Do You Feel Lucky?

(and feel free to comment! My older posts are certainly no less relevant to the burning concerns of the day.)

Monday, September 30, 2013

Blade Runner. Any Version: Deckard a Replicant?

To me it makes the movie weaker and stupider. It pretty much ruins the central redemptive act moment in the movie, when Roy shows mercy and saves his human enemy's life. It shows the human (Deckard) that maybe humanity has become less human (or: more inhuman) than these beings they treat like disposable tools.

Roy is a warrior, and he tried as hard as he could to win his fight - taking no prisoners and sparing no sacrifice. But now, with no chance left to win and nothing left to gain, he proves himself capable of mercy towards his inhumanly pitiless enemy. In terms of human qualities of mercy, compassion - Roy ultimately proves himself a better man than the actual man. "'More human than human' is our motto." - Dr. Eldon Tyrell. Indeed.

Absent that distance - Deckard for humanity, versus Roy as a replicant - if its just robot vs. robot, the film's climax becomes a juvenile M. Night Shyamalan "ooo we're all robots" "sci fi" "plot twist" - a twist that isn't remotely interesting, compared to what richness you lose in terms of the film's themes.

But even if you like the twist, or even if the themes mean nothing - just in terms of the film's story, Deckard being a replicant makes no sense. Based on what we're shown in the film, Deckard is considerably less durable, less fast and strong than any of the replicants. He's not remotely comparable, physically, to what Tyrell Corp has been putting out since four years ago. If he's a replicant, he's no Nexus 6. Or else he's a deliberately weak, slow and fragile Nexus 6. But why would the cops expect a substandard skin job to be able to air out Roy Batty, superhuman and of genius intellect? Plus his fearsome off-world kick-murder corps? "Oh we gave him jaded blade runner memories and a noir sensibility...that'll even the odds." Is this the sort of hunch cops in any hard-bitten universe will play?

If he's a human being, it makes damn good sense. The cops drafted him because, well, he's the motherfuckin' blade runner. Best there ever was at airing out skin jobs. He's got the magic, his killer instinct (retirer instinct?) has proven superior to any replicant ever made. But even though Deckard's the best, that special magic guy, it's also clear that blade running is a duty that human detectives are fit for. Or was Holden a replicant, too? Is Gaff a replicant? Maybe everybody's a replicant! "Ooooooooooo," but thanks, I don't think so. Being a blade runner is a shit job, but so is most police duty. Boss cop can assign a detective to do shit job. They bring in Deckard because he's known to be good at it. They expect him to deliver or die trying. Either way, that's a bulletproof plan. If he dies, he dies. Big deal, cops aren't any worse off. He was little people anyway, they'll assign whoever's left to the next lucky detective. But they have good reason to hope Deckard can retire at least a few of these rogues. It does make sense to bring Deckard in - if he's a human.

Now. Suppose Deckard's not a real, human, expert, lucky-touch blade runner. How could bringing in a replicant, especially a faulty, weak replicant, and tricking it into thinking it *IS* a blade runner help the cops? Worst case now is Deckard goes off the reservation, and you have another replicant running free! You've made your problem worse not better.

Deckard being human is the only way it makes sense the cops might make the call to let them both go - him and Rachael, both. Bryant and Gaff surely know he's utterly lost his taste for the business by now, but he's an ex-colleague. He held up his end. He got rid of the only replicants who stood to cause trouble. Bryant and Gaff look the other way because they know Rachael's no more a threat in Deckard's care than she was in Tyrell's.

If Deckard were a replicant, why would he even be allowed to leave the scene after Batty's death? It clearly wasn't so he could go kill Rachael.

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Tips on Domesticity #8: Try Good Habits!

It's important to keep your house in order. Orderly, and hopefully part of that order is cleanliness! For goals like these, nothing beats a plan but sometimes, oft even, plans gang agley. They just do.

So what do we fall back on? Good habits. My friend, sometimes you just can't put that failsafe five phase clean the whole place masterplan into operation. Time constraints, laziness, or procrastination (that magic moment where laziness can turn any amount of time into "shit! A time constraint!"), it doesn't matter what gets in the way. Point is, you can't launch the operation.

But so what? Establish good habits, and you won't slide far off the mark. Example: I make a habit of mopping the kitchen floor every time I get distracted while starting a sinkful of dishes. Try to find natural habits like these, that practically suggest themselves as this follows that! Cultivate those habits, and soon you'll find you're halfway to ahead of the game by the time you can launch operation full-on clean house.

Hell, enough good habits in the rotation, you may never have to. Now if you'll excuse me, I'd better go mop the floor. And get started on those dishes!

A load of towels.

I hate doing towels. I hate doing towels! It's like a wasted load of laundry. There's nothing in there for you to wear!

It doesn't increase the availability of your wardrobe.

I mean, it's not like you can be getting ready to go out, "Man! Nothing's clean - oh sweet a towel!"

I mean, I guess you could go out that. But people will consider you pretty much open season, fashion criticism wise. Come on, a towel? You might have to admit that's even worse than non-exercise sweatpants! Certain people, they feel that for certain of your choices, they have every right to point, and offer a critique. Well do they? Do they have the right?

Yeah, they do. You went outside, so they do. Grow up and do the laundry, and if you still have nothing suitable - why not try Ross? That's where I got this shirt! Also pretty much all my towels.

Yeah, yeah, I know the towels need to be done. The luxury of a beautiful fluffy warm clean towel, fresh out of the shower, buffing your nude skin all rosy - beat that for luxury! Of course, that's the reason why we do towels.

But in terms of how we principally conceive laundry - as a process and a ritual, almost spiritual, almost miraculous, that renews and redeems what we've worn, and returns it to us as if like new...!

You have to admit a load of towels leaves you feel short-changed on that score.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Dreamt Of In Your Philosophy

To quote Horatio, "There's more stuff going on than that philosophy of yours, buddy!"

That's my pal, Horatio. He's a straight shooter, but a bit pretentious.

Antiarchy Take 2: Shorter, But Still Far Too Long

I'm not saying I'm against anarchy? But it's a horrible system.

Stop laughing. It really is. An anarchist is - look, I'm not going into Greek and Latin roots, here. I'm no scholar, and it shouldn't be necessary. We know how these words are used. Whatever the antecedents and etymologies, today at least it's clear (clear enough, to me at least) that -archy is rule. And it's a pretty good bet that -ocracy is some kind of system of government.

Etymologies are more amusing than educational. Often, etymology serves to remind us how little past meaning pertains to their present common and accepted usage. History is sheer trivia, empty of value, save for its much-bruited and threatened-of-repetition "lessons" - every trite and rote fucking one of which exists abundantly apart from and are fully seperate from it.

But let's focus on meaning, huh? We come near the crux.

Anarchy pretty much opposes rule and systems of government alike: "An-" meaning: none, or the absence of; make no bones these people want none of governance. They want the absence of it. They want to end it. Abolish it! Whether it may come in the form of an -archy or an -ocracy (and I'd be interested in talking to an anocracist! I suspect he or she would be fun to talk to, and confused on key points), the anarchist is going to tear down the system or the ruler, whichever is attempting governance.

Now an -archy, pretty clearly, need not involve a system at all. Witness monarchy - in its classic formulation, monarchy is a rule by one supreme potentate, and while perhaps descent by right line to the potentate's heirs, in order, is not inherent in the concept, it's damn sure inherent in the concept of Darwinism. Supreme power is a supremely powerful adaptive trait, after all! It will certainly increase that bastard king's competitive advantage and opportunities to breed, should the king so choose. Supreme power is heavily selected for, in Darwinian terms. The king's genes are going to benefit! At least, assuming the king doesn't bollix up the inherent power benefit by mucking around in his own gene pool. But even that is a direct result of attempts to consolidate power and consolidate conferred benefit onto one's own genes - whether present in one's own genome, or one's kin and/or mate's genome.

With these kinds of suspect practices going around, it's no wonder these anarchists can't stand oligarchs, potentates, hegemonies, tyrannies, hell. I bet some anarchists are even against paradigms. Almost all of models-of-rule are subject to a lot of the same kinds of temptations and power perversions, albeit each in altered form.

What's not clear is whether the anarchist's solution is going to work at all, let alone create improved conditions. The anarchist seeks to abolish rule entirely, and substitute some kind of voluntary commonhood of man or (hopefully, one hopes) man and woman, or better put men, women and whoever else, all together now with solidarity in common cause, for common weal and against the demagogues! Vigilant for and ruthless towards the tyrants that may arise, who seek to appeal to, put fear to and otherwise subvert and convert the power base (which of course shifts at the whim of the consent of the governed). Seduce the body politic to the support of the tyrant's and demagogue's aims. Their goals. Their programs. Their power.

The anarchist wants to destroy that power.

And that's just absurd. It's impossible to destroy the actual power, and futile to attempt to destroy its structures. There must needs be effective mechanisms to channel and wield said power, or else the power is rendered impotent, wasted, dormant - but not neutralized, no! It is made more dangerous. That power remains coiled, ready to lash and buckle like an earthquake the moment it is finally marshalled and aroused! Power lying around without structure or restraint or check or balance or system to direct and use it is as deadly as an unfallen avalanche. So easy to touch off - so ready and waiting to be whipped up, and sent roaring in any direction, for a talented demagogue. For a tyrant. Why can not power be destroyed?

Power consists entirely in the consent of the governed. Didn't you know?

In practice, anarchy seems to devote its energies to railing against rule, against power structures, calling for it all to be torn down, so that only then can anarchy be tried. This seems like a bit much to ask. I don't know; you tell me. Maybe I'm missing a stitch, but the anarchist's seeming real target, the anarchist's real object of vitriol seems - not power, so much as the perversion of power; not rule, so much as systemic misrule. To combat these evils seems a slam-dunk great good, doesn't it? To go beyond such combat of abuse, to seek past exposure of and opposition to corruption and rectification of error, and make the destruction of innocent structures one's aim - innocent if used well, I mean! And in any case, surely open to good use, and amenable to improvement? This call to needless excess, bereft of benefit and chock-full of evident cost and risk, seems not only dangerous, but childish in a person with any education. To which nearly all anarchists seem to at least pretend.

Anarchists are dipshits, plain and simple. Either that, or the given anarchist defines their aims or stance in a way that does not seek to abolish rule, or to abolish all power structures - as if the high call of Anarchy could be satisfied by "Let's abolish only some power structures!" It's true some anarchists do call for this sort of thing...and they call themselves anarchists. Shameful. Those anarchists are less dipshits than pussies. They should rather find a new word to describe this much softer stance, instead of undermining so shining and idealistic a badge as anarchy. Wot?

Which is why I'm an Antiarchist. Or if the governed prefer, an Antiarch.

Rule must be opposed. We must cut at its path at every turn, not hampering it, so much as slashing it where it hurts. I mean where it hurts progress. Where it hurts weal. Where it harms human dignity. Cut it there - and cut that part off, be it finger, hand, eye or head, yet - recognize it will grow back instantly! And you must expect the next replacement finger, hand, eye, head on the way may be worse. Or it may be better, but that vacuum will not last. And you may therefore need to direct the next in your neverending series of swift strikes to a different spot! As the electorate pulses and continues to spew new parts into the towering golem of Government Embodied, whom you've just more or less, well, cut down to size, or cut in to shape, or cut to suit, you may suddenly start, and stop. And recognize. You may suddenly see something in it that is worth not merely a pause in the attack, but a wary respect. You may lower your blade, snap a stance and salute - with upraised fist. For the thing now fits its purpose. Its purpose was always worthy. Our foe is not governance, but those who rule. The worst will turn to misrule when they sense their public is no worthy opponent for them.

To paraphrase The Tick, I don't want to stop rule. I want to fight it.

Spoon.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Found My Political Position: Antiarchy.

I'm not saying I'm against anarchy? But it's a horrible system.

Stop laughing. It really is. An anarchist is - look, I'm not going into Greek and Latin roots, here. I'm no scholar, and it shouldn't be necessary. We know how these words are used. Whatever the antecedents and etymologies, today at least it's clear (clear enough, to me at least) that -archy is rule. And it's a pretty good bet that -ocracy is some kind of system of government. I mean to be clear here: I couldn't give a shit what the etymologies were. These are amusing, not educational. Etymology is trivial and of no real utility to meaning! We've seen meaning often enough flip a bitch 180 degrees, right in the middle of a word's history. Etymology doesn't even pretend to aid meaning! All it does is give one a certain appreciation of how little the past meaning of many words pertains to their present common and accepted usage.

Fun stuff, though! For sure. It enriches the appreciation of language, much as a VH1 behind-the-artist profile may - in the view of people who have an appalling idea of the permanent and transcendent value and importance of a masterwork - enhance the appreciation of some work or body of music, for instance, produced by that profiled artist. As if the artist can possibly be anything like as important as the permanent and enduring masterwork! We know what a "masterwork" is. Masterwork status is strictly contingent upon said work's proved and continuing permanence. Status reviewed indefinitely, status revocable instantly upon irrelevance. I hope you people do know what art is. It ain't that shit made out of sticks and scraps they dig out of archaelogical sites. That's "folk art," but I digress.

Which brings us back to history. History is sheer trivia, nothing more. Empty of value, save for its much-bruited and threatened-of-repetition "lessons" - every trite and rote fucking one of which exists abundantly apart from and are fully seperate from it. History is trivia. And trivia is fun. But let's focus on meaning, huh? Meaning lives now, and these usages are apt. We were talking about anarchy; please focus.

We come near the crux.

Anarchy pretty much opposes rule and systems of government alike: "An-" meaning: none, or the absence of; make no bones these people want none of governance. They want the absence of it. They want to end it. Abolish it! Whether it may come in the form of an -archy or an -ocracy (and I'd be interested in talking to an anocracist! I suspect he or she would be fun to talk to, and confused on key points), the anarchist is going to tear down the system or the ruler, whichever is attempting governance.

Now an -archy, pretty clearly, need not involve a system at all. Witness monarchy - in its classic formulation, monarchy is a rule by one supreme potentate, and while perhaps descent by right line to the potentate's heirs, in order, is not inherent in the concept, it's damn sure inherent in the concept of Darwinism. Supreme power is a supremely powerful adaptive trait, after all! It will certainly increase that bastard king's competitive advantage and opportunities to breed, should the king so choose. Supreme power is heavily selected for, in Darwinian terms. The king's genes are going to benefit! At least, assuming the king doesn't bollix up the inherent power benefit by mucking around in his own gene pool. But even that is a direct result of attempts to consolidate power and consolidate conferred benefit onto one's own genes - whether present in one's own genome, or one's kin and/or mate's genome.

With these kinds of suspect practices going around, it's no wonder these anarchists can't stand oligarchs, potentates, hegemonies, tyrannies, hell. I bet some anarchists are even against paradigms. Almost all of models-of-rule are subject to a lot of the same kinds of temptations and power perversions, albeit each in altered form. What's not clear is that the anarchist's solution is going to work at all, let alone create improved conditions. The anarchist seeks to abolish rule entirely, and substitute some kind of voluntary commonhood of man or (hopefully, one hopes) man and woman, or better put men, women and whoever else, all together now with solidarity in common cause, for common weal and against the demagogues! Vigilant for and ruthless towards the tyrants that may arise, who seek to appeal to, put fear to and otherwise subvert and convert the power base (which of course shifts at the whim of the consent of the governed). Seduce the body politic to the support of the tyrant's and demagogue's aims. Their goals. Their programs. Their power.

The anarchist wants to destroy that power.

And that's just absurd. It's impossible to destroy the actual power, and futile to attempt to destroy its structures. There must needs be effective mechanisms to channel and wield said power, or else the power is rendered impotent, wasted, dormant - but not neutralized, no! It is made more dangerous. That power remains coiled, ready to lash and buckle like an earthquake the moment it is finally marshalled and aroused! Power lying around without structure or restraint or check or balance or system to direct and use it is as deadly as an unfallen avalanche. So easy to touch off - so ready and waiting to be whipped up, and sent roaring in any direction, for a talented demagogue. For a tyrant. Why can not power be destroyed?

Power consists entirely in the consent of the governed. Didn't you know?

In practice, anarchy seems to devote its energies to railing against rule, against power structures, calling for it all to be torn down, so that only then can anarchy be tried. This seems like a bit much to ask. I don't know; you tell me. Maybe I'm missing a stitch, but the anarchist's seeming real target, the anarchist's real object of vitriol seems - not power, so much as the perversion of power; not rule, so much as systemic misrule. To combat these evils seems a slam-dunk great good, doesn't it? And I'll add this: to go beyond such combat of abuse, and exposure of and opposition to error, to seek to destroy innocent structures - innocent if used well, I mean! And in any case, surely open to improvement? This call to needless excess bereft of benefit and chock-full of evident cost and risk seems not only dangerous, but childish in a person with any education. To which nearly all anarchists seem to pretend - or do they not? Anarchists are dipshits, plain and simple. Either that, or the given anarchist defines their aims or stance in a way that does not seek to abolish rule, or to abolish all power structures - as if the high call of Anarchy could be satisfied by "Let's abolish only some power structures!" It's true some anarchists do call for this sort of thing...and they call themselves anarchists. For shame. Such anarchists are merely pussies, rather than dipshits. They should rather find a new word to describe this much softer stance, instead of undermining so shining and idealistic a badge as anarchy. Wot?

That's why I'm an Antiarchist. Or if the governed prefer, an Antiarch. Rule must be opposed, cut at its path every turn, not hampering it so much as slashing it where it hurts. I mean where it hurts progress. Where it hurts weal. Where it harms human dignity. Cut it there - and cut that part off, be it finger, hand, eye or head, yet - recognize it will grow back instantly! And you must expect the next replacement finger, hand, eye, head on the way may be worse or it may be better. And you may therefore need to direct the next in your neverending series of swift strikes to a different spot! As the electorate pulses and continues to spew new parts into the towering golem of Government Embodied, whom you've just more or less, well, cut down to size, or cut in to shape, or cut to suit, you may suddenly start, and stop. And recognize. You may suddenly see something in it that is worth not merely a pause in the attack, but a wary respect. You may lower your blade, snap a stance and salute - with upraised fist. For the thing now fits its purpose: and its purpose was always worthy.

To paraphrase The Tick, I don't want to stop rule. I want to fight it.

Spoon.

Monday, September 23, 2013

Comparisons are odorous

If I were to say all human opinion has equal weight, that could explain why those who truck in bullshit typically dispense a good-sized pile, whereas gold is dispensed by the nugget.

Confidence

I don't have secrets, only confidences.

A confidence is what happens between two people, and doesn't happen to be anybody else's business. The default thought here is, what would be the reason to tell this? Or, if questioned directly on it: questioner! What is your claim on this knowledge, again? If idle curiosity, then I don't mind declining. Your innocent question was only idle curiosity, after all! How could you mind my respectful decline? After all, there are no "too personal" questions, only a too personal answer - but that would be the answerer's fault. They were asked, not coerced. The principle "grow up" applies.

Now, if there's a reason cited - okay! Let's weigh our options and the first is, I'll be happy to tell person A that you're asking, that the reason you give (which I'll share) seems reasonable to me, and that I'm going to tell you. Unless of course person A has a strong and specific suggestion, such as "I just don't care for it. That reason doesn't seem very compelling to me."

Which of course ends up in an impasse, where I have to go back "hey buddy - no dice. You're welcome to ask her yourself?"

In practice I don't end up with any conflicts of interest, I find.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Approaches To Question-Answering Masterclass. #1: "Would You Have Sex With Me?"

"Well, at the end of the day, the answer to every question that starts 'Would You' would have to be yes. Because unspecified, 'Would You' encompasses a quantum infinitude continuum of every conceivable hypothetical - and you can't fight those! That would be 'fighting the hypothetical.' That's not quite a logical fallacy, but it's definitely not done. So one must concede, at the end of the day one would have to admit the answer to your question 'Would You Have Sex With Me' would be: 'Yes. I would.'

Under certain conditions, you understand. Whatever those may be - surely there are throughout all the possible universes of possibility, certain conditions wherein I would have sex with you. Just as an easy for instance, suppose we were living in a universe where you were a very skilled, very accomplished rapist. Then let's assume you do a thorough job, stalk, lie in wait, pounce - you got me! Incapacitated, there you go. Under those conditions, certainly, there I'd be, having sex with you. It's clear that would be the case. A very unpleasant example, but to illustrate a point sometimes you have to rig the conditions so that people can see, oh, yeah, okay, there are conditions where that could happen. Awful, horrible conditions.

It's actually very cool and useful to be able to inhabit the hypothetical! Once you can fully throw yourself into any worst-case scenario, you end up quite hopeful and optimistic about regular, actual life. Also, you pretty thoroughly figure out what you'd do in those scenarios. So you're pretty much ready-as-you'll-ever-be, just in case. And bonus - you're not really worried, right?! It's not gonna happen - right?

BOO YAH! SO WHAT IF IT DID!? You're prepared! See how that works? There's literally no downside! It's seriously, probably, almost surely not going to happen, but if it did, so what; you're set, see? Because you already know what you'd do. Or at least, you know what angle of attack is your best-laid plan. And sure, we all know how those tend to work out, but who cares - are you a child? Yes, we all know life's a bitch, yawn, nobody's invincible, tell me another story like that, grandpa. Point is: to be able to fully inhabit a hypothetical is a fearsome and masterful talent to have, with arguably, no conceivable downside. It's a skill to cultivate, if you can. Tends to just puncture the hell out of the dread of whatever posited inevitables or far-fetched dreadfuls you might have handy. That's a side tip.

To wrap up our main point, and to answer the question, definitively and for this universe, please. Let's cut out the chase here, ok? Ready for this? Ready for the real, real-world answer? Here it is, with neither further ado nor apologies.

It's not the end of the day. Ok? It's a very long damn way from the end of the day.

The correct answer is 'No,' and for my own personal preference, I'd follow it up with some sincere and relevant-to-the-asker remark about how complimented I am."

Coming up on next week's edition of Approaches To Question-Answering Masterclass: "Are You For Real Or What?"

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Get The Flag Out Of The Pledge.

You know what's seriously fucking weird? The idea of pledging allegiance to a flag. Yes, of course they do add in the "...and to the Republic for which it stands," but why even put the flag in there at all? Who cares, the flag. Piece of cloth! I mean, it's old, and it's glorious, I KNOW. I love the thing, myself - I'm a lover of banners, sigils and symbols! And the power they have to carry meaning. I love that! But to pledge allegiance to it? It's a bizarre thing.

Swearing an oath to protect or uphold the Constitution, now, that's a pledge with some fucking meaning to it! The Constitution does more than stand for something. It enumerates rights. It lays down guarantees. It's a sheet of paper, maybe, but its words pin down what is best and to the greatest benefit of all - it is an anchor, not a pennant. It doesn't just flap in the breeze. To pledge allegiance to a FLAG? ABSURD!! Might was well say, "I pledge allegiance to Air Force One, to Mount Rushmore and the Lincoln Memorial, and to the Repulic with which these things are generally associated..." WHO DOES THIS? Who pledges allegiance to a symbol? Far more meaningfully these days, in a cynical sense we might indeed stand with hand on heart, and declare: "I pledge allegiance to the Almighty Buck, and to the Republic by whose full faith and credit it is backed..."

You know? You know what I'm saying? Are people feeling me on this one? Just flip the two, and see how dumb it sounds to even bother to include the flag in there. "I pledge allegiance to the Republic of the United States of America, and...also to the flag, which is used to represent it visually..." What does that add? What does that add?

The flag does NOT belong in the pledge.

Look, even if you want to say "Hey buddy, the use of flag here is pretty clearly intended as metonymy" - nice try! You're still so off-base, there, you might as well be trying to play cricket on a basketball court. THAT is how off-base you are - FIGURATIVELY. Because if it's true what you say, that the flag is clearly meant as metonymy, then the shout out to the Republic is just-as-clearly redundant.

Monday, September 16, 2013

Fantasy Football Epiphanies #1

OH MY GOD

"FANTASY FOOTBALL" TAKES PIECES OF ALL DIFFERENT TEAMS AND COMBINES THEM TOGETHER INTO A PASTICHE.

IT SHOULD BE CALLED COLLAGE FOOTBALL.

Best and worst thing about that is, I can't even Google to confirm whether others have previously had this "epiphany." Because apparently, there are approximately umptybajillion instances of people who are fans of college football - football teams fielded by and representing institutions of higher learning - yet these fans can't spell "college."

There's something kind of funny about that.

Found My Philosophy! Literalism.

Let's try this out. Literalism's not commonly described as a philosophy, but I think it could be and in fact, I think it's mine. Check me on this. The Oxford Dictionary of American English defines literalism as:

n. the interpretation of words in their most usual or basic sense, without allowing for metaphor or exaggeration. 2. literal or nonidealistic interpretation in literature or art.

Sorry, I couldn't find my American Heritage. Had to settle for the ol' built-in Oxford American - but the above seems a solid, perfectly serviceable definition to me.

What, then, is a philosophy? In its most usual or basic sense, I believe a philosophy is a system that lays out how one should best approach reality, or how one should best live life.

Literalism as a philosophy, then, is simply to adopt a literalist attitude towards not so much a word, nor art, nor literature, but towards life itself. As a strategy, the Literalist chooses to not "read in" to people's actions and words, but rather to first and foremost accept them at face value. To proceed as if people mean to communicate clearly - to proceed as if people are sincere, and mean you to know they are sincere. Certainly, it is a fundamental requirement of Literalism to question, where there is doubt as to the literal meaning! But it is no part of Literalism to ask a straight question, get a straight answer and then deny it is possible the answer is true.

To adopt Literalism as your preferred system for engaging in reality, for living life, you assume clarity is the goal, and not duplicity. You make a decision to interpret the words and actions of others using the most usual, most straightforward, most basic sense. I mean basic here like Lloyd fucking Dobler basic. Literalism is not naivete. It is a willful decision to risk one's trust, for so long as enough doubt remains to make trust possible. To make the choice not to assume and project all manner of ulterior, nefarious motives on the words and actions of others - even after being hurt.

How is this your best approach, exactly? Because these projections and assumptions of maliciousness are things you can hardly be certain of anyway. They rarely end up settling on the real culprit prior to the damage done. They usually, finally take the form of bitter cynicism, skepticism and doubts about humanity in general. Such vague and vaguely directed doubt and mistrust can not help or protect you. It will almost certainly deprive you of the beautiful renewal of human connection, far more than it ever saves you from hurt. The Literalist is well aware that some people are dirtbags, but as a Literalist, I choose to accept the person in front of me as, in principle at least, not a dirtbag. And I act on that principle: best efforts, good faith, unless and until it's clear that the principle has in fact been violated. Not by suspicion, not by doubt, not by distrust, but by actual dirtbaggery.

How is this my best approach, again? Because if instead I assume in principle that you could be or most likely are a dirtbag, and I found my approach to you on that, the amount of real protection this affords me is negligible. But what I miss out on is the size of the entire universe behind your eyes, which only you've seen and which only you can describe, and which I will never now get to know.

Anybody who thinks that last part was metaphor or exaggeration...step off. Who'd you think you're talking to, here.

Monday, September 02, 2013

I'm pretty sure this is now how my tsatsiki recipe goes.

It's been worked on a lot, over the years, but this gave the killer result so let me get it down.

Ingredients:

*Four lbs. of yogurt, drained. I use a coffee-filter lined colander.
*One foot-long seedless English cucumber, peeled (the skin), then shaved using the same vegetable peeler (rotate, cutting away like sharpening a crayon), then chop the pile of shaved cucumber - pretty coarse, you just don't want any huge long shavings.
* garlic. Nine cloves. One of the cloves can be a small one if you prefer less. Crushed, then chopped coarse to fine, depending on your preference.
* fresh mint, about ten to twelve leaves
* fresh dill, about three to four sprigs' worth. Just use the dilly bits. Strip out the stems.
* dried mint & dried dill - a good two-three pinches of each, spread right over the pile of fresh dill and mint leaves, then chop the whole pile of fresh and dried herbs together finely.
* olive oil, four tablespoons
* lemon juice, three tablespoons
* white vinegar, two tablespoons
* salt. Some, but not too much. A decent amount.

Directions:

In a large bowl, combine.

Use as a sauce for grilled meats, as a dip for dippy items (pita bread triangles - a classic application). It also makes a nice salad dressing, but that's kind of weird.

The Four Principles of Right Professionalism (Revised)

1. Assume a commonality of interest that benefits both, and act towards it.

2. Accept that the best possible motive or interpretation of another's words or actions may be the true motive or interpretation, and act accordingly.

3. Question as need be. Ask only honest questions. An honest question is one for which you are prepared to accept more than your own answer.

As you can see, there's really only three of them. It was originally laid out as foundation, interpretation, question, action - later on it got up to as many as five or six points, but I think it works best as laid out here, with action tied to foundation, and with action tied to interpretation. There was originally a point about sincerity, about accepting the other may believe what they say is true - really this falls under point #2.

Also, it's kind of a joke to call these principles of Professionalism, at this point. They work even better for life in the encounters where you're not getting paid.