goldenbrown

kinder-than-life eyes

                                   goldenbrown gaze

                       a forest path without ends

                                               fuddling travellers

                                                                      with scented words

meandering through memories

                                    and feelings we knew we had

             your fingertips lighter than blue

                                    more present deeper down

                                                            dark in the underocean

                                                awaking space

                                    creating unlight

            switching nights on in rooms

one after the other

            – maps that had been explored

                                   discarded after a while

                                               shut off, forgotten –

minutely stepping in each

                       removing protective whitesheets

                                   sometimes just feeling through

                                               tasting treasured keepsakes

                       deftly handweighing, eyes up

           and the faintest of smiles

and moving to the next room

unheeded, fearless perhaps,

                                              were the footsteps left

                                                                                    in the accumulated dust

                                   today I wander off

                                                                      room after room

                                                                                                        smelling your laughter

                                              whitenoising your palewhite silhouette

                                   echoing like glass dewdrops

           in the forest of your eyes your

kinder-than-life eyes

                                  goldenbrown gaze

Ideal Idle

"It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. There is no fun in doing nothing when you have nothing to do. Wasting time is merely an occupation then, and a most exhausting one. Idleness, like kisses, to be sweet must be stolen."

Jerome K. Jerome, humorist and playwright (1859-1927), in Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow (1886)

On The Right To Listen and The Duty To Say Dumb Stuff

One of the most common rights we see in constitutions around the globe is the freedom of speech. The right to speak your mind. It is both our boon and our bane: we get to listen to the protectors of the environment and tolerance as well as the promoters of hatred and bigotry. Of course, it neither entails that everything said is intelligent, nor does it absolve anyone from saying anything stupid – not even remotely. Speaking one's mind offers the delicate and dangerous opportunity to glimpse inside said mind.

Following Milton's 1644 Aeropagitica and Paine's Age of Reason (1794-1807), I think it is possible to argue for the right to listen, as denying someone the right to speak denies the audience the right to listen. In fact, I'll argue further that the obligation to have someone say something stupid should be a corollary stipulated in the many constitutions which protect the freedom of speech.

Define stupid, I hear? Stupid as in: rejecting established laws of the physical world, rejecting accepted scientific facts, asserting evidence which baffle common sense, exhibiting great insensitivity towards those who suffer, anything which may cause harm to oneself or to others. Examples? Sure. God miraculously saving a cross whilst letting the roof of Notre Dame Cathedral burn. And a few years ago the face of Jesus appearing on a toast while he doesn't bat an eye at his priests abusing hundreds of thousands of children. I have a treasure trove of those.

I can already hear some grumbling at the back. Well, it's your right to be offended, certainly. The right to be offended is valid at all times, but I'm afraid it does not constitute an argument, especially one which should cut any argument short. Must I remind people that “[w]hat is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” (In more recent years known as Hitchens's razor, but the occurrence of the concept dates back to at least the 19^th Century).

Carlo Cipolla (1922-2000), an Italian economic historian, wrote an essay called The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976). Here are his five fundamental laws of stupidity (also available here):

1. Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
2. The probability that a certain person will be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
4. Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
5. A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
   

Let's assume that we are all part of non-stupid people, just for the sake of not developing any of those points further, them being self-evident, and dozens of examples having popped up in our heads.

I understand that the fewer stoopid people there are the better we should fare as a society, yet I contend that stupidity has its uses and its benefits - as long as we stick to the rulebook so we can still perceive the stupid character in what's being said. Yet I don't believe that someone thinking differently from me should be grounds for silencing said person, stupid people above all.

In a nutshell, my argument runs thus: I'd rather go on hearing the likes of Donald Trump and his ilk spew stupid things over and over again because it keeps my standards on their toes, and also because when somebody asserts something stupid as confidently as the president of the first economic power in the world, everyone's bound to stop and listen. The fact that many people, even from his own political side of the spectrum, recognise the content as moronic is for me a sign of a healthy society.

Of course I'm disregarding rule #1: I know there are more stupid people in circulation...I'm a teacher, and I've seen/am still seeing my daily share of stupidity. But I believe in the power of education, that it will prevail on the very, very long run. Even though stupid will always exist. Even though mistakes shall still be made. It takes an ex-stupid person to recognise a stupid person, as we've all believed, at some point, in a stupid theory. Perhaps we still do, in the dark of night when no one is watching.

No more of this, let's take a concrete example. This scientist claims she has discovered the cause for homosexuality, and a cure, and I believe that it would be wrong to discard the article altogether and put it on the garbage heap of nonsense. I think it's worth devoting a few minutes to read this woman's case. Why? For the sake of listening to her line of argument. Because only by listening to what they say can we rebuke and redress, only by understanding where their logic falters can we hope to root out this stupid thought and plant a seed of knowledge. If that's even possible. Stupidity goes too deep sometimes. I'm not certain this 'academic' has a basic understanding of human biology, and perhaps her religion's bias is blinding her, who knows, but I'm certain that if she were to understand and change her mind it could only come from a heavy dose of reason.

Yet reason and intelligence can sometimes be counter-productive. Intelligent arguments usually are fraught with jargon and become boring, while stupid arguments usually sound funny and stick to our twisted brains. The outrageous is taken away from its content by the funny, and only the punchline remains (thanks Augustine for the input!). The problem is that those with the loudest voices usually aren't the ones with the best logic, the best arguments, and the most sensible approach. There is a deep truth in: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst/ Are full of passionate intensity.” W. B. Yeats, The Second Coming (1920). Stupid is catchy, smart slips the mind.

Sometimes, when one gets a lot of ideas in the hope that one good idea will come out, it also means that there's a handful of stupid ideas wedged in the thought process. Discarded, to boot, but they were nonetheless necessary to explore every possible options. Think about Donald Trump tweeting: “So horrible to watch the massive fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put it out. Must act quickly!” (10:39 AM - 15 Apr 2019 – my emphasis). The fact that he wrote “perhaps” and “could” indicates that he thought of that as a possible alternative to put out the fire. The fact that many immediately recognised this as a stupid strategy warmed my heart (pun intended...too soon?), because it meant that the vast majority of people understand the basic laws of physics...whilst the president of the country which publishes the most scientific and technical articles doesn't.

Stupid comments, stupid actions, stupid arguments make us think, even sometimes doubt. Think about the conscientious objector who doesn't want to fight in a war whom everyone believes to be rightful. Think about the teacher who tells you that the Earth is 4,000 years old. Think about the theoretical physicist who tells you that you and your computer, the ground, the centre of the Earth are being traversed, as we speak, by trillions upon trillions of neutrinos. You probably wouldn't believe one, perhaps two, because you would like to have evidence in order to believe. Had you not doubt, at some point, you wouldn't be so certain of all the things you're certain about.

At one point in our history we thought we were at the centre of our universe, we thought gravity didn't exist and that the sun revolved around us. Some of us were labelled 'stupid' because they doubted what was commonly accepted as knowledge, and challenged mainstream interpretations because the evidence they had painstakingly gathered pointed in another direction. One last quote to highlight my point: “Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt.” Clarence Darrow, lawyer and author (1857-1938).

Here's Hitchens touching upon a very similar issue.

Pitch of the Hitch

“Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you.”

Christopher Hitchens, British-American author, columnist, essayist, orator, journalist, and social critic (1949-2011) in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001)

 

Eä (Quenya): Universe

"The cure for anything is salt water -- sweat, tears, or the sea."

Isak Dinesen (pen name of Baroness Karen Christenze von Blixen-Finecke), author (1885-1962)

Here's the investigation tracking the source for the quote.

Pōwehi

Pōwehi is the unofficial name given to the Black Hole which was "captured on camera" -- more like its image was reconstructed from terabytes upon terabytes of data collected by a network of nine, NINE!, telescopes around the globe. It's a never-before-done feat, and it took decades, more than two hundred collaborators and a pretty penny to get it done.

It means "the adorned fathomless dark creation", and I think it's a frigging good name for such a beast. I'll let you peruse the article on the Hawaiian name, and for reference here's the article on the Black Hole per se.

Alternatively, here's what a cellist I like has done with the concept. I recommend that you read the articles while listening to the piece, it's sumptuous.

A day in the life

"Did you know that every two hours the nations of this world spent the same amount on
armaments as they spend on the children of this world every year? And did you know that the
worldwide food shortage that threatens up to five hundred million children could be alleviated at
the cost of only one day, only ONE day, of modern warfare."

Sir Peter Ustinov, actor, writer, and director (among many others) (1921-2004), Goodwill Ambassador for UNICEF.

The source for this quote can be tracked down in the audio script (it's a PDF, so it might download as soon as you click on the link). Here's the link for the video...but you have to pay (check the price though).

What Really Irritates Me In Men, Women, Poodles, and Other Sartorial Considerations Very Late at Night, Part 8

 

'Tis late. Very late, and very early. Perfect time for another instalment in that godforsaken series. My notes are overflowing with rants, some scribbled hastily and nervously. I can still sense the outrage seeping through. Pulsing. The rant itching on the roof of the palate. Them people, them dogs, them fashions. Won't ever rest, won't ever stop. Like a juggernaut rolling over innocents, leaving none unscathed in its path. Sometimes you don't see any of it taking place because the massacre happens elsewhere, as it sometimes seems to take a separate path, if just for a split nanosecond, in a reality so close to our own that they seem to merge. Moments otherwise known and exploited as memes as WTF moments. Life may just be one gigantic meme, or a series of gif, who knows.

I was recently introduced to resistentialism and my mind went [insert GIF of nuke bomb going off]. It's the idea that inanimate objects have a will of their own, and will become hostile at the right time – usually the worst for us. Picture this: you're late to a meeting, you need to print one document. The rage starts building up as no PDF document would open for some reason while it worked perfectly fine until now. Then the printer won't print. The berserker in you comes to the surface. Change the paper, the paper will jam. Some form of head-shaking acceptance seems to take over. Or the coffee machine will signal it's out of coffee, then a few minutes later you see a colleague with a steaming cup of coffee from said vending machine. Now you see resistentialism everywhere. And no, the printer is working fine. PDF not opening? The IT guy looked at it and said it worked fine. Is this our imagination playing tricks on us? Do we emit bad vibes and short-circuit stuff? Or, more plausibly, do machines have a will of their own, and plan on taking over the world by making us, slowly and irrevocably, mad? Like this alarm clock which has worked so well for so long and chose that day when I absolutely had to be on time not to go off. I'm sure I heard it snicker when it went off the next morning.

Such spite is by no means rare, and it leads me to my second segment: being late. A few weeks ago, I could finally delve into the mind of a person who is always late. I don't mean the hyperbolic 'always' we sometimes use to carry a point forward, I mean to carry it home: 'always' as in 'all the frigging time'. Late is by definition 'not on time', and she is that, by an average of 15 minutes. Yes, I'm keeping tabs, but no I don't use those against her, rather I use them to study the pattern. So we can both be late and arrive at roughly the same time. The other day she even arrived later than her “I'm running late” change of time. So I asked what the golden rule was, and she told me this (I'm paraphrasing for brevity):

Rule #1: If you leave your place before the convened time, you're not late.

Rule #2: If it's not too late to change the time, change it so you go back to Rule #1

The concept of “not too late” is arrogantly loose, and of course subject to wind, hygrometry, the age of the captain and the alignment of certain planets. Interestingly, I connected this frame of mind with this article. I have to admit that I was stunned by the practice, even though I had already experienced, like many of you I'm sure, my flight being delayed, leaving late and yet arriving on time. I had never connected the dots. I suspect my friend who is always late believes this to be true for her too.

But I can't really hold a grudge against her, she always has fantastic ideas and feeds my passionate hatred for poodles. She pointed out that poodles were dangerous for society, and even though I detest the pathetic beast I suggested they weren't that dangerous compared to other breeds. But she didn't mean the rather harmless and pitiful-looking maltipoo (yes, that's a thing and apparently the apex of cuteness: a cross-breed between a poodle and a Maltese dog. To think the Maltese is already enough to make the most seasoned seaman sick...I shudder at the thought), she rather meant this. I like how someone bent over backwards to make the acronym fit both something apparently harmless – as if poodles weren't savage monstrosities clad in white wool – and a malignant exploit in the Internet/software to reveal encrypted messages. Or perhaps this person knew how malevolent poodles can be.

While I was waiting for her, not having expected the second bout of lateness, I took my e-reader out and started rea– nope, because people are people, and some are better at it than others. Take those who listen to their phone, but they put the speaker to their ear, the phone horizontal. And then flip the phone to their mouth and yell something unintelligible to the recipient and to everyone around. And to those who try to read. Them people should get a damn headset, because they sure look beyond-word stupid.

Considering I wouldn't be able to read, I then took my notepad and thought to myself: “Sure people, we can play this. I'll observe and you'll be you. Not that my spleen will like it, but my pen shall bask in the absurdity of it all.” Like: I wonder how some people can still take pictures with iPads. And how selfie sticks for iPads still aren't a thing. Obviously, if the fad were to have died out it would've been ages ago. There's a niche in the market, and people shilly-shally about it. Come on, how hard can it be, in this age of carbon nanotubes?

I proceeded to notice a pattern which I had already jotted down, and which I saw repeated right before my eyes: some people sneeze but they say 'achoo' right after the sneeze. You're supposed to make the sound as you sneeze, not say the sound after you foolishly tried to stifle the sneeze in. That's the whole point of an onomatopoeia, and you seem quite adamant in trying to defeat its purpose. Especially since you failed, and perhaps your instinct knows better as you really could hurt your tympanums doing this. Here's what can happen). And it's downright nonsensical to do so – both stifling the sneeze and saying achoo after sneezing. People, le sigh.

You can tell I was already passably irritated. My friend was nowhere in sight, and she was twenty-five minutes late. So I observed further, fed the fire raging inside, watching those couples, those groups of friends, or businessmen with their clients...who refuse to walk in single-file in narrow corridors or on on pavements. Pretty much like escalator-clogging people. Not that I'm rushing all the time, but I know some people are so I have the courtesy to make way for that one time when I need to rush myself. I mulled and decided that this obnoxious was still better than those deserve-a-good-slap people who stop short while walking, especially in busy areas. And then getting all cranky because they're being shoved in. But then they realise that there's this massive wave of people surging their way, so they suddenly shut up. Next time, effing walk on. But some of them don't, and don't even realise that they are in the way. They just stop. Some people do deserve the juggernaut, sometimes [insert grinning devil emoji].

 

Windworse

"Bad weather always looks worse through a window."

Tom Lehrer (b. 1928), mathematician, singer, songwriter, pianist.

There's a few good things to unpack from this quote. At first you may think he's only referring to the feeling of security one has when the storm, whether literal or metaphorical, hits the fan. But you could also see it has: "You can still go out, it's not as bad as you think it is...and we all have to weather storms."

Alternitavely, you could say that the window (which is a form of lens) distorts the bad weather outside (the real world) and remaining snugly into your comfort zone gives you a false sense of security.

Or you could see it as an invitation to come dance in the rain :)

To round it all up, Lehrer is the one who said: "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." So darn funny and true, and still relevant today.

Here's the Wikiquote to have a good laugh, he definitely was the quotable type :)

Square Point²

Today, I stumbled upon this quote: "There are two ways to slide easily through life: to believe everything or to doubt everything; both ways save us from thinking."
Theodore Rubin, psychiatrist and writer (1923-2019).


While I do not know the context for this quote, I do know its origin. It's from Henri Poincaré's La Science et l'Hypothèse (1901): "Douter de tout ou tout croire, ce sont deux solutions également commodes, qui l'une et l'autre nous dispensent de réfléchir." Translated to "To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection." It's often be re-quoted (adapted) but I feel that taken out of its context it doesn't say quite the same thing. Here's a bit of context:

"Quand on a un peu plus réfléchi, on a aperçu la place tenue par l’hypothèse ; on a vu que le mathématicien ne saurait s’en passer et que l’expérimentateur ne s’en passe pas davantage. Et alors, on s’est demandé si toutes ces constructions étaient bien solides et on a cru qu’un souffle allait les abattre. Être sceptique de cette façon, c’est encore être superficiel. Douter de tout ou tout croire, ce sont deux solutions également commodes, qui l’une et l’autre nous dispensent de réfléchir

Au lieu de prononcer une condamnation sommaire, nous devons donc examiner avec soin le rôle de l’hypothèse ; nous reconnaîtrons alors, non seulement qu’il est nécessaire, mais que le plus souvent il est légitime. Nous verrons aussi qu’il y a plusieurs sortes d’hypothèses, que les unes sont vérifiables et qu’une fois confirmées par l’expérience, elles deviennent des vérités fécondes ; que les autres, sans pouvoir nous induire en erreur, peuvent nous être utiles en fixant notre pensée, que d’autres enfin ne sont des hypothèses qu’en apparence et se réduisent à des définitions ou à des conventions déguisées."


Here's the English version:
"But upon more mature reflection the position held by hypothesis was seen; it was recognised that it is as necessary to the experimenter as it is to the mathematician. And then the doubt arose if all these constructions are built on solid foundations. The conclusion was drawn that a breath would bring them to the ground. This sceptical attitude does not escape the charge of superficiality. To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection

Instead of a summary condemnation we should examine with the utmost care the rôle of hypothesis; we shall then recognise not only that it is necessary, but that in most cases it is legitimate. We shall also see that there are several kinds of hypotheses; that some are verifiable, and when once confirmed by experiment become truths of great fertility; that others may be useful to us in fixing our ideas; and finally, that others are hypotheses only in appearance, and reduce to definitions or to conventions in disguise."
Here's the Wikisource to both texts (there's a link for the English translation on the left-hand side).


One could be tempted to disagree with Monsieur Poincaré, but he meant "to doubt" in the French way "douter de" almost means "to discard", to set aside as not being relevant, not being true or believable. He valued the importance of the hypothesis, which is a way of clearing the factual doubts which you may have regarding one postulate. But one could still be doubting this as a scientist shouldn't discard a doubt because he doesn't believe in it. Doubts should remain in the realm of facts, not in the realm of personal judgement or appreciation. Another important element in this regard is "This sceptical attitude does not escape the charge of superficiality" (which in my opinion is over-translated, as the idea is simply "To be skeptical in this way is to be superficial still"). To be skeptical for the sake of doubting isn't a scientific way to process an argument. In this sense, doubting isn't the right way forward, yet in the way he initally phrased it, and which is relatively absent when the quote is detached from its context, doubting something scientifically, putting the idea to the test to clear or confirm doubts, is positive, and scientific.

I don't think that explaining the 'believing' aspect of the quote is necessary, yet one could see the relevance of juxtaposing the two ideas: believing everything is bad in itself, as you don't question and can be blinded by personal agendas, or the spite of some disohnest people. Doubting everything is equally bad...if you continue doubting even after being given solid arguments to make your own idea. If you doubt positively, it can lead you to a wider frame of mind, to greater acceptance. Doubting doesn't dispense with the necessity of reflection, it entails it.

Doubt for doubt's sake, meh.
Belief for belief's sake, meh.

I hope I cleared the doubt that you didn't know was there :)