May 13, 2020
REST
On Day 53
I rested.
END
Thursday, May 28, 2020
Daily Ramble 52 - A SUGGESTIVE JOKE
May 12, 2020
A SUGGESTIVE JOKE
I was too busy today to take a long ramble. First we had to drive to New York City to get some Japanese cocktail crackers (and a few score other needed supplies.) Then, I visited a storage facility where I will move the contents of my studio at the end of June. (Milton Glaser has sold the building where I have played for the last 30 years.) Plus a visit to the post office. About four miles on foot in the city, properly masked and gloved. Anyway, I do have a joke, possibly relevant - at least I see some potentially larger meaning in it. It's a classic from Ausbel's Treasury of Jewish Folklore.
In the days when matchmakers arranged things, an inexperienced man was being given instructions about his first meeting with a woman, - how to conduct himself after they met in her home and were left alone on the couch in the parlor. "Start by talking about food," suggested the matchmaker, "that's an easy subject with which to open a conversation. Then you can move on to the subject of family as a way to become more serious. Finally, to show her you have real depth, you can talk about philosophy."
The man repeated, "food, family and philosophy."
Seated on the couch with the woman, after introductions, a heavy silence settled on the room.
"Do you have a brother?" asked the man.
"No," said the woman.
Silence...
Do you like noodles?" asked the man.
"No," said the woman.
Longer silence.....
Finally, the man asks, "If you had a brother, do you think he would like noodles?
It occurred to me that this joke might give some insight into how I should proceed in introducing LUCKISM® to the public. There might be a clue in the sequence of food, family and philosophy. In fact, I have somewhat started with food in my discussion of potatoes and water vs. soda. Perhaps I should work on some family applications of LUCKISM® before getting into the heavy-duty philosophy of applying it to the military-industrial complex et al.That's all folks! Good night and good luck.
END
A SUGGESTIVE JOKE
I was too busy today to take a long ramble. First we had to drive to New York City to get some Japanese cocktail crackers (and a few score other needed supplies.) Then, I visited a storage facility where I will move the contents of my studio at the end of June. (Milton Glaser has sold the building where I have played for the last 30 years.) Plus a visit to the post office. About four miles on foot in the city, properly masked and gloved. Anyway, I do have a joke, possibly relevant - at least I see some potentially larger meaning in it. It's a classic from Ausbel's Treasury of Jewish Folklore.
In the days when matchmakers arranged things, an inexperienced man was being given instructions about his first meeting with a woman, - how to conduct himself after they met in her home and were left alone on the couch in the parlor. "Start by talking about food," suggested the matchmaker, "that's an easy subject with which to open a conversation. Then you can move on to the subject of family as a way to become more serious. Finally, to show her you have real depth, you can talk about philosophy."
The man repeated, "food, family and philosophy."
Seated on the couch with the woman, after introductions, a heavy silence settled on the room.
"Do you have a brother?" asked the man.
"No," said the woman.
Silence...
Do you like noodles?" asked the man.
"No," said the woman.
Longer silence.....
Finally, the man asks, "If you had a brother, do you think he would like noodles?
It occurred to me that this joke might give some insight into how I should proceed in introducing LUCKISM® to the public. There might be a clue in the sequence of food, family and philosophy. In fact, I have somewhat started with food in my discussion of potatoes and water vs. soda. Perhaps I should work on some family applications of LUCKISM® before getting into the heavy-duty philosophy of applying it to the military-industrial complex et al.That's all folks! Good night and good luck.
END
Daily Ramble 51 - EXPLORATION vs. EXPLOITATION
May 10, 2020
EXPLORATION vs. EXPLOITATION
I started my walk thinking I would take a relaxing ramble through some of my favorite aphorisms on the subject of luck or chance. However, up popped what seemed like a ripe thought about the difference between proper human exploration and something insidious which is disguised as exploration but is really something harmful, i.e., space "exploration." One could call it the cosmic pyramid scheme of the military-industrial complex, basically a scam which keeps going by sucking in more and more chumps.
The business of space exploration is based on exploiting the false premise that it is an extension of a natural and inevitable human desire to explore the unknown. Let us pass over the question of whether this is indeed a basic human urge, impulse or need. I would dispute that, or, at least, argue about how far that urge extends. I would deny that it extends beyond the planet, other than as a manifestation of the sense of wonder. I also deny that there is any need for it or any real good coming from it. That addresses the concocted benefits that will allegedly accrue to the human race. (As if there was not enough to provide for humanity on a planet which has sustained life for millions of years.) But I leave that to the good sense of the world population as the difficulties and costs of the space fiasco make themselves known. My objection is "religious" in the sense that it goes to the basic morality of the enterprise.
I claim that exploration of space is entirely outside the proper area of activity of Homo sapiens because it severs all direct connections with nature. It is therefore in conflict with a basic tenet of LUCKISM®, i.e., that a direct relationship to natural chance and unpredictability is an essential and sacred component of life. Stated differently, the totally artificial support required by space explorations proves that it is completely distinguishable from previous natural forms of human exploration.
The distinctions are so obvious that their importance may be overlooked. When early explorers ventured on the land or seas beyond known horizons and beyond communication with their starting point, they were still connected to land and sea and air, subject to tides, weather and, of course, gravity. Although they had only a vague idea of their desired destination, there was a reasonable expectation it would have the familiar conditions needed to support life.
Space exploration is full of contrasts to healthy exploration. First and foremost, it requires that humans detach themselves from all natural connections, including, of course, overcoming the fundamental force of gravity. They must be placed in a state of life support, barely distinguishable from those who are in intensive care as a result of life-threatening disease or trauma. But it has some technical aspects which conceal its horrible artificiality. Unlike most earthly explorers, the astronauts know exactly where they are going and have good communication links with their home base. In short, we have tremendous technology covering up the basic condition of a living death and giving the illusion of connection.
This isn't the only factor contributing to the unnatural goal of space exploration.
Analyze how it is that a four-year-old child in pre-kindergarden, when asked what he or she wants to be, says, without hesitation,"An astronaut." That comes about from a saturation of the learning environment with educational material, entertainment content, toys and other material. It flows from an enormous propaganda effort, fostered by the governmental, industrial and academic entities which have a financial interest in profiting militarily and monetarily from space exploration. The entertainment industry has a parasitical participation when it produces an endless stream of products glorifying heroes and heroines in space.
I have not dealt with the unsuitability of the human body to the demands that will be placed on it in space exploration. In all probability the human body will require modifications and transformations which will lead to "explorers" eventually becoming unrecognizable as human to Homo sapiens.
That's all for now. This only begins my examination of what's wrong with space exploration. For now, I can state that, just as my belief in LUCKISM® keeps me from eating synthetic potato chips or drinking water which has been perverted by the addition of carbonation and flavorings, and further degraded by being packaged in plastic containers, I will not support space exploration or anything which promotes it. Bit by bit, we must begin to address the other nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-seven things that may need limitation, modification or elimination.
END
EXPLORATION vs. EXPLOITATION
I started my walk thinking I would take a relaxing ramble through some of my favorite aphorisms on the subject of luck or chance. However, up popped what seemed like a ripe thought about the difference between proper human exploration and something insidious which is disguised as exploration but is really something harmful, i.e., space "exploration." One could call it the cosmic pyramid scheme of the military-industrial complex, basically a scam which keeps going by sucking in more and more chumps.
The business of space exploration is based on exploiting the false premise that it is an extension of a natural and inevitable human desire to explore the unknown. Let us pass over the question of whether this is indeed a basic human urge, impulse or need. I would dispute that, or, at least, argue about how far that urge extends. I would deny that it extends beyond the planet, other than as a manifestation of the sense of wonder. I also deny that there is any need for it or any real good coming from it. That addresses the concocted benefits that will allegedly accrue to the human race. (As if there was not enough to provide for humanity on a planet which has sustained life for millions of years.) But I leave that to the good sense of the world population as the difficulties and costs of the space fiasco make themselves known. My objection is "religious" in the sense that it goes to the basic morality of the enterprise.
I claim that exploration of space is entirely outside the proper area of activity of Homo sapiens because it severs all direct connections with nature. It is therefore in conflict with a basic tenet of LUCKISM®, i.e., that a direct relationship to natural chance and unpredictability is an essential and sacred component of life. Stated differently, the totally artificial support required by space explorations proves that it is completely distinguishable from previous natural forms of human exploration.
The distinctions are so obvious that their importance may be overlooked. When early explorers ventured on the land or seas beyond known horizons and beyond communication with their starting point, they were still connected to land and sea and air, subject to tides, weather and, of course, gravity. Although they had only a vague idea of their desired destination, there was a reasonable expectation it would have the familiar conditions needed to support life.
Space exploration is full of contrasts to healthy exploration. First and foremost, it requires that humans detach themselves from all natural connections, including, of course, overcoming the fundamental force of gravity. They must be placed in a state of life support, barely distinguishable from those who are in intensive care as a result of life-threatening disease or trauma. But it has some technical aspects which conceal its horrible artificiality. Unlike most earthly explorers, the astronauts know exactly where they are going and have good communication links with their home base. In short, we have tremendous technology covering up the basic condition of a living death and giving the illusion of connection.
This isn't the only factor contributing to the unnatural goal of space exploration.
Analyze how it is that a four-year-old child in pre-kindergarden, when asked what he or she wants to be, says, without hesitation,"An astronaut." That comes about from a saturation of the learning environment with educational material, entertainment content, toys and other material. It flows from an enormous propaganda effort, fostered by the governmental, industrial and academic entities which have a financial interest in profiting militarily and monetarily from space exploration. The entertainment industry has a parasitical participation when it produces an endless stream of products glorifying heroes and heroines in space.
I have not dealt with the unsuitability of the human body to the demands that will be placed on it in space exploration. In all probability the human body will require modifications and transformations which will lead to "explorers" eventually becoming unrecognizable as human to Homo sapiens.
That's all for now. This only begins my examination of what's wrong with space exploration. For now, I can state that, just as my belief in LUCKISM® keeps me from eating synthetic potato chips or drinking water which has been perverted by the addition of carbonation and flavorings, and further degraded by being packaged in plastic containers, I will not support space exploration or anything which promotes it. Bit by bit, we must begin to address the other nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-seven things that may need limitation, modification or elimination.
END
Sunday, May 10, 2020
Daily Ramble 50 - LUCKISM® AND THE PLAGUE (2)
May 9, 2020
LUCKISM® AND THE PLAGUE (2)
What better than a worldwide plague to encourage us to think about a better future; even better than the immediate past for which we now long?
In particular, I'm thinking how a new "religion," namely, LUCKISM® would place us in a better position than the one in which we find ourselves and the one in which we were before the latest plague. Why? At bottom, because it provides something which has been glaringly absent from the prevailing conduct of world civilization, namely, reverence for the chance activity of life and nature. A civilization which gives the resulting modesty a central place in its zeitgeist would have long ago achieved the proper perspective from which to deal with a plague and would be in the best position to handle future plagues.
Picture this; an intelligent animal comes to believe it has the ability to eventually know everything worth knowing and to control everything worth controlling on earth. Even though its sciences begin to reveal a vast zone of "unknowability," and "unpredictability" this creature continues to live as if it was destined to rule the universe. Its favorite poem is "Invictus" (which means "Undefeated") by William Ernest Henley. That insane hymn to human determination ends with
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.
Along the way, the poet boasts,
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Then, along come submicroscopic nothings called "viruses," with barely enough complexity to be called living things, and they bludgeon the entire human race, from head to toe. And they do so repeatedly, with a frequency which ought to get the rapt attention of an intelligent creature.
One thing the poet got right. It was chance that hit him and us. Not because it was evil, but because it was omnipresent, because it was built into reality and we were stupidly not ready to encounter it.
Can you imagine a creature so deluded it cannot comprehend or respect something that is everywhere all the time? On top of which, the creature concocts fictional deities to explain the activity of that omnipresent and eternal force. And, as the final absurdity, it fantasizes that these deities have granted special rights and privileges to Homo sapiens! Dominion, conquest, numerosity, life after death or maybe even life without death.
From a narrow point of view of current plague events, it began with the unpredictable mutation of a particular virus into one capable of infecting the human animal. Chance was involved in the first infection, whether it was transmitted in a so-called "wet market" where wild animals are sold to be eaten or whether it leaked from a laboratory or whether it just blew in on the wind. Chance then operated in innumerable, unpredictable ways to spread the infection in the world population and to kill those who are most susceptible to its activity. Chance also affected the type and degree of care received by those who were infected and it is affecting the development of cures or protective vaccines.
From the wider point of view, the major choices made in the pursuit of progress by modern civilizations, under the illusion of control of nature and "progress" were made without giving proper respect to the operation of chance in nature. For at least 700 years we have been aware of plagues. More recently we have become familiar with the microscopic and submicroscopic world. But only a tiny fraction of the resources of the world have been allocated to that area; a pittance compared to what has been dedicated to weaponry, electronic communication devices, entertainment devices, transportation equipment etc.
If LUCKISM® was a guiding force in the world, the concept of progress, at least since since the so-called scientific revolution, would be much more focused on the natural world, both as a source of sustenance and of potential danger. People would know more about the contents of the natural world, including viruses and microorganisms, than they know about pop singers and movie actors. More financial and human resources would go into study of nature than into matters of importance to industry or the military. School curricula at all levels would give priority to subjects with direct impact on the natural world and relations between living things. There would be less banging of atomic particles and blasting-off of space rockets.
The work that remains is enormous. We have the insight. We know the truth of the fundamental facts. Now, how do we apply this to the ten thousand things in the world? I use "ten thousand things" as a shorthand term in the Daoist sense of "everything that can be named in the world." What has to be limited? What has to be changed? It will all flow from learning how to bring ourselves into harmony with the dance of order and chance.
The material in this ramble may be somewhat disorganized and sketchy. I will continue working on it.
END
LUCKISM® AND THE PLAGUE (2)
What better than a worldwide plague to encourage us to think about a better future; even better than the immediate past for which we now long?
In particular, I'm thinking how a new "religion," namely, LUCKISM® would place us in a better position than the one in which we find ourselves and the one in which we were before the latest plague. Why? At bottom, because it provides something which has been glaringly absent from the prevailing conduct of world civilization, namely, reverence for the chance activity of life and nature. A civilization which gives the resulting modesty a central place in its zeitgeist would have long ago achieved the proper perspective from which to deal with a plague and would be in the best position to handle future plagues.
Picture this; an intelligent animal comes to believe it has the ability to eventually know everything worth knowing and to control everything worth controlling on earth. Even though its sciences begin to reveal a vast zone of "unknowability," and "unpredictability" this creature continues to live as if it was destined to rule the universe. Its favorite poem is "Invictus" (which means "Undefeated") by William Ernest Henley. That insane hymn to human determination ends with
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.
Along the way, the poet boasts,
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Then, along come submicroscopic nothings called "viruses," with barely enough complexity to be called living things, and they bludgeon the entire human race, from head to toe. And they do so repeatedly, with a frequency which ought to get the rapt attention of an intelligent creature.
One thing the poet got right. It was chance that hit him and us. Not because it was evil, but because it was omnipresent, because it was built into reality and we were stupidly not ready to encounter it.
Can you imagine a creature so deluded it cannot comprehend or respect something that is everywhere all the time? On top of which, the creature concocts fictional deities to explain the activity of that omnipresent and eternal force. And, as the final absurdity, it fantasizes that these deities have granted special rights and privileges to Homo sapiens! Dominion, conquest, numerosity, life after death or maybe even life without death.
From a narrow point of view of current plague events, it began with the unpredictable mutation of a particular virus into one capable of infecting the human animal. Chance was involved in the first infection, whether it was transmitted in a so-called "wet market" where wild animals are sold to be eaten or whether it leaked from a laboratory or whether it just blew in on the wind. Chance then operated in innumerable, unpredictable ways to spread the infection in the world population and to kill those who are most susceptible to its activity. Chance also affected the type and degree of care received by those who were infected and it is affecting the development of cures or protective vaccines.
From the wider point of view, the major choices made in the pursuit of progress by modern civilizations, under the illusion of control of nature and "progress" were made without giving proper respect to the operation of chance in nature. For at least 700 years we have been aware of plagues. More recently we have become familiar with the microscopic and submicroscopic world. But only a tiny fraction of the resources of the world have been allocated to that area; a pittance compared to what has been dedicated to weaponry, electronic communication devices, entertainment devices, transportation equipment etc.
If LUCKISM® was a guiding force in the world, the concept of progress, at least since since the so-called scientific revolution, would be much more focused on the natural world, both as a source of sustenance and of potential danger. People would know more about the contents of the natural world, including viruses and microorganisms, than they know about pop singers and movie actors. More financial and human resources would go into study of nature than into matters of importance to industry or the military. School curricula at all levels would give priority to subjects with direct impact on the natural world and relations between living things. There would be less banging of atomic particles and blasting-off of space rockets.
The work that remains is enormous. We have the insight. We know the truth of the fundamental facts. Now, how do we apply this to the ten thousand things in the world? I use "ten thousand things" as a shorthand term in the Daoist sense of "everything that can be named in the world." What has to be limited? What has to be changed? It will all flow from learning how to bring ourselves into harmony with the dance of order and chance.
The material in this ramble may be somewhat disorganized and sketchy. I will continue working on it.
END
Daily Ramble 49 - HOW TO AVOID DESIGN SNOBJECTS
May 8, 2020
HOW TO AVOID DESIGN SNOBJECTS
A "snobject" is a deceptive product of a special type. It pretends to be a highly desirable design object. It is produced and marketed in a manner intended to get people to pay the highest possible price for it. In reality, it is inferior in all respects to easily available and far less expensive alternatives. In today's sermon I will tell you how to spot these abominations, based on the fundamental differences between them and the "real thing." Buying, possessing or displaying a "snobject" is a sin against everything that's holy in art and design (aside from being a foolish waste of money.)
The presence of one or more of the following factors may indicate that something is a snobject:
1. It does not give priority to function.
2. It fixates on appearance, novelty or celebrity connection.
3. It costs more than it should.
4. It glorifies the designer.
The Philippe Starck juicer is a "snobject" par excellence. Functionally defective, it boasts of its "legginess," sells for more than $100 and is even offered as a non-functional, collectible miniature (4.5 inches high) for $49.
The field of watches is full of "snobjects." The so-called "Museum Watch" sold by Movado is a good example and rewards analysis. It was originally designed by Nathan George Horwitt (1898-1990) in 1947. It was a wristwatch with a plain black face without numerals and with a white disk marking the 12 o-clock position.
It was pirated by Movado in 1948. Horwitt sued. Twenty-seven years later, in 1975, Movado settled with him for $29,000. Movado now touts Nathan George Horwitt as "the first artist to explore the concept of time as design." Nowadays Movado offers eleven "Museum" watches for sale. In a very funny development, three of those watches supplement the original disk at 12-o-clock with a face full of hourly markings, thus completely contradicting the intention of the original design. Incidentally, the prices range from $495 to $1,495.
Movado's Museum Watch satisfies all four of the "snobject" criteria. It diminishes the functionality of the watch. It fixates on appearance. It costs too much. Finally, it glorifies the designer (after first ripping him off.)
The sordid commercial history of this design is not our focus. What is most interesting is that this watch is exalted as a "museum" piece despite undermining the main functional purpose of a watch. The sequence of events appears to be that it was accepted in the Design Collection of New York's Museum of Modern Art, Movado later began calling it the "Museum" watch and later registered a trademark for that name.
The reputation of this design owes more to the gullibility and lack of design standards of our time than to any true design merit. It would be a fitting watch to be worn by the Emperor in Hans Christian Anderson's wonderful tale "The Emperor's Clothes." A watch without clear indications of the hours is a proper accessory for a person who wears non-existent clothing. It also fits perfectly into a decadent society which turns timepieces into frivolous jewelry. No one who actually needs to tell time quickly and accurately would dream of relying on this design. It takes a person who has lost touch with reality and is living in a world of arty-farty abstractions to exalt the removal of time indicia from a timekeeping mechanism. Where would we find such a person? Heading the design department of a museum, perhaps.
It would be a noble gesture if, to make amends for accepting this watch as a gift from the designer in 1960 and as a penance for enabling this sterile and functionally impaired object to become a "snobject", the Museum of Modern Art would expel it from the collection for failure to meet the standards of good design. Of course, that would be a dangerous precedent and might require the expulsion of countless other objects.
ADDENDUM:
I neglected to contrast the vastly overrated Movado Museum watch with a truly good design, functional (with a superb additional feature), inexpensive and modestly presented. I refer to the Timex Easy Reader watches, available in various styles from $29 to $65. Some of them have a feature which allows them to be read in the dark with the push of a button. These are watches which a true design connoisseur will be proud to wear.
END
HOW TO AVOID DESIGN SNOBJECTS
A "snobject" is a deceptive product of a special type. It pretends to be a highly desirable design object. It is produced and marketed in a manner intended to get people to pay the highest possible price for it. In reality, it is inferior in all respects to easily available and far less expensive alternatives. In today's sermon I will tell you how to spot these abominations, based on the fundamental differences between them and the "real thing." Buying, possessing or displaying a "snobject" is a sin against everything that's holy in art and design (aside from being a foolish waste of money.)
The presence of one or more of the following factors may indicate that something is a snobject:
1. It does not give priority to function.
2. It fixates on appearance, novelty or celebrity connection.
3. It costs more than it should.
4. It glorifies the designer.
The Philippe Starck juicer is a "snobject" par excellence. Functionally defective, it boasts of its "legginess," sells for more than $100 and is even offered as a non-functional, collectible miniature (4.5 inches high) for $49.
The field of watches is full of "snobjects." The so-called "Museum Watch" sold by Movado is a good example and rewards analysis. It was originally designed by Nathan George Horwitt (1898-1990) in 1947. It was a wristwatch with a plain black face without numerals and with a white disk marking the 12 o-clock position.
It was pirated by Movado in 1948. Horwitt sued. Twenty-seven years later, in 1975, Movado settled with him for $29,000. Movado now touts Nathan George Horwitt as "the first artist to explore the concept of time as design." Nowadays Movado offers eleven "Museum" watches for sale. In a very funny development, three of those watches supplement the original disk at 12-o-clock with a face full of hourly markings, thus completely contradicting the intention of the original design. Incidentally, the prices range from $495 to $1,495.
Movado's Museum Watch satisfies all four of the "snobject" criteria. It diminishes the functionality of the watch. It fixates on appearance. It costs too much. Finally, it glorifies the designer (after first ripping him off.)
The sordid commercial history of this design is not our focus. What is most interesting is that this watch is exalted as a "museum" piece despite undermining the main functional purpose of a watch. The sequence of events appears to be that it was accepted in the Design Collection of New York's Museum of Modern Art, Movado later began calling it the "Museum" watch and later registered a trademark for that name.
The reputation of this design owes more to the gullibility and lack of design standards of our time than to any true design merit. It would be a fitting watch to be worn by the Emperor in Hans Christian Anderson's wonderful tale "The Emperor's Clothes." A watch without clear indications of the hours is a proper accessory for a person who wears non-existent clothing. It also fits perfectly into a decadent society which turns timepieces into frivolous jewelry. No one who actually needs to tell time quickly and accurately would dream of relying on this design. It takes a person who has lost touch with reality and is living in a world of arty-farty abstractions to exalt the removal of time indicia from a timekeeping mechanism. Where would we find such a person? Heading the design department of a museum, perhaps.
It would be a noble gesture if, to make amends for accepting this watch as a gift from the designer in 1960 and as a penance for enabling this sterile and functionally impaired object to become a "snobject", the Museum of Modern Art would expel it from the collection for failure to meet the standards of good design. Of course, that would be a dangerous precedent and might require the expulsion of countless other objects.
ADDENDUM:
I neglected to contrast the vastly overrated Movado Museum watch with a truly good design, functional (with a superb additional feature), inexpensive and modestly presented. I refer to the Timex Easy Reader watches, available in various styles from $29 to $65. Some of them have a feature which allows them to be read in the dark with the push of a button. These are watches which a true design connoisseur will be proud to wear.
END
Daily Ramble 48 - DESIGN MADE IMPOSSIBLE
May 7, 2020
DESIGN MADE IMPOSSIBLE
In the overflowing shelves of books about designing and the endless bytes of how-to on the internet there is one aspect of the subject which is overlooked - how to make design impossible, or at least, more scarce. In this short rant I will try to fill that gap.
The first step in preventing a design from being created is to pose the question "Is it really needed?" I don't mean "needed" in the sense of a company needing to fill its lineup of seasonal offerings. I mean needed by people in the way they need an essential of life. That will eliminate 99% of all design ab initio.
If the proposed design passes the first hurdle the next question is "Will the benefits of its production outweigh the harm?" This probes the environmental effect of introducing it into the world, or perhaps we should say, into the garbage dumps of the world. ("Environmental" includes both physical and psychological impact.) This will eliminate 99% of the 1% which survived the first question.
In a world operating under these standards, a person's design objects will be treasured, repaired and passed on with reverence - all five or six of them.
END
DESIGN MADE IMPOSSIBLE
In the overflowing shelves of books about designing and the endless bytes of how-to on the internet there is one aspect of the subject which is overlooked - how to make design impossible, or at least, more scarce. In this short rant I will try to fill that gap.
The first step in preventing a design from being created is to pose the question "Is it really needed?" I don't mean "needed" in the sense of a company needing to fill its lineup of seasonal offerings. I mean needed by people in the way they need an essential of life. That will eliminate 99% of all design ab initio.
If the proposed design passes the first hurdle the next question is "Will the benefits of its production outweigh the harm?" This probes the environmental effect of introducing it into the world, or perhaps we should say, into the garbage dumps of the world. ("Environmental" includes both physical and psychological impact.) This will eliminate 99% of the 1% which survived the first question.
In a world operating under these standards, a person's design objects will be treasured, repaired and passed on with reverence - all five or six of them.
END
Daily Ramble 47 - SHAGGY WISDOM
May 6, 2020
SHAGGY WISDOM
I recall a story about a university professor of philosophy who became obsessed with finding the meaning of life.
Prof. L___ abandons his family, cashes in all his assets and sets out on a search for the wise person who can answer his question of "What is the meaning of life?". His journey takes him to his philosophy professor at Harvard and thence to his professor at Oxford and on to the latter's teacher at the Sorbonne. At each encounter the professor is told that his interlocutor's teacher may have the answer. It turns into a journey of years, full of hardships, which eventually leads him to the "ultimate" guru in a cave on a mountaintop. The professor is physically and mentally at the end of his rope.
He staggers forward and says, "O holy guru, I have sacrificed everything, my family, my fortune and my academic career to find the answer to this question: What is the meaning of life?
The guru smiles and says, "Here is the answer: Life is a fountain."
The professor is stunned. "That's all you have to say?" "I have traveled for years, suffered countless miseries and the best you can offer me is the platitudinous "Life is a fountain?"
The guru is taken aback. With wide eyes he asks the professor, "You mean... life isn't a fountain?"
This story is usually considered to be an example of a "shaggy dog" story, a form of perverse humor in which the listener's expectations are built up through a long series of details, only to end with an ordinary finish. [The genre may have derived its name from the story of a person who enters his shaggy dog in contests for the shaggiest dog. He wins them all from the local contest up. They are all described in excruciating detail. Finally, at the world championships the judges look at his dog and say "That dog is not so shaggy." See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaggy_dog_story/]
Although the guru story has the form of a shaggy dog story, I see deeper meaning in it. To me it shows that, even at the highest levels of wisdom, there must always be doubt. I say, "Beware of absolute certainty!" It contradicts the fundamental law of life and all existence. That is one of the reasons I feel comfortable designing the religion named LUCKISM®, which, like the sciences, has chance at its core and can never have absolute certainty about its fundamental premises. It's beauty is that, while its sacred essence is verifiable in many ways, that very fact also requires acceptance and respect for uncertainty. If I was to find myself sitting in a mountain cave and someone like myself comes with a question about the meaning of life I would say, "Life is interacting with the universe, subject to the dance of order and chance." That's better than a fountain - and filled with enough uncertainty and paradox to be true.
END
SHAGGY WISDOM
I recall a story about a university professor of philosophy who became obsessed with finding the meaning of life.
Prof. L___ abandons his family, cashes in all his assets and sets out on a search for the wise person who can answer his question of "What is the meaning of life?". His journey takes him to his philosophy professor at Harvard and thence to his professor at Oxford and on to the latter's teacher at the Sorbonne. At each encounter the professor is told that his interlocutor's teacher may have the answer. It turns into a journey of years, full of hardships, which eventually leads him to the "ultimate" guru in a cave on a mountaintop. The professor is physically and mentally at the end of his rope.
He staggers forward and says, "O holy guru, I have sacrificed everything, my family, my fortune and my academic career to find the answer to this question: What is the meaning of life?
The guru smiles and says, "Here is the answer: Life is a fountain."
The professor is stunned. "That's all you have to say?" "I have traveled for years, suffered countless miseries and the best you can offer me is the platitudinous "Life is a fountain?"
The guru is taken aback. With wide eyes he asks the professor, "You mean... life isn't a fountain?"
This story is usually considered to be an example of a "shaggy dog" story, a form of perverse humor in which the listener's expectations are built up through a long series of details, only to end with an ordinary finish. [The genre may have derived its name from the story of a person who enters his shaggy dog in contests for the shaggiest dog. He wins them all from the local contest up. They are all described in excruciating detail. Finally, at the world championships the judges look at his dog and say "That dog is not so shaggy." See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaggy_dog_story/]
Although the guru story has the form of a shaggy dog story, I see deeper meaning in it. To me it shows that, even at the highest levels of wisdom, there must always be doubt. I say, "Beware of absolute certainty!" It contradicts the fundamental law of life and all existence. That is one of the reasons I feel comfortable designing the religion named LUCKISM®, which, like the sciences, has chance at its core and can never have absolute certainty about its fundamental premises. It's beauty is that, while its sacred essence is verifiable in many ways, that very fact also requires acceptance and respect for uncertainty. If I was to find myself sitting in a mountain cave and someone like myself comes with a question about the meaning of life I would say, "Life is interacting with the universe, subject to the dance of order and chance." That's better than a fountain - and filled with enough uncertainty and paradox to be true.
END
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)