The Social Spiral.

Yesterday, I wrote a bit about echo chambers, social networks and ant mills. I had a conversation with ChatGPT about it – if you can call it a conversation – and it told me that the equivalent of ant mills couldn’t exist in human society because humans think critically.

That seems like a hallucination. So I asked it if human critical thinking was in decline, and it gave me a list of pros and cons and did not take a side. It basically said, “You figure it out, moron, if you’re a critical thinker you should be fine.”

There seems to be an implicit assumption by large language models that we humans are smarter than we are in practice. I’m not going to say that humans are stupid, but I will say that humans do stupid things all the time and that what we call intelligence is pretty self-referential and easily gamed for the good of some.

The point, I suppose, is that ChatGPT communicates as high an opinion of humanity as humanity likes. That seems dangerous, but I’m ok with it handing out participation trophies to everyone because… well, because after some sleep, it became apparent to me that we’re all actually in the equivalent of an ant mill, except it incorporates elements of musical chairs.

Regardless of where we are on the planet these days, we are born into some culture and within some geopolitical line drawn sometime in the past, usually more than 100 years ago where 100 years is roughly 4 generations of humans. A lot changes in 100 years.

Within those geopolitical borders, there are these patterns as we grow as individuals. Education, work, procreation, death. Born into systems made generations ago in what hopefully made sense then, the systems don’t get updated too often and historians call them revolutions. Agricultural revolution. Industrial Revolution. People work less physically hard, but productivity is expected and productivity is pretty hard to define because it’s subjective. In this day and age, ‘productivity’ is almost always defined by someone else or something else.

And so we spiral around following each other, just going through the motions expected of us because to dare to think of another way would lead us from the spiral, away from where everyone else is.

People generally don’t like the spiral, so they gravitate to people they believe know a way out of the spiral and follow them, which explains why Donald Trump and Elon Musk have followers. These cults of personality persevere because the spiral sucks and, as oddball as they are, they are followed by those who hate the spirals enough that they are willing to put their own critical thought on hold because, really, the system sucks for a lot of people.

In the United States, who best represents the system? Presently, traditional Republicans and Democrats. Generations have seen what they have to offer, and that offer is at best shitty for most people, so when Trump comes along and shakes things up, the chance to get out of the spiral – however untrue – is attractive.

It seems like we’re seeing this a lot around the world. People don’t want to grind away in circles, but even the cults of personality that seem so attractive to some are just different spirals. All that needs to happen, really, is people stop following each other around and using their own critical thought – at least according to a generative artificial intelligence that thinks highly of we humans because we told it that it should.

We aren’t lost. We know exactly where we are because we’ve seen it all before on the last revolution, and it’s going to take more than funky hairstyles, speaking styles, and gravitas to get beyond it. It’s going to require substance, and just like the ant mill, all we have to do is be willing to blaze a new trail.

Now go off and think critically to help us get out of this spiral.

On Disagreement With Noam Chomsky’s Opinion On AI.

Recently Noam Chomsky‘s opinion on AI as published in the New York Times has been making the rounds again, and the arguments against what he wrote are… aspiring to juvenile when it comes to the comments sections.

While he’s probably best known for his social activism, Chomsky is one of the founders of cognitive science and is by no means someone whose opinions should be dismissed lightly.

I disagreed with him on Ukraine and unless his opinion has changed I still do. He seemed to be focused on the quantity of life, whereas in listening to Ukrainian voices I heard them more concerned about their quality of life. “Life free or die” could summarize what I was hearing, with their option of being annexed in any way or form being something that didn’t seem like something they were willing to do. And why should they?

The point is that when you’re disagreeing with someone who has certainly demonstrated a high level of thinking, it should be at least at a similar level of thinking.

In that regard, searching for a rebuttal to his points was sad. The top result on a Google search was Jon Cronin’s asking ChatGPT what it thought about it.

The answer itself was evasive and went to it’s talking points like a politician. It glossed over much of what he said.

This rebuttal, written by a human and found much lower in search rankings, is guilty of pretty much the same thing by ignoring the points raised and starting off with, “but it’s good for the global economy…”

Which, amusingly, is sort of Chomsky’s point – that in pushing this advance in technology, which he did not deny, the chasing of the bottom line is somehow supposed to make up for a lot of rubbish.

That’s kind of what got us here, and where this is isn’t that palatable for everyone. He also pointed out the deficiencies.

His points are valid, whether liked or not, and true. This is why I wrote ‘A Tale of Two AIs‘. In Chomsky’s opinion piece, he’s discussing the reality, and in every rebuttal I have read so far which includes ChatGPT’s response posted on a LinkedIn page (people still use it to post stuff!) is about how AI is being marketed.

It’s not a disagreement. It’s just trying to talk over the reality of what these generative models actually are… so far.

That’s not debate.

The Warrior-Philosopher

I like quotations, and on Facebook I’ve attentuated my stream as best I could to provide me with thoughtful quotations and other interesting stuff despite the troublesome algorithms.

A quote caused a little discussion.

No man can hope to become a good philosopher unless he has certain feelings which are not very common. He must have an intense desire to understand the world, as far as that is possible; and for the sake of understanding, he must be willing to overcome those narrownesses of outlook that make a correct perception impossible. He must learn to think and feel, not as a member of this or that group, but as just a human being. If he could, he would divest himself of the limitations to which he is subject as a human being.

Bertrand Russell, The Art of Philosophizing and other Essays, 1968.

It ends up that some of my friends view me as a philosopher, at least in this context, which I consider praise since I do want to understand the world, and I am willing to overcome the narrowness of outlook. I don’t really belong to any group as much as I orbit some. Of course, this quotation is powerful because to an extent we all see ourselves this way. Someone brought up ‘Warrior Philosopher’, and I pondered that. What does that mean? What is a warrior philosopher? As a writer, such characters would be interesting.

I dug around a bit in my mind of people who I would consider a warrior philosopher, which of course has my own bias in it. Some examples of warrior philosophers are:

  1. Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) – Roman Emperor and Stoic philosopher. He is best known for his work “Meditations,” which offers guidance on how to maintain composure, discipline, and a sense of ethics in the face of adversity. His reign and philosophical writings embody the Stoic virtues of wisdom, courage, and justice. As someone who considers himself somewhat of a Stoic, I do resonate with this personally.
  2. Sun Tzu (544–496 BC) – A Chinese general, military strategist, and author of “The Art of War,”1 a treatise on military strategy, tactics, and philosophy. His teachings have transcended military theory, influencing business tactics, legal strategy, lifestyles, and more.
  3. Miyamoto Musashi (1584–1645) – A famous Japanese swordsman, philosopher, strategist, and ronin. His book “The Book of Five Rings” (Go Rin no Sho) is a text on kenjutsu and the martial arts in general, but it also provides insights into a philosophical approach to conflict and strategy. He’s actually a personal favorite figure of mine.
  4. Arjuna (Epic Age of India) – A central character in the Indian epic Mahabharata. He was a skilled archer and warrior, and his philosophical discourse with Lord Krishna, which forms the basis of the Bhagavad Gita, addresses the moral and ethical dilemmas of warfare. I grew up in my teens exposed to Hinduism, and this was probably the most central part of it.
  5. King Leonidas of Sparta (c. 540-480 BC) – Although more known for his military leadership at the Battle of Thermopylae (300, the movie), Spartan culture emphasized a combination of physical excellence and intellectual education, and Leonidas, like many of his peers, would have been trained in philosophy as well as warfare.
  6. Al-Farabi (872–950 AD) – A renowned philosopher and jurist in the Islamic Golden Age who wrote extensively on political philosophy, metaphysics, and ethics. He was also known for his knowledge of music and its theory, showcasing a diverse set of intellectual pursuits.
  7. Yagyu Munenori (1571–1646) – A Japanese swordsman and founder of the Yagyu Shinkage-ryu school of swordsmanship. He served as a sword instructor and a military and political adviser to the Tokugawa shoguns. His works blend swordsmanship with Zen and Confucian philosophy.
  8. Gichin Funakoshi (1868–1957) – The founder of Shotokan Karate-do, viewed as a modern-day philosopher-warrior. He emphasized not only the physical aspects of martial arts but also the spiritual and ethical dimensions, advocating for Karate as a means of personal development.


Thus we can see parallels. A warrior philosopher, a figure combining the disciplines of martial prowess and deep philosophical understanding, would likely adhere to a set of tenets that balance physical strength, strategic acumen, and ethical or philosophical wisdom. These tenets could include:

  1. Discipline and Self-Control: Mastery over one’s own emotions and actions, maintaining composure in the heat of battle and in everyday life. One could even say grace.
  2. Courage and Bravery: Facing challenges head-on when necessary, both on the battlefield and in the pursuit of knowledge, without succumbing to fear or hesitation.
  3. Wisdom and Knowledge: Continual pursuit of understanding, both in martial arts and in the philosophical realms, seeking truth and deeper meanings in all experiences.
  4. Ethical Conduct and Integrity: Adhering to a strong moral code, treating others with respect, and maintaining honesty in all endeavors even when, and perhaps especially when, others aren’t aware.
  5. Strategic Thinking: Employing careful planning and foresight in all pursuits, understanding the broader implications of actions.
  6. Physical and Mental Endurance: Cultivating a strong body and mind to endure hardships, be it in battle or in the rigorous exploration of philosophical ideas.
  7. Compassion and Empathy: Recognizing the value of life and understanding the perspectives of others, both in warfare and in peace.
  8. Balance and Harmony: Striving for a balance between physical actions and mental beliefs, ensuring that one’s life is a reflection of one’s philosophy.
  9. Adaptability and Open-Mindedness: Being open to new ideas and adaptable to changing circumstances, both in combat tactics and in philosophical thought.
  10. Leadership and Responsibility: Taking responsibility for one’s actions and leading others by example, inspiring both courage in battle and thoughtful reflection in quieter times.

These tenets supposedly combine the virtues of a skilled warrior with the introspective depth of a philosopher, creating a holistic approach to life that values both action and contemplation. If we replace ‘combat’ with ‘confrontation’, we can see many more people around us every day that could qualify. Beware those that want to qualify.

What is perhaps most important about all of these figures is that they were capable of communicating their message not just by example but through the written word. In this way they left an indelible mark in their own ways, yet I didn’t add that in as a requirement because I have encountered people who fit the criteria yet don’t necessarily communicate further than their examples.

While writing all of this, I did note that we could possibly have Idiot Philosophers by the latter criteria, but I suppose that’s a nice post for another time.

  1. https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/132, free. ↩︎

Wit’s End, and the Prioritization of F*cks.

Sooner or later, we all end up at Wit’s End.

It’s generally a good thing thought it doesn’t feel that way. It means something has to change. It’s the rock bottom of a perspective.

It wasn’t long ago I had read, “The Subtle Art of Not Giving A F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach To Living A Good Life” by Mark Manson. I’m a little surprised I didn’t write about it since it jives so well with my own observations about life.

His follow up book, “Everything is F*cked“, also fit my own observations within my life.

It’s all about what one cares about. What one gives a f*ck about. It’s about priorities and how they impact our worldviews.

Thus, I was surprised when I found that there is a movie about “The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck”.

Well f*ck. 🙂

Excerpt from ‘Everything is F*cked*, Mark Manson. May explain why he never worked at Starbucks. 🙂

So I watched it, and if you do watch it – for those of you who don’t read – you’ll see some pretty good examples of worldviews, like that of Hiroo Inada who fought for decades in a war that was long over because he never got new orders that he thought were credible.

Life is largely about expanding and changing our own perspectives, changing our inner worldviews to suit the actuality of the world around us.

Yet there’s more to it than that, at least for me.

When we’re interacting with others, what the other people are concerned about becomes a driving force. Collectively, this explains everything from political parties to football teams. On individual levels, it explains relationships that have a bigger ‘us’ and ‘them’ associated with them.

The famous story of Romeo and Juliet was about both Romeo and Juliet valuing their relationship more than what divided the groups they belonged to by accident of birth into families. I hate reading Shakespeare but he has some great plot lines.

It’s about what they cared about, their priorities, etc.

Of course, that’s fiction. Some even say it’s good fiction, if they like reading Shakespeare’s prose (I don’t). Yet all around us we see it all the time if we decide to… get ready… care about it. I’ve seen marriages go to divorce over one side of the family, or both. I’m pretty sure if you look around you’ll see that as at least a factor too.

Negotiation in business is a lot about what people care about. For example, I have had some fairly good ideas and still do for technology and business, and I’m sure if I presented them to some venture capitalists I’d get maybe a chance at doing them – but I would have to sacrifice what’s most important to me in assuring they achieved what I considered fruition of the ideas, so I don’t do that. I’ve seen too many good ideas twisted by venture capitalist control. I’d rather fail on my own rather than be driven by market forces and the whims of those that care more about the bottom line than the idea.

It’s all a balancing act of who cares more about what. Maybe I could have been excessively rich, maybe I still could be, but making loads of money has never really been my goal – something which has disappointed people and even had family members on my father’s side consider me a ‘failure’. I could do what they did, but intellectually it just never excited me. Having a new thing isn’t that exciting to me, therefore money isn’t that exciting to me.

I don’t want to see the Titanic. I know the story, and if I’m curious those unmanned submersibles give pretty good video.

Back to Wit’s End, which is how we started this. If you find yourself at Wit’s End, it means something has to change, something is untenable, and when you find yourself wishing other people would just do ‘what they should’, the only person you really have control over is the one at Wit’s End.

You.

And the only thing you can really do when you’re at Wit’s End is find another way to be.

That’s life.

Oh, congratulations to Mark Manson. A movie? Well, I didn’t see that one coming!

Beyond Star Stuff.

Brown Dwarf. Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech.

I’ve been lost in thought for a few days because I’ve been reading a lot and putting some things together to try to make sense of a lot of… well, what we consider reality.

Everyone needs a hobby.

It’s matured a bit since ‘Who Are We?” as I’ve pulled and tugged on it.

Not long ago, my psychologist asked me to describe anger in my own words. I puzzled on it and decided to describe a planet with a molten core, and when that core got too hot or when the crust on the surface had weak points, the molten core would pop up through the surface – except you don’t know exactly where that will happen. She pointed out that most people simply described a volcano, and I responded.

“Then they rob themselves of being a planet.”

The point I was trying to make – and maybe I made it, I’m not sure – is that while we describe the feeling of anger as a volcano, a volcano doesn’t exist without a planet. In fact, if you talk to people who know about planets and stuff, they’ll tell you a certain set of circumstances causes volcanoes and not all planets have them, and some might have them more, and some might have them less.

Like us.

My point was also that when angry, I didn’t know where that anger would have impacts on my surface – and how much of an impact. When dealing with your sex of choice, it’s a lot like having a dreaded pimple in the middle of your forehead suddenly appear and distract from the rest of you.

“He was a nice guy, but that pimple made him look like a cyclops!”

You get the points, hopefully. You might get angry at work and, because you can’t vent there, you might vent at home, and that may impact your home relationships even down to the goldfish. It goes the other way as well. And when you can’t vent in either place, it builds until it vents somewhere.

I thought this was a good description of anger.

It’s also a good description of how our worlds interact, these planets rolling around the galaxy – but planets don’t really do that outside of star systems, so it’s more like stars.

Suddenly, we’re not just made of stardust. We are stars ourselves. Figuratively, anyway. Anger becomes flares, flares that can travel across or even burn relationships completely – or both. And before you know it, you’re in this world of stellar flame that affects more than just you and even gets reflected back even after your flare is long gone.

We all don’t burn the same way or the same rate, so it can get really awkward fast. So maybe you dodge out of that area of influence and find yourself elsewhere. You start over, but if you carry the same problem, you create the same problem and the cycle repeats. No matter where you go, there you are.

And that’s just anger. There’s so much in the way of dynamics that fits. Maybe we’re all spherical gears held together by society aggregately impacting each individual like a driving module – but it’s really about the closest people who are also the same spherical gear, but with different ratios – spots where things don’t push against each other the same way. Someone who doesn’t mesh then doesn’t fit in and is either broken by society or causes society to grind to a halt when made of exponentially sterner materials.

Let’s dive deeper.

What if the ‘gearing’ on the surface of each of those spheroids was the topography of our inner skies – how we perceive the world, the topography our limits – those with different experiences again don’t fit in because they don’t mesh.

This has a fun depth to it. It’s making sense so far.

Fragments.

Plant in dried cracked mud

…These fragments I have shored against my ruins…
T.S. Eliot, “The Waste Land”

There are times in life when things shift from clarity to murk, where everything shifts based on new knowledge, new experiences, and value shifts.

Things considered losses in the past can easily become successes, and vice versa – assuming, of course, that the losses gave us new insight and knowledge, fragments of a reality that we all attempt to sew together in some semblance of a reality that we can be on terms with. The path seems never-ending.

When we are younger, we have less of life to re-evaluate with these changes in how we perceive the world, and how we perceive ourselves in it.

As we grow older, it becomes more and more difficult to re-evaluate our body of Life as we move forward. Some harden themselves against change, like a developing nation hiding behind bureaucracy to isolate itself from monumental changes in the hope that it will all just go away – a collective head in the sand. It’s unlikely that the sand around us will change, but the body remains subject to a world of accelerated change.

The world does not go away. In a stream of falling stones, some of us make the effort to push upward in the hope we will find solid footing, constantly looking for a perch even as we scramble to find purchase. At times we run into Others who help or hurt us, defining how we act toward Others in the future. So many groups seek to move forward by standing on the others below them, the concept of hierarchy as old as mankind itself.

Few look to pull each other up; trust is hard to come by, a currency of value that is best not spent.

Sometimes we find a perch and look down where we once were, shouting advice downward, perhaps guiding, perhaps hindering. Rarely do those on a perch look up to find the next paths, tired, exhausted from getting to that perch, they need time to rest and find solace in trying to guide others on their own paths to a perch that may not be theirs… because in all of this, we do not see the perches to the sides of us, perhaps hidden, perhaps because who we are blinds us to them.

Perches are not permanent. Falling fragments of life are permanent in their movement alone.

We cannot build on the fragments, they are only temporary places to be.

The Honesty Of Land

Yeah, I earned any calories I could possibly eat today.Working on the land daily, there’s a brutal honesty to it. It doesn’t lie; it doesn’t need to. It speaks openly of what it does, there is no subterfuge. In the tropics, the wet season is about to shift into dry – the last of the rains come with vigor and the grass grows where I had cut.

So I cut it again.

The small crops I had been able to sew at the beginning of wet season are cleared of bush, have been cleared of bush for some time – with the exception of the period where we got the heavy rains from Tropical Storm Brett, when it would have been irksome and perhaps even dangerous to work with a spinning blade between them, and when I tried to keep spraying chemicals to a minimum.

My crops thrive when a cousin’s are buried in bush; an Uncle who helped and advised him wanders by the day before Christmas and tells me their cassava is no good. He sounds surprised and frustrated when they let the bush master their land, overgrowing their cassava. In fact, the man who plowed the land for them still hadn’t been fully paid by them – the follies of their world made photosynthetic, just as the crops would have. I cannot speak to such things, I have my own things to worry about.

The land is honest and unforgiving. It has no give unless you work it so. It has no mercy, it has no guile. It compounds the forces of nature to be something greater than the sum of it’s parts.

I have sweat, blood and yes, tears, in the land. It inflicts cuts, bites, punctures and bruises to defend itself and, pushing through that, I have fleeting conquests doomed to failures without due care and attention. Piece by piece, it becomes more manageable – but manage it I must, or it will manage me. This is the honesty of the land, a stark contrast to humans and society where the social construct of promises were once made by those who worked with the unforgiving land, where it meant something, where now promises are something to be broken.

Then the human side – where people not getting paid to pick up rubbish cause people to dump rubbish on land they think isn’t managed – and so you manage that land, cleaning areas and keeping them clean. They no longer dump their rubbish there but somewhere else: People wring their hands in talking to me about it. I look at them now and say, “That is not my problem”, which is not true, but is a necessary answer for those who don’t maintain their lands – a truth that they need to wrestle with if they pay attention and act.

Opportunity: Missed by people because it comes disguised as hard work.

It’s like software engineering, except much more real.

The Human Contrast

The cousins who own nearby lands fumble through their own relationships with their siblings and try to cash in on the land; I make efforts to see some of them when they come to Trinidad to visit them – we grew up with each other – but they had no time for me, leaving me to sit alone outside. One even blocked me from going inside. I arched an eyebrow, having made the effort to go visit, and realizing that they did not want to see me. This was compounded by the one time during that period where I reached out, at a nearby restaurant with someone giving me advice on the land – out of all of them, one showed up, and he simply spoke with the one advising me.

Meanwhile, people come to me complaining of them, and I shrug. It is not for me to deal with, I am not one to do what they are doing and I am not one to do for them what they do not do for themselves.

Another is going abroad, asks me if I want anything – I did not ask – so I do mention a few things. He calls me from the airport to tell me where he’s going, where the gift he left for me is, and I ask him to let me know if he orders a particular item for me so I don’t try to source it locally. Meanwhile, the people who he promised to do something for see me on a daily basis and ask me for updates that I cannot give. I hear nothing from him other than part of a deluge of WhatsApp messages wishing me ‘Happy New Year’. He returns nearby, I still hear nothing from him. Well, ok then.

I am becoming more like the land every day, and since the land is alien to them, I grow alien to them.

One aunt spreads lies about everyone in the family, calling everyone greedy when she made sure her brother was isolated and left everything to her in the Will before he died. If you want to find the greed, find the one who has what they think everyone wants. She’ll choke on it eventually. I let her know that on my birthday after she asked to see me, after she spread lies about me, just as she asked me to help her manage her gains – ill-gotten in my opinion. A skeleton choking on a crust of bread.

Last year, another aunt went away and I checked in on her human project, an adolescent who came from a shattered home and less than pristine circumstance that she had taken in. He made promises, he broke promises, he is young – but he did not meet the social contracts that brought him there. In the end, he had to return to where he had come from but, for the duration and after I regularly checked in – not because it was important to me, but because it was important to her. She returns, it’s not spoken of. I make arrangements with her to visit her not once but twice; both times she goes out on recreational sojourns while her husband and I stare at each other. I had tried. Messages to her were rarely answered, if at all.

My time spent on all of this robs me of time to do what needs to be done. No more.

And I’m safe, because the odds of any of them reading this is pretty low.

Meanwhile, others see what I’m doing and help in their own ways – some plants here, some compost there, some business advice, planning advice and planting advice. I do the same. We build relationships like that of the land, not of society. A throwback, I think, to times when people worked the land.

The Human Contrast, Part II

I go to the towns now and then. I will sit and watch people drinking coffee and doing their best to impress each other at one local center, preening. I go get my haircut, I watch people in branded exercise outfits drive to the gym so they can be physically active – I’ve lost 3 inches off my waist in the last month alone (with more to go) over the last month. They pay to be members. What an odd way to live – and I used to live like that before I thought it through. A little before I ended up in the hospital. There’s a lesson there.

I watch the lowered cars pull in, screeching to a halt on the speed bumps or near potholes, impractical in a country that has a debilitating inability to build and maintain roads. Pickups with ‘4×4’ emblazoned on them sit on pretty wheels, nothing more than street cars that run on diesel. SUVs have been made too expensive for most by the government, and their last refuge are these pickups to give them a false sense of security when driving because they can look further ahead – but they can’t brake as well in a pickup. Taxis stop in the middle of the road to drop off their passengers rather than move to the side and allow traffic to pass.

On social media, I read someone’s whine about not being treated seriously in technology and it reminds me of how I had felt and what I had communicated over a decade ago – interesting since I’m not much older than the one complaining now. Without compunction, I wrote that we are not owed change, that whining doesn’t change anything, and that when he gets out of his selfish moat of self-pity he should get back to trying to change things – advice I had to give myself over a decade ago.

It’s a rat race, and the trouble with rat races is that they are full of rats.

I am becoming a misanthrope, some might think. Sometimes I think so. Yet when I reflect on it fully, I am simply becoming what I need to be in a world where people are busy trying to become what they are told they want to be.

And therein is the real contrast. Where someone’s word should be unbreakable, where relationships are valued and treated accordingly. I am becoming me, and this drives a wedge between myself and those who are busy trying to become what they are told they should want to be.

Be who you need to be. The trouble with the world is a lack of honesty to the self about the self which leaks into everything else.