost greatness, of being weak now and under attack, the story of how his people, acting together under his guidance, will immediately be able to recover strength. But this cult leader also plays the clown, claims to be a lover of order while inciting to violence, that is, inciting to disorder, while he himself is openly, even joyously lying, complaining the next minute about lies being told about him by his enemies. Is there any way of understanding him that fits all that together?
- I think there is. Our previous president expressed for the people their exceptional among other nations ability to take on any new role.* We call this hypocrisy, from the Greek hypokrites, actor on a stage, when we believe roles are deliberately taken on and left behind to deceive others. Our previous president claimed to want change but kept things almost entirely as they were. Accordingly many call him a hypocrite. If in doing this with virtuosity he expressed to the American people their unique ability to take on roles at will, and was loved by them for performing this important service of aiding their self-recognition, helping them feel more comfortable with themselves, what is our current president expressing about the American people and comforting them with, if anything?
- You are going to tell me.
- Our current president expresses the American people's predilection for, not taking on roles at will, but at will writing the scripts for their own individual, self-instituted rituals of rebirth, done in the company of others at a revivalist church, or done following the script of a story told to oneself about one's personal relations, seeing an enemy to be fought, a successful fight concluding with the order of the world returned to and personal power restored. The time of fighting is left behind and forgotten with the old life of weakness. The president attacks when he's feeling weak, then calls himself a very stable genius when he feels reborn by imagining how his words have decimated his enemies and that he now lives in a world of order and safety. His lies are the scripts, the made up stories of his constant battles to reestablish order out of perceived disorder, and since the truth about these lies is that they do truly perform this function they are not really lies, truth is a feeling and personal belief. At his rallies the people follow their leader's example, along with him they self-consciously throw themselves into ritual, at times clowning out the ritual as their leader does. They follow the course of his wild swings, from his claiming he is intelligent and self-controlled and a lover of order, to his deliberately exciting fears of being under attack, to making a joke of himself because he wills himself to travel the path of ritual along with his followers and along with them is reborn god-like out of his old ridiculous self, all faults left behind. Order and disorder, violence and steady-as-it-goes confidence, lies and truth, each are phases of rituals instituted at will, each has its time and place, each phase rehearsed calling to mind its place in the ritual sequence (1. weakness 2. violent group response 3. recovered strength) much as in music a refrain gathers its feeling from its recalled and anticipated position in the song as a whole.**
- The president's supporters participate in this virtuosic show, which far from being chaotic and meaningless, comfortingly reflects back to them their personal lives.

Further Reading:
The Character Of Donald Trump
Renaissance & Palingenesis
Liars & The Free Market
Love Of The People
_____________________
* See: Killers
** “In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. ... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.” ― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

Impeachment & Evil

- Let's talk about the impeachment.
- Do we have to? What's the point?
- I have a reason.
- Which is?
- Evil. I'm looking for a better definition.
- You've already said evil* is acting on a principle of destruction. Have you changed your mind?
- Not exactly. Political statisticians say that the president's supporters are comprised of a small proportion that actually likes the man, what they can see of him, and the rest of his supporters are regular Republican Party voters, that is, people who don't want the government to do redistribution of income through taxation and benefits. This latter group has the distinction of for the most part not paying attention at all to the actual activities of government, leaving that to a power struggle between politicians. They seem to intuitively understand that once you give up acting on a principle of sympathy for others character goes with it, along with right and wrong, and all that is left to politics is a compromise between different special interests. In the course of the impeachment the active supporters are holding steady in their identification with the president, but the party loyalists, at least some of them, are abandoning him as he begins to appear a loser in the battle of interests.
- So which do you call evil?
- It's not that simple. They all are acting on bad principle, choose to live a life without sympathy for others.
- A difference perhaps between crimes of omission and commission? The party loyalists turn their backs on public life, the active supporters enjoy the idea of violence against others. So again, which are evil according to you?
- The singer songwriter Leonard Cohen said about his work, 'Poetry is the verdict that others give to a certain type of writing.' What if, like what we consider poetry depends on not only a principle describing its composition, but public judgement of its creativity as well, what we consider evil depends both on both principle of action and a public judgement of its destructiveness?
- If evil is only a feeling then isn't it entirely relative?
- No. Evil is something like anger, a passion that responds viscerally to undermining of social standards such as lying, stealing, violence. Like anger, being a passion, it leads to action done in a kind of blindness.
- And as it is better to act without anger, if you can manage to stay reasonable and still act to change the world, so it is better to attack bad coolly than indulge yourself in a passion of evil?
- In my experience I call actions evil only when they come close to me, seem to undermine my unconscious expectations of what is going to happen. When I saw the pictures of the children of asylum seeking parents crowded in cages at the border I cried.
- You? You cried?
- I did.
- I did too. I never thought I'd see something that in this country. It hit home. You're saying that as anger is a response to circumstances undermining our unconsciously relied on security, evil is a response to action that not only undermines security but bears with it the bad principle of action that leads to it being done.
- Yes. Calling someone evil requires both witnessing a clear bad principle acted upon, and a violation of expectations in one's own life.
- If that is right, then depending on how I feel, if I, like you, as I understand your life, feel myself an outsider, and look at others looking desperately for sympathy from strangers, I'll see even party loyalists as evil, but others more like me, others, forgive me, better befriended, might only consider active supporters of the president as evil.
- Or even if not 'better befriended' they might have learned to respond calmly without anger or desperation and see no one as evil, confident enough in public life to respond with knowledge without passion.

Further Reading:
Evil & The Corporate Executive
____________________
* Beverly Hills Jews

Trump vs. Schiller

         Balloon Donald Trump

- This time I have a brilliant idea. Maybe even a beautiful idea. Do you want to hear it?
- Why wouldn't I?
- I think I know why theories in science are more liked the more of the world they bring under the fewer principles. Why is that? you ask. I'll tell you. The reason is we are the unique species of animal that uniquely practises both science and anti-science.
- What is anti-science?
- A science against science. A science of bringing others in the world in obscure relation to ourselves for the sake of forgetting everything else about ourselves and the world. Science helps us remember by bringing as much as possible under rule of a single law, anti-science brings a few antagonists in obscure relation to each other for the sake of forgetting everything else.
- Scientific theories are felt to be beautiful, at least by the scientists themselves. What about anti-science? Is it thought to be ugly?
- Not by practitioners. But by everyone else, by lovers of science, yes!
- Our president exhorts his followers to make American great again, throw out the elites running the county exclusively in their interest, expel the foreigners who are taking our jobs and committing crimes. On the basis of an impoverished history and rudimentary method for its remedy his followers can imagine themselves in the company of like-minded others being reborn in a new world where they are free of a sense of defeat and weakness and can start again. A ritual of rebirth. Old life is forgotten reborn in the new. These are old ideas for us. Your brilliant idea, or should I say, your beautiful idea, is that what they are doing in the eyes of others is ugly, but not to themselves? A way of looking at the world, unifying complexity, helps us remember, and we call that beautiful, and we call ugly a way of looking at the world that places a small part in conflict with another under a simple but obscure principle, because it helps us forget. I don't see it.
- I don't think we've talked before about Schiller, the late 18th century German playwright, poet, and philosopher, friend and collaborator with Goethe. According to Schiller, beauty, both in nature and that made by us, educates us by reconciling, putting into harmony, our thoughts and desires, so that what we judge we should do is what we want to do. We love what we see when we are looking at something in the world that helps us do this, that reminds us to do this.*
- We call it beautiful.**
- Yes.
- How is the beauty of our behavior related to the beauty in science?
- By what Schiller called grace, exemplifying the lawful unity of our behavior, simply and without exception acting in harmony with ourselves. Perhaps you've heard the arguments about our president, now beginning the impeachment phase of his term of office, that he really is not worse than his immediate predecessors who oversaw a massive transfer of wealth to the rich, immensely destructive and futile wars waged on false pretexts, a global recession, mass surveillance, etc?
- I've heard. Why bother impeaching him for his obvious small scale crimes, numerous as they are, when we stood idly by while the country was being despoiled by its rich and powerful?
- What do you say now? Is it a danger to the people to have a leader teaching by his behavior forgetting, a leader as ugly as our own Donald Trump? Do you ever hear anyone, I mean anyone, described as being graceful, in the full meaning given to the word by Schiller, harmony of thought and act, not mere fluidity of movement or something of that sort?
- Can't say I do. We live in the capitalist money making world of doing and not seeing anything else. With such good teachers as our president of the practice of anti-science, constantly lying, clowning, stirring people up to intemperate thoughts and feelings, we've forgotten how to act gracefully.
- We've forgotten how to even recognize ugliness when we see it.
- Yet here we are, remembering and trying to make a science out of explaining our anti-science.

Further Reading:
Political Correctness
Killers
________________________
* 'A free action is a beautiful action, if the autonomy of the mind and autonomy of appearance coincide. For this reason the highest perfection of character in a person is moral beauty brought about by the fact that duty has become its nature. (Schiller, Kallias Letters) ' Drive away lawlessness, frivolity and coarseness from their pleasure, and you will imperceptibly banish them from their actions, and finally from their dispositions. Wherever you find them, surround them with noble, great and ingenious forms, enclose them all round with the symbols of excellence, until actuality is overpowered by appearance and Nature by Art.'  
** 'For readers to whom the pure significance of this word—so often misused through ignorance—is not entirely familiar, what follows may serve as an explanation. Every phenomenon whatsoever may be thought of in four different connections. A thing may relate directly to our sensuous condition (our being and well-being); that is its physical character. Or it can relate to our reason, and furnish us with knowledge; that is its logical character. Or it can relate to our will, and be regarded as an object of choice for a rational being; that is its moral character. Or finally, it can relate to the totality of our various powers, without being a specific object for any single one of them; that is its aesthetic character. A man can be pleasant to us through his readiness to oblige; he can cause us to think by means of his transactions; he can instill respect into us by his high moral standards; but finally, independently of all these and without our taking into consideration any law or any design in our own judgement of him, but simply contemplating him, simply by his manifesting himself—he can please us. In this last-named character we are judging him aesthetically. So there is an education for health, an education for understanding, an education for morality, and an education for taste and for Beauty. This last has as its aim the cultivation of the whole of our sensuous and intellectual powers in the fullest possible harmony. But because people are meanwhile led astray by a false taste, and still more confirmed in this error by false reasoning, into taking the conception of arbitrariness along with them into the conception of the aesthetic, I add. this superfluous note (though these letters about aesthetic education are concerned with practically nothing else but a refutation of that error) to point out that the mind in its aesthetic condition, although it certainly acts freely and is in the highest degree free from all restraint, is by no means free from laws, and that this aesthetic freedom is to be distinguished from the logical necessity of thinking and from the moral necessity of willing only by the fact that the laws which guide the operation of the mind are not realized, and because they meet with no resistance do not appear as compulsion.' (Schiller, On The Aesthetic Education of Man) 

Babies & Wingnuts

- I want to talk to you about someone.
- Alright.
- Or rather, I don't. I'll get at what I'm interested in this way. What would you do if you were dropped from space down to Los Angeles, someplace affluent, and affluent, at least in appearance, yourself.
- How old am I?
- Fairly old. 60, 65. You've fallen from space to sitting in a chair at a cafe, in a shopping center.
- Where do I live?
- You live nowhere. You just dropped from space.
- So I know no one?
- You know no one.
- Then I'll make friends.
- That isn't what I want to ask you about. In fact, I mean, in our hypothetical, you can't make friends.
- Why not?
- Because it seems to others that you've just dropped from space.
- They don't understand me. I'm not human then?
- You are.
- But I must be different if they don't understand me. How am I different?
- You sit at the table in the shopping center and look at the baby held in its mother's arms at the next table. The baby looks back at you. You ask yourself, how long can this go on? The baby looks away, and a few seconds later, looks back, locking on your eyes. This repeats a few times and you withdraw your attention because now you're interested in the general question, what does the baby see when it looks into your eyes, is it the same you see when you look in its eyes? You answer, you think it is, it is contemplation, a recognition of being in a good place, a place you can rest in that no action is required to remedy. You've arrived. With no need to do anything, nothing in the world stands out from another, you see the world as a whole. And yet, after a while, you look away. You, dropped from space, an old man...
- I'm a man, am I?
- You are. You've been dropped from space at that table, knowing nobody, and you can't make friends because you're too different, and you're too different because you are perfectly happy to sit at the table and watch this baby look at you and look away, trying to understand why when what the baby sees when it looks your way is perfect and whole, it nevertheless looks away.
- This old man I am, dropped from space would look at the baby, and when its mother takes it away, he'd continue thinking of the situation in general. He wouldn't look to get whatever kind of job an incomprehensible old man could get. He'd more or less drag his old body around, looking and thinking. Until what? He makes a friend or dies?
- He wants to solve this problem which he expresses to himself thus: if the baby looks at me, and I look at it, with complete and satisfied attention, with a sense of wholeness, therefore no sense of will - will involving desire for taking action - why does the baby take action and look away?
- Why does it?
- The old man thinks he knows how to begin his search for an answer: will he decide to get up from his chair and look for means to keep himself alive, or will he not, and remain in contemplation of babies and whatever else that his attention grasps hold of?
- Doesn't he feel the urge to look away?
- No, not immediately. But hour after hour passes and he begins to feel the cramping of muscles and the onset of hunger and thirst. He understands himself well enough to know that his appreciation of the world's beauty requires the physical underpinnings of perception. His body is holding itself in relation to the world. He understands that in time that hold in relation will weaken and ultimately fail.
- So he's solved his problem.
- He's made only a start, for he asks himself, once he looks away, how will he be able to return to contemplation of a baby contemplating him? He looks at the affluent people around him, well fed and at ease with their bodies...
- And there is no looking-at-babies-looking-at-them in their lives.
- None. Now, in our hypothetical, we provide our old man dropped from space without a friend in the world with a laptop computer connected to the Internet. He's realized he has no idea what connects the physical aspect of himself with the mental. He opens the computer and types into a search engine the phrase 'physics mysteries'.  He taps the link to a video, and he can hardly believe it: he seems to have found an answer. The video is about an observation made by a Russian astronaut during his stay in a space station in zero gravity. A wingnut had come loose and was floating in the air, continuously rotating around one axis. After every few seconds, however, the wing nut would flip over on a second axis, and then continue as before. It seems magical, this on and off of movement of a solid piece of metal.
- Did our old man actually see a clip of this happening?
- Yes. Do you have an explanation?
- No. Tell me.
- The video presents another physics mystery, a cylinder sliding down an inclined plane, then stopping, then resuming its slide, then stopping, and so on. The mystery is explained: inside the cylinder partly filling it is a viscous fluid that as the cylinder as a whole moves forward, slides towards the back of the cylinder, cause it to stop, the fluid then recoiling from the back to flow forward, causing the cylinder to resume its forward motion.
- But the wingnut you said is solid.
- It is. But if you looked carefully at the video clip you could see that when the wingnut was apparently spinning on only one axis, on the second axis it was after each flip already slightly wobbling.
- And that wobbling built up until it flipped the wingnut completely over.
- Yes. Our old man...
- Wasn't I the old man?
- You didn't seem to want the job. Our old man thinks he understands: the movement produced by one force is being modulated by the movement produced by another force. The baby looks at him, impelled to do this by one force, but looks away, compelled to do this by another force.
- But looks back again when the first force reasserts itself. No act of will required for either exit or entrance to its state of contemplation. Nice and neat.
- The old man closes his computer, sits at the table at the shopping center and thinks. It's not food and shelter his body needs, but a counterforce to contemplation it already is in the care of. How is he going to find that?
- I don't know. Not by getting whatever job an incomprehensible old man dropped from space can get?
- And in off work hours look for what in life he should be doing to produce the required counter-force?
- Yes.
- He considers this, and thinks. Maybe. But it would put him in the grips of extraneous forces and complicate matters. Better first to find the counterforce, come to know the movements it produces when he sees them.
- How is he going to do that?
- He sits there and thinks. His limbs cramp, he feels hunger and thirst. The stores close. Shopping center guards escort him out to the street. He stands on a corner, still thinking.
- Doesn't sound good.
- He thinks like this: mathematics can account for the sloshing back and forth of the viscous liquid in the cylinder, and the wobbling on the second axis of the wingnut. If he can find a similar mathematics in the activities of life when not resting in contemplation, then wouldn't he have what he needed to work on making a life that would as expeditiously as possible return him there?
- To rest and beauty.
- Yes.
- Then what? What happens to him?
- He goes back the next day to the shopping center.
- Where mothers often come with their babies.
- Yes. He begins his studies.

Fearful Dreams

- Imagine you are dreaming. You are dreaming this very conversation you are having with me. And then, still dreaming, you wake up, understanding that your conversation with me was a dream.
- And then I wake up from the dream, and tell it to you.
- Yes.
- Have you ever had a dream like that? 
- I have. How do you feel when our president claims that every crime he is accused of committing is actually being committed by his critics, every lie he is accused of telling is a lie perpetrated by his opponents? Is it like trying to wake yourself up from a dream in which your reality is revealed to be a dream?
- Something like that.
- And could it be that the dream you struggle to awaken from is of a particularly terrible kind? The kind of dreaming called sleep paralysis in which you dream you are under threat but cannot move. In our country there is supposed to such a thing as a market in which all human nature is abstracted out except the desire for profit, and our only freedom in relation to the market is how much we allow the government to regulate it, government itself deprived of all functions except regulation of the market. Between these enclosing walls of market and government human nature is paralyzed, and an ominous fear is generated, the result of a total lack of security: anything can be expected from hundreds of millions of human beings isolated from each other by self-identifications in the products they consume, isolated and self-identified by their race, gender, wealth. The president's supporters mock us, accuse us of dreaming, and in this particular sense of having to live in this world of sleep paralysis, we agree!
- What do we do about it?
- Let's go back to the dream of our real conversation being dreamed, and in the dream waken up from. Do you remember being young and, as we say, dreaming of a life of love, friendship, adventure, achievement? How do those dreams look to you now?
- A lot of what I dreamed of came to pass, but it was not much like what I dreamed.
- How different?
- Temporary, mixed up, confused, but deeper, much deeper.
- Much better?
- Yes.
-  Plato makes the argument that only those who have the experience of the higher pleasures of knowledge know their superiority to the pleasures of the body. Would you say that about waking and dreaming?
- I don't follow.
- Dreams are stories. Reality has story too, but it is a story of interruptions: of reflection, play, imagination, experimentation, detachment.
- Then what we can do about being accused by the president's supporters of lying, of dreaming, is to point out we are experiencing these times of interrupting consciousness and therefore are awake. You've had the dreams and I haven't, so I ask you if the dreams of real life that you wake out of in your dream have these marks of consciousness.
- They do not. They are mere narrations, passively listened to stories.
- Then we search for these marks of consciousness in the words of the president's supporters...
- And don't find them.
- We who are awake know they are dreaming, but they themselves don't.
- They are caught in the fearful dreams of sleep paralysis.*

Watch:
Quantified Society
_______________________
* 'The more eclipsed the public becomes, the more citizens come to believe in their omnicompetence. Self-contemplation through pluralistic public discourse—necessary for genuine public self knowledge—is regarded as superfluous. Reassured by cognitive biases inculcated by the culture market that they already understand the world and themselves, pseudo-individuals prefer consuming opinions that they already agree with over facts they believe they already know.' - Trumpism and the Dialectic of Neoliberal Reason, David Lebow

Interference

- Yes, yes, it's not your area but I'd like to hear your answer to my question.
- The simple answer is: some parts of Einstein's relativity theories are real, others are matters of appearance, are observational illusions, are not experienced.
- Give me an example of an illusion.
- Different perspectives on a movement, one stationary, the other sharing the same movement, can show it taking differing amounts of time (because of the fixed speed of light).
- And an example of something real?
- A clock placed higher or lower than another will click at a different rate (because of differing pull of gravity).*
- So really it's right in the nature of things that people, including Einstein who inaugurated the study by demonstrating the particle form of light, ask the same question about quantum mechanics: Is what we are looking at real or illusion?
- Yes.
- So which is it?
- You're asking me?
- Is there anyone else here?
- Then we'll give ourselves some distance and take a few steps back. At the beginnings of Western philosophy attempts were made to describe how things can change and still be what they are. If we couldn't get them together, if they were irreconcilable opposites, was change an illusion, a mistake, or was the mistake permanence? Should we try to see our lives only in one of them? Or did we live in a cycle alternating between illusion and reality, change and rest? Plato followed Parmenides' plan of cycling between the illusory world of change to the permanent world of truth, accomplishing this transition applying the tool of knowledge; in his dialogs he developed a technology of observed life, experimenting in words, searching for knowledge of how life should be lived that could survive the test of debate. Alright?
- Yes.
- Now, long before Plato, a social technology was practiced that obstructed change. Everyone was locked in roles ranked in a hierarchy, the actions pertaining to each role specified by law. We'll be coming back to this. Following Plato, Aristotle provided a way to allow real things and illusory change to occur not in sequence but at every moment together: things had a capacity which circumstances activate, make come into being: capacity reflected change, characteristic activity reflected stability, provided a definition of what the thing was.
- An account of growth, development.
- A study of how our past experience develops our capacity to act. Do you see where I'm going with this?
- Not really.
- What would be required to adapt Plato's experimental science of mental life into an experimental science of the material world? I'll answer for you: the social roles and laws of the ancient empires. Social roles replaced by things in the world, laws of the pharaoh replaced by measured movement of things showing them in accord with natural laws. Keep in mind this distinction: the pharaoh's fixed laws and roles, Plato's self in the movement of acquiring knowledge. For Plato any social life of fixed roles and rules was lived in a world of illusion: succeeding there in the application of a technology of knowledge one gained access and rest in the true unchanging world.
- Could we say that our world of change and illusion had the capacity to lead us to experience of a real, unchanging world?
- We could. Aristotle was replaced by a social technology of material laws, losing by this Aristotle's solution to the problem of describing how a thing can remain itself and also change, the individual's capacity for change actualized in the present. Forces acted to change the position of things no one knew how or seemed to care, at least not until out of nowhere a joke was played on our scientists: experiments showed that the behavior of photons was predictable only with probability, that they acted sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles, and that they seemed to remain in connection with each other across large distances. A catastrophe for science: no fixed laws, no fixed things. In the double slit experiment waves of light pass through two slits in a wall, creating two new waves, which produce a characteristic interference patter of a series of bars and gaps on a second wall. When instead of a continuous beam of light, individual photons are shot towards the slits, when both slits remain open, the same interference pattern is made on the second wall by the accumulating dots made by the individual photons, but when one of the slits was covered, a single bar of light results, no interference pattern. Scientists generally have treated this as a problem of space, a mystery about the location of things defined as remaining the same. But isn't the problem better seen as a mystery of time, of things being in two times at once, as something very like consciousness where the influence of the past is felt on the present, where the wave-borne memory of past underpins the present appearance of particles?
- Like you say the clocks show different times after individually experiencing a history of different physical conditions.
- Yes. With a little attention on their part the scientists saw that the joke played on them was doubled: just when they had convinced themselves that consciousness was an illusion, that the material world was all there was, consciousness was back staring them in face at the most fundamental level of physical reality. Shakespeare, we've talked about this before, developed Plato's social technology of knowledge into a social technology of role play.** We can imagine that when we deliberately, self-aware take on a role in society we are manifesting ourselves, ironically as it were, from the individual personal history of the wave into the thing-like permanence of the rule-following particle.
- In the reconciling of change and rest, the particle takes the part of rest, the field the part of change. But this all is taking place in the world of illusion?
- Yes, in the world of change, allowing for a temporary stability. But if from the abandonment of Aristotle at the beginning of the scientific revolution scientists haven't seemed to care about the newly returned problem of rest and movement, our social world is increasing arranged on the same technical model as the material world, and people do notice, feel strongly the lack of relation between their social role and individuality.
- You've got me confused. You believe in both: first the means Aristotle invented of securing rest and change together, his capacity and activity model of every thing at every moment; and second, you believe in the Platonic passage through the world of change toward the world of rest where there is no change and no parts?
- Yes. Both. Maintain your individuality against society's roles and rules, then decide what best to do with your individuality. The material technology of things and laws of science, like Shakespeare's social technology of role, should be practiced for the sake of getting out of the world of illusion, and to do that requires an understanding of individual life in which rest and change are reconciled. Quantum physics can do us the service of warning us of the danger of submitting to the rules of social role, losing individuality; danger of a return to the pharaoh's social technology that locked everyone in roles ranked in a hierarchy, the actions pertaining to each role specified by law, each individual like an unchanging particle in unclear but fixed, probabilistic relation to each other.
- Quantum mechanics interpreted so is an illusion. The problem of change and rest is obscured under claims of non-locality and probability.
- Yes. Quantum mechanics alternatively can be seen in the capacity/activity interpretation, taking account of actual individual histories, and making as good as sense as we have ever made of the problem of things and change, and offering reassurance that consciousness is real.


2.

- I'm surprised at you.
- What have I done?
- You're making speeches. Jumping from subject to another. Nothing is developed, everything is confused: capacity and activity, consciousness, quantum mechanics, social technology, material technology.
- And the truth has escaped us?
- I think so.
- Would you like to make your own speech then?
- I think I would.
- Go ahead.
- My thesis is....
- Here we go....
- My thesis is that quantum mechanics is in fact somehow related to consciousness, but only one kind.
- What kind?
- A bad kind. False consciousness. What you in your system call passion and vanity, passionate action in which self is forgotten, and vain reflection in which the world is forgotten. The transition from action to rest occurs while the self is forgotten, with the result that movement is unaccounted for.
- When a field resolves itself to a particle, that is like passionate fear and hate bringing us to a place of security when ritualistically performed in a group?
- For example. The alternative your system proposes....
- I don't have a system.
- Has you theory been tested in any way? Can it be tested? The alternative your system proposes is creative action leading to ethical thought, action taken in awareness of self ends in rest forgetting self in contemplation of the world. Because action is taken in awareness of self a history of the movement from action to rest is possible, therefore there's continuity. Is such a model applicable to quantum mechanics?
- Continue with your speech.
- It is not. We have no idea how a field resolves itself into a particle. I conclude with this: as our material technology was prepared for by a prior social technology, our new physics has been prepared for by a prior psychological technology.


3.

- Are you finished? I won't make a speech. I want to ask you a question.
- Ok.
- What does it mean that the material world is subsequent to, and is the worse version of, personal technology, social and psychological?
- What a question! I don't know. Do you?
- I can make a guess. We have in language (1) words reflecting things (2) things acting in lawful relation to each other. A structure in the technology of language - things in lawful action - formally the same as involved in material technologies.
- But we can use language creatively. Why is it that the material world, even at the level of particles, is only of the destructive form?
- Can we ever expect to reach a level of physical reality that reflects our creative personal technology?
- Yes. What do you think?
- I think, reasoning only from what little experience we have, that if we could establish regular forms of good consciousness and good society, acquire a technology, a tool that worked all the time, it might follow that we discover an equivalent material technology. Language supplies the model of technology. Practice of social and psychological technology allows material technology to be discovered. Practice of good social and psychological technology would allow, perhaps, a good material technology to be discovered.
- Wild. Do you see any signs of that happening?
- Maybe. You know here in L.A. we have a sort of open air zoo where human beings are the, to pick up on your word, wild life. I mean the hundred thousand people with no place to sleep, who are fed and watered by various charities and the government, and then thrown back to the public, functioning as a warning of the consequences of failure to conform. Strange masks are put on by the zoo animals, strange effects are produced among them. Earlier, sitting over there in the corner booth, was a little old lady, a highly talented consumer of free services. Before she began sleeping in the park she was a worker in the offices of UCLA's neuroscientists. Foreign scientists, she was telling me, brought with them research on fetal brains and half-brain lobotomies for patients with severe epilepsy.
- Where's the strange effect?
- That is now brought in by me, who among the zoo animals is taken to be one of their own. I relished the opportunity to inform the little old lady that I was in correspondence this very day with a professor at the University of California studying consciousness.
- Is that true?
- Yes. The effect builds. Also here this afternoon was the statuesk Romanian courtesan with her newest adventures. She's always being exploited and thrown out by her landlords and landladies: from a room in a Beverly Hills apartment, $1000 a month, she must leave early in the morning and return to only late at night, to a balcony to sleep on in the same apartment for the same $1000 when she'd gone to a new city and wanted to come back, to a room in what she described as a palace, a three floor French farmhouse behind the Beverly Hills hotel, supposedly the second house built in the city, in exchange for washing the dishes, which being called on to do several times a day because of frequent guests, was a bit too much, despite the $300 a week salary with room and board, so she got angry and was given a ten day notice with a cash payoff of $500, and now what should she do? Should she go to another city? She suddenly drops the pretense she's kept up for years that the $100 here and $1000 there men give her who she meets at the bars of expensive hotels didn't require anything in return. But it's so hard, she exclaims. What she gets barely covers her rent. She can't get out of her head, every time she sees me, to ask these same questions of me: What should she do? Where should she go? Me, who is in correspondence with philosophers of consciousness and is in a direct connection to British royalty.
- Since when?
- I'm getting to it. The Romanian courtesan departs, and a few minutes later another woman arrives. She four or five decades ago was in my high school class, and now is some kind of Jew for Jesus. I asked her to confirm what she'd told me earlier: that the newest British princess was the daughter of a member of our high school class. This princess, following in the footsteps of her mother, who after high school went on to become a revolutionary member of the Black Panther Party, had recently snubbed our country's chief executive by refusing to meet him when he visited the U.K. With a prince of that country not our princess' husband, our chief executive, as you must know, is involved in the large scale scandal of Jeffrey Epstein, organizer of a island club where the rich and powerful could enjoy teenaged prostitution.
- Your point being that the rich and powerful are in their own open air zoo.
- If you like. I see masking and unmasking, and strange shifting relations, both personal and social, as opposed to clearly defined things in lawful relation.
- And, as we've said, such masking and unmasking and shifting relations are the material for personal and social creativity.***


4.

Tsze-lu said, “The ruler of Wei has been waiting for you, in order to administer the government. What will you consider the first thing to be done?”
The Master replied, “What is necessary is to rectify names.”
 “So! Indeed!” said Tsze-lu. “You are wide of the mark! Why must there be such rectification?”
The Master replied, “How uncultivated you are, Yu! A superior man in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.” (Confucius 1901, chap. 16)

- I've looked up that cognitive psychologist you're in correspondence with.
- And?
- He's also a professor of philosophy and computer science. I wonder you're not embarrassed to be making up theories of consciousness off the top of your head when there are people like him, people who have similar ideas but unlike you are trying to make rigorous mathematical models of consciousness testable by computer simulations and programming games to reveal evolutionary fitness.
- I admire his ambition. The professor argues for consciousness creating all our perceptions and that our perceptions, self-created, are illusions.**** I'd say instead that consciousness doesn't create, but arises out of the process of perception.
- What difference does it make? You have your view, he has his, but he in addition has game theory and computer modelling as supports.
- What good is it to use computers to make models and test evolutionary fitness if what you are modelling and testing is not right?
- Not a correct picture of consciousness?
- Yes.
- Obviously it would be no use at all. But if you are claiming to have a better picture, shouldn't you make a testable model like the professor is doing?
- He has a whole team working with him.
- And you're just a talker.
- Coming up with a good model to test needs a lot of talk. I told you about the Romanian courtesan, physically imposing, otherwise rather ugly. She's in love with beauty: with her own, with the beauty of her clothes, jewelry, hair, skin She's so in love with beauty, anyone who is attracted to her is loved for participating in her love of beauty. Are we, with the professor, to say her beauty is an illusion? He tells the story of a male beetle that tries to mate with a certain beer bottle having a pebbly surface it takes for a female beetle. Are we to conclude, with the professor, that what we take as reality is a convenient illusion that makes decisions more efficient but which is not an accurate model of the world? What if consciousness arises out of repeated experiences with things in the world remaining available to awareness, and therefore the attractiveness of the Romanian is not meaningfully to be called a mistake or illusion? Men seem to be mistaking her ugliness for beauty, deceived by an illusion created by certain sizes and shapes of certain parts of her. But what if, like with the actress Marilyn Monroe, her inclusion of viewers in her history-bearing consciousness of her own beauty allows them the thrill of reacting to her body as if it were real life pornography, pornography which excites even though it is not doubted for a second that it is an illusion?
- In short, consciousness is not deceived.
- In a game testing evolutionary fitness the professor carried out, seeing the color red representing both too much or too little oxygen, and the color blue the right amount, was more fit than seeing red half-way to the maximum oxygen experienced and blue the rest of the way, even though one color representing both too much and too little oxygen doesn't represent any state of the world. That's a problem if consciousness is thought to produce its own perceptions, but not a problem if consciousness arises out of a history of interactions with the world.
- The professor says the world is an illusion, our consciousness has an active role in creating perceptions which evolution selects for fitness. Our perceptions are like the icons on our computer desktops: not similar in form to the world modeled - pushing on a two dimensional square box on a screen is not similar to the electrical changes on a silicon chip - yet there exists a practical relation between the two that can be tested in game play for evolutionary fitness. You say our relation to the world is real, though sometimes what we are used to seeing connected to what we see betrays expectation. Your ideas would hold their own, you predict, tested in evolutionary game play. That seems plausible. What then? Can you model the consciousness that arises out of perception in a way that can be computer simulated?
- The professor suggests that consciousness produces space and time in perception of the world, doing that production presumably outside of time and space: if it's already there why produce it? Where then is the agent of consciousness itself that is making space and time if it is not in space and time?
- I don't know. In the quantum world?
- All alone there? Consciousness arises, I suggest, when awareness of present time looks back on the awareness of a past time, with what is perceiving in the different times, divided by time, taking on definition as different objects. We know what and where consciousness is - it's in all this detail. Wouldn't that make consciousness easier to model?
- I'm no more a computer scientist than you are.
- As an independent agent producing perception, his consciousness is a quantum world all to itself. After elbowing consciousness aside he doesn't have more than the beginnings of a model. But maybe we do, with the quantum world involved in, arising out of every perception. The professor is working within the world of bad human technology and the bad science of things and laws that developed out of it. In a good human technology we - 'we' referring to consciousness intimately connected with, having a history in the world - seek exits from the world of time and space by experimentally trying on one role after another: both space/time and evolution are in the same model and clearly related.

Further Reading:
The Technology of Good
How Do You Make A Computer Not Want To Be A Computer?
Authoritarian and Democratic Technics, Lewis Mumford
Studies In Relativity
__________________
* Atomic Clocks Reveal Einstein's Relativity
** The Technology Of Magic. 
*** Noam Chomsky & Mental Things
**** "Our perceptual capacities are products of evolution and have been shaped by natural selection. It is often assumed that natural selection favors veridical perceptions, namely, perceptions that accurately describe those aspects of the environment that are crucial to survival and reproductive fitness. However, analysis of perceptual evolution using evolutionary game theory reveals that veridical perceptions are generically driven to extinction by equally complex nonveridical perceptions that are tuned to the relevant fitness functions. Veridical perceptions are not, in general, favored by natural selection. This result requires a comprehensive reframing of perceptual theory, including new accounts of illusions and hallucinations. This is the intent of the interface theory of perception, which proposes that our perceptions have been shaped by natural selection to hide objective reality and instead to give us species‐specific symbols that guide adaptive behavior in our niche." - The Interface Theory of Perception, Donald Hoffman, 2018

Numbers & Numbers

- I suppose, someone like you, you never get lonely?
- Someone like me is someone always talking to people?
- Yes.
- Talking philosophy.
- Yes.
- After spending most of last night on YouTube watching lectures on physics and debates on philosophy, I can say categorically the result was falling into a state of sadness and loneliness.
- Why do you think that was? Because you were only watching, not yourself talking?
- Watching the right kind of conversation, like the one in the movie I mentioned last time we talked, Godard's Living Her Life,* between a philosopher and a young woman confusingly setting out on a life of prostitution, only intensifies the sense of there being something important to do with people.
- What was that?
- The philosophers and physicists of the debates and lectures communicated to me information and ideas. But we don't communicate, in the sense of get close to each other, through information and ideas.
- How then?
- One of the philosophy debates was on the problem of reality: do we see the real world, or only a world of our own making? We talked last time, and many times before, about how perception works: we learn to give things a name after repeated response to what we see has had a consistent effect on what we see, something like when we speak we try one word after another, and if we're lucky at the end we've completed a sentence that summarizes our experience with the world in some way. In order for this act of naming through repeated acts of perception to work, we have to start with a response to the world. That is, we have to have the sense equipment that puts us in relation to the world that is to some extent stable. To learn the name of a chair, my eyes must be able to receive consistent images that over time seeing and touching the chair allow me to know what a chair is. Those original perceptions are not names we've learned through experiment, but inborn possible relations to the world.
- And that inborn possibility of relation, not being of our making, is a real relation to the world, a relation to the real world.
- That's the argument. Now consider the situation we are in when, with our inborn relation to the world, we find ourselves looking at something we haven't yet got a name for. Our inborn relation allows us to have a series of perceptions as we move through and in response to a world which we don't yet know. Until we've developed a habit of perception that gives us a consistent sight and therefore name of the world, our perceptions are like numbers, without content but nevertheless real and building one upon another.
- The professors of philosophy and physics you watched communicated to you their perceptions, but their words didn't go deep into that realm of numbers. And watching the movie did? How?
- First, by feeling drawn to the young woman.
- Being drawn, an attraction felt, but not to be accounted for.
- Yes.
- You are in relation to the real world. Then?
- Presumably the philosopher in the movie feels the same. He communicates ideas not much different from those I heard in the debates last night, but they are being spoken in a way emptied of content, spoken like numbers because spoken not to identify the world but as mere instruments used to come to know this mysterious young woman.
- And you're back with the ancient Greeks who believed in the magic of numbers and that words could only be spoken in a world of illusion.
- Yes.
- The words of last night's debating and lecturing philosophers and physicists left you feeling lonely because they seemed to come out of a world of illusion and to leave you stranded there with no way out, unlike the way out with the woman of the movie of coming to know her, learn her name.
- Yes.
- Wouldn't the physicists with all their mathematics be surprised to hear they weren't good enough with numbers?
- There are numbers and there are numbers.

Further Reading:
Noam Chomsky & Mental Things
My Wife Who Throws Me Out
The Mathematics Of Consciousness
____________________
* Now Voyager