Emancipation

Well, first of all I think I have to apologize.
For one - if I made it appear as though my superiors are conspiring against me ... I have to stress that the opposite is the case. It's one of those things ... or maybe the one thing ... that has made me feel a little weird - guilty perhaps - the last few weeks, so ... I wish to get that off the table.

And this apology is somewhat on topic for now, at least given the things I want to write about, because ... if I may have to apologize for my tone or somewhat condesceding rhetoric at times, again, the thing is that I don't feel guilty. The thing I settled on so far is, that ... especially with matters such as this topic in particular ... I don't think it's reasonable of me to assume that just posting stuff here is going to get heard where it ought to be heard. And there's also no conceivable way for me to take those things to where they're supposed to get heard. Subsequently I may assume that anyone reading these words is already somewhat "opened up" - and in that sense I think it's good, based perhaps, if I let my attitude towards things shine through. Like, there's no need - or good, even, I'd say - in sugarcoating people's wrongs. So, we all do mistakes - we all have our little backpacks of shame, I'm sure - and I'm also sure that people might try to shame you regardless of whether or not you have something to be ashamed about; And if you have something to be ashamed about, it might actually do you good to be ashamed of it.

So in case of racism, perhaps. I think that people who feel discriminated against do so within proper reason; But I thought that maybe ... the problem is often enough not racism per se, but just people being assholes ... like, in general. I mean, if someone wants to hurt your feelings, they'll find something. And if you're white, well, they're gonna shit on you in some other way.


It's like how in this video, it's apparent that the exact same people who would believe the kind of stuff the poll highlights, do so claiming that what they actually care about is all the less popular stuff. This whole situation is just weird.


It's like ... there are two things that by "popular" account nobody should want to be; And that's 1) Gay and 2) a Socialist/Communist (a.k.a. "a Lib") - and those are words that have in some spaces lost all reasonable meaning. I'm ... quite sure. And that's ... what this is all about. Sort of.

Like so is emancipation a word that does mostly just mean one thing - though in actuality it means a lot of thing. Or can be used for a lot of things. The classic coming of age story is a story of emancipation - and I'm sure that if we insisted on it, coming of age could soon too join the "ugh, it's gay" club - and ... though the world would yet again become a little bit more crazy it's not like we would actually register a meaningful difference, because ... I think we've already hit rock bottom. Which doesn't mean that it can't get worse. We've hit it once, we've hit it twice; And ever so often we come around to it again. It's election season in the USA, so ... we probably should get prepared for a few bangers.

Well, be that as it may.

Instead of however writing about emancipation now, let me lead into this by establishing something on anecdotal evidence.
The thing is, it's kind of common sense, that straight women like gay men. Like, however often do you hear that "all the good men are gay" - in its different permutations? Which then begs the question, why straight men are so averse to being "gay".

And by gay there I don't think anyone implies - except some straight men perhaps - the gay things that gay men do. I don't think a woman that's like [sigh]ing over a gay man secretly wished that her prince charming would get railed up his rear. We're talking of all the other "gay" stuff. Like ... having feelings. Or so, all the stuff that these manly mcMannens tell you, you shouldn't have. Or makes you "unmanly". Well, most of it anyway. I suppose. I don't keep track.
And so the issue is, that it's then those type of men, that will tell you that they don't understand women. Maybe not quite like that; Because it'd be unmanly to acknowledge a lack of understanding - directly at least. They'd rather phrase it like "women are crazy", "women don't know what they want"; But that would just be because they don't listen. I mean, in essence this isn't some crazy arcana. So they keep on bitching about how they don't understand women; Trying their hardest to be the opposite of what a woman finds attractive - a normal one anyway, I assume - and then complain when they only find women with an attitude. I mean ... of course! If you insist being as backward as you can; And the women are by no means pleased; Of course they'll settle on just entertaining you for God knows what forsaken reason, but sure enough not anything healthy.


Obviously ... men who think that women should be their property; or at least heavily imply as much ... would rather "not be gay" as a way of establishing their dominance. Which is basically a warning to you ladies out there. At first they want you to be attractive, hot, desirable - so they can get off of having conquered you. But then, all that needs to change. Because now that you're "his" - you ought to be as he wants you to be.

And they'll have all sorts of arguments to consolidate that opinion. It all however falls apart rather easily when asking: If now "a man" that "is not a man" and "a woman" that "is not a woman" get together and be happy - and produce offpsring and raise healthy, intelligent children - what's the problem?
That the child probably won't believe that the earth is flat?
Or that they'll be tolerant towards people who aren't exactly as they are?


So, that whole thing can be associated with emancipation.
While those people who don't like it will also be arguing that "the white man has ended slavery"! Well, did he? That's ...
I mean, sure. Some white man have at several times attempted and made progress towards abolishing slavery. But not only white men. And in the meantime other white man tried the opposite.

Which is the next matter. Emacipation in terms of labor. Work.

Here I simply mean to emphasize, how the finding that a healthy work-life balance increases productivity is generally ignored by the corporate overlords ... uhm, republican pundits and representatives. No nead to abstract that!

I guess people like to say that Americans are open hearted, kind and friendly people. Instead of just calling them superficial. And I think one of the matters there is, that it's just depressing to think of it all as just superficial. And I'm sure there are people who try to develop genuine empathy, but I'm also sure that a lot of the average american sentiment is a way to cope with the fact that they live in a dystopian hellscape!
I'm certainly not alone when it comes to people who are shocked to learn about "the real America" - the stuff ... behind the 'scenes'. Or ... perhaps otherwise captured in horror flicks.

So I'm thinking that those people over there have to be sick to the core; And yes ... adding one and one together, it's evident!
People "not wanting to work anymore" is certainly in response to the dreadful conditions that are possibly only being perpetuated once one were to seriously buy into this whole "honest work" nonsense.

I mean, a healthy relationship with your work is important. It is at least ... like ... half of your life. And if all that remains of that life is some desperate attempt at enjoying a holliday that you might as well have torn a limb out for - yea, how are you not going to be a miserably grumpy bastard?
And how can you find peace in or with this system, but by being an asshole?


Anyhow ... it might be somewhat pointless to argue over this.
And so, if you're asked to sacrifice yourself for "the economy", and you think that's OK - you're ... mentally ill, but you're possibly not going to find the treatment you need within a hyper-capitalistic society.
What I'm trying to say is, that life is what we make of it. I mean, isn't the american story one of people taking their own fortune into their own hands? And isn't it the story of evil that of people trying to rewrite what fortune means in (only) their favor?


And it is definitely possible! We basically just have to stop believing that voting for the "leopards eating people's faces" party is going to stop a leopard from eating yours!


And I think that's it. I mean, my engines are starting to fire up again, so ... I'm looking forward to get back into some coding. In closure, I think I'll leave you with something I wrote a few days ago that kind of belongs here. The TLDR of it is, that ... even when trying to design something simple - when done properly - can be quite complex. And ... that some people might try to convince you of the opposite.

---

Brilliance

Now, this isn't exactly the headline I envisioned. But ever so often what I think the next thing to write about should be sort of "rolls over" - where, in as far as I'd imply my readers to resolve some of the implications themselves, a degree of progress is as implicitly consequence; Such that my own few cents on the matter "get lost" in a sense. Well ... at least do I not know exactly anymore what has been of "such great importance" that I should write about it.


Anyhow - my most recent positions also changed the "nature of the beast" somewhat. So now the entire circumstances between knowns and unknowns, clarity and confusion, seems to be abstractly different than just before - and ... as if I actually know, at times at least, what the F I'm "talking about"; Giving it some time to sink in seems to have been the right way to go.

This has been "telegraphed" somewhat clearly - as it's stated: "I don't know what to write right now, so I'll just leave it at this". Where, if I had tried to make it at least seem somewhat final - this might not (have) come accross that clearly. That's because my written correspondence, in as far as it mirrors my own progress, is still at all times only a fragmentary reflection of what I'm ... like ... doing all the time.
Anyhow - this wasn't as much planned by me as it just so happens to be how things are right now.


And that takes me to what I wanted to write about. Well, now. So, generally there are like two or three "strands" that compose my writing. On the one side is the stuff that I care about or how to put it; And on the other is some kind of Antagonist. So, that makes one strand my theosophy, another other topics that intrigue me - and the third being generally a matter of conflict. And I suppose that by how this antagonist would want to present it, it's all just about them. Though to me that part can also be regarded as a matter of 'skewed perceptions'. So, be it by malicious conditioning or just the nature of our mangle - life to us is largely about experiences and expectations we form from them. And as muscles grow stronger when used, we grow stronger - that however also only corresponding to the challenges we face; Which might for the most part be just those things we're confronted by. To say, that we establish our individual common sense as based on the demands of our individual existence; And that wouldn't at first seem to us as though our perceptions were skewed.

There are however challenges we avoid - be it because we don't have the time for them or whatever; But also challenges we don't face because they're stranger to us. And that should tell the wise person as much as they need to consider when it comes to that.

So - in terms of 'skewed perceptions', well, the thing sure is that I regard them so as relative to my own. And that's fine - as soemthing we all have to embrace. That we individually may have skewed perceptions - due to a plethora of reasons - to other's; And therefore ... should avoid falling into bigotry. We may then individually attempt to "unskew" our perceptions - but one should be cautious not to infer absolute individual "unbiasedness" therefrom.


So ... brilliance. What is it about?
I just had an insight. An epiphany I suppose. The general gist - although the claim isn't really a "safe to say" type of thing - goes as: Being Smart and being Chaotic are like ... prerequisites to brilliance.

Regarding all the stuff I just wrote, the way this matters is that 'order' and 'narrow-mindedness' (a.k.a. Bigotry (is the same Word in German; Where 'bigotry' as something "more than just narrow-mindedness" isn't really part of the German vocabulary, I think. We'd then probably resort to "bad" words - like: Ass-Hole)) seem to equally come together.
And to show you exactly what I mean ... let me start by telling you this:

Being Chaotic is by no means ... "smart" ... . Chaos is however its very own beast - and it's very appropriate to call it that. Think of a Horse or some other beastial Mount, whereas Order is like a car. The most advanced racing cars thereby require some kind of "perfect environment" to function properly. Or so, just in general, cars basically need roads. These narrow down the amount of stuff that has to be considered as part of the car's design. So is the principle of motion as based on a wheel one that primarily concerns speed and directional control in correlation to the relationship between two surfaces. Such and such. And so, the more imperfect the environment is - the less effectively the ordinary car will be traversing it.
So may the "beast" on the other hand not be as fast ... or energy efficient ... as a car, but it can traverse a lot more imperfect terrain. Or: It can traverse terrain.

So, the thing I'm getting at - ultimately - is, that 'making progress' - at large, is often akin to traversing difficult terrain. It's like ... well ... the pioneer's work. I mean, I'd argue that most of the stuff we deem normal these days are products at the end of a long line of complicated.

Think of a knife perhaps. It used to be as simple as chipping a piece off of some appropriate rock. Which is perhaps already complicated - but perhaps also as easy as it gets. It eventually got "easier" by beating a piece of heated metal. Though what to beat it with; And how to get it in the first place - is a totally different story.


Now, those examples are basically just examples of evolution. You however don't get to one of our contemporary high end cutting implements from that by just beating the slab harder. Is ... one of the points.

Or so ... a metaphor. A metaphor to be contrasted by ... well ... building a Fort in Dwarf Fortress perhaps. I mean, the one part of it is simple; That being: Violating the Elven sensitivities while greedily digging on a diet of Alcohol and Mushrooms. But beyond that it's certainly chaotic enough to at least somehow ... fit into my argument.

More to the point could I, I suppose, produce some kind of Manual that would boil all of that chaos down into some managable simplicity. And - picking something like ... producing Soap does ultimately certainly follow some logic, starting with 'why' you should do it. And like that, there are a lot of things you 'should' do - but starting out as a noob you might not ... even have a concept of what those 'why's entail. And so there at first have to be Pioneers that ... well ... weather the chaos - as to figure out the dos and don'ts.


That at the very least entails some open-mindedness.
So, the issue in principle is, that while we don't know what kinds of stuff a thing entails - it can be detrimental to approach it with a too narrow set of pre-conceived notions. And once the thing has evolved to the point where it can be conceived in a sense of order - and thus with narrow-mindedness - a kind of 'normal' has been understood that is however, quite possibly, terribly at odds with what was thought to be normal before.


And yea - it may be a little bit misguiding to adhere to the Dwarf Fortress example. Dwarf Fortress is like a Microcosm we might use to highlight the principle itself. In contrast to that we have the one or the other artistic rendition of how "advanced military operation" "discloses" the "nature of chaos"; I suppose Avatar would be one of the currently most popular instances thereof. That is certainly an example. But in reality we're at a similar point where just beating the slab harder won't do us much good.

And so I have a very deep ... disregard for this military nonsense. I think I thereby align with Tolkien - who strongly implies that Saruman's ... "changes" to Isengard are evil. Avatar in comparison is more of an idealization of that Military prowess that has some mythical opponent in the Navi - something that's thoroughly lacking in Lord of the Rings; And quite frankly: Reality as is.
Well, the Ents and that whole battle doesn't count; For that is by no means "Nature defending itself". It's a different military entity that is in conflict with Saruman ... for reasons that may in part align with "Nature defending itself" but ... here Saruman also ends up dead in the end. And that's that.

And along those lines I also really don't like the "white man living with the Natives becoming one of them" storys either. It has something pretentious. And I suppose those stories also terribly exaggerate the importance of those "white man"s - as in essence, I suppose, such stories would be expressions of hospitality; And subsequently some kind of assimilation.
Whichever way.
Or ways.
It's complicated.
And neither here nor there ...

More to the point are both examples (Military Prowess and "Infiltration") a matter of open-mindedness being re-introduced into a narrow mindset; Usually following a goal that may very well be counter to the things that true open-mindedness would find. And both are, for the concerns I observe here, only fringe cases.
Though perhaps 'big examples' along the lines of skewed perceptions. Let's call that "Infiltration Philosophy" or ... "open narrow-mindedness/bigotry".

The idea at large may very well be boiled down to: Expanding one's own horizon until enough insight has been gained such that "something can be made of it". And so it would seem like "Military Prowess" and "Infiltration" are two sides of the same coin - where if a thing cannot be controlled externally, control mechanisms may have to be sought internally.

The issue is ... regarding those there's still some kind of Order that can be maintained. "Obtain Unobtanium" or "Become part of Group ...". And if we can get beyond the whole "Good guy/bad guy" situation; Or so: The politics of it - there also isn't much wrong with it. It's just not the thing I'm getting at here.


Mistaking it for that is basically the very same thing that makes it an issue. It's an attempt, per chance, to bend chaos into order. The difference may barely even be relevant; And between being your own boss and someone telling you how to do something, it's also not entirely universal just which side is right.
However - whatever miniscule difference there is, it is as between having a checklist and compiling a checklist. Or perhaps constructing the thing that then requires an entire checklist in order to be operated; And employing people to do the checking for you.

---

So, I didn't feel comfortable with where that was going; And there was a point ... but I forgot what it was.
Could this be a cliffhanger?