Moral Believing Animals, Pass 2

This is my 2nd pass through this important work. I now have the hardcover to lend out to "locals". 

I'd make the title "Moral, Believing Beings", but I'm not the author ... 

My blog on the first pass is here.

A link to a more detailed review here. 

The SHORT summary:

1. The book makes an excellent case that we ALL live by faith in mental models/narratives -- we have no choice as "moral, believing, animals" since those models are as necessary as "air" for us.  Wittgenstein seems to agree.
2. Given that, our situation requires we "choose" the model/narrative that seems best to apply to our shared condition, and/or is more effective for a meaningful life, and potentially eternal life. 
3. If we can come to terms with these assertions (hard task, given our propensity to believe that our current model is THE TRUTH), we might all be able to understand that all our models are really floating in the same boat of unprovable faith! Perhaps, even if we are not able to make that leap, we can at least have less malice toward our fellow believers

Like all believers (which this book strongly asserts we all are), I would love to "convince" you that Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life. I understand that is not very likely, though I believe that with the power of the Holy Spirit, ALL things are possible! 

In any case, perhaps we can understand why we have our differences. 

Wittgenstein

 https://newcriterion.com/issues/1988/12/the-philosophical-porcupine

A name I have trouble remembering the proper pronunciation of  though it is really easy if one remembers that "witt" is VIT!

The linked is probably all one really needs to know about Wittgenstein ... as the linked says: 

In other words, in Wittgenstein’s view, philosophy—and by extension rational discourse generally—is helpless when confronted with anything that really matters.

So Wittgenstein claims to have shown definitely that philosophy is only really useful for showing what can NOT be shown by philosophy! 

far from being a positivist, . . . Wittgenstein had meant the Tractatus to be interpreted in exactly the opposite sense. Where the Vienna positivists had equated the “important” with the “Verifiable” and dismissed all unverifiable propositions as “unimportant because unsayable,” the concluding section of the Tractatus had insisted—though to deaf ears—that the unpayable alone has genuine value. . . . Wittgenstein’s silence in the face of the ‘unutterable’ was not a mocking silence like that of the positivists, but rather a respectful one. Having decided that “Value-neutral” facts alone can be expressed in regular proposition form, he exhorted his readers to turn their eyes away from factual propositions to the things of true value—which cannot be gesagt [stated] but only gezeigt [shown].

The positivists/materialists believe that all that matters is "particles and progress", Wittgenstein believes that it is the inverse -- it is what you CAN'T say that really ultimately matters!

Therefore in this crazy thought world, demanding vorcifiserly that there is no God, one of their main philosophers says that you can't know anything about that philosophically. 

My inclination though is not really "practical" ... that is what I tried to focus on (sometimes successfully) at IBM for 34 years ... so I may well try to understand Wittgenstein in more detail at some point. 

Sacrificing Children

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/02/what-we-are-doing-to-our-young-people-is-a-crime.php 

In the old testament, when the people turn from God to Baal, the sacrifice of children is a common result. In the US, this became official policy with Roe ... children, like souls, can be "inconvenient". They are a burden rather than a gift to be cherished -- why would you do much "for the kids" when you see another option that you see as making you "happier"? 

If the children have to be sacrificed at the altar of increased government control (a basic "good" in the increasingly fascist nation), why not? If they go to school, possibly bringing home Corona, it may even endanger YOUR life (or so we are told) -- and when this world and you being "happy", entertained, anesthetized, comfortable,etc, maximizing your time in this vale of tears is the prime objective, 

Reality seems to be sinking in for some:

I believed them. They were measuring their situation against people with less. With nothing.
Still. What surprised me is how money didn’t make this OK. These parents looked terrified. Two of the fathers cried; one turned off his video because he could not keep it together. Two of the mom had outbursts, and I couldn’t blame them. Everything they said was true.

Even relatively conservative people like Hinderaker are losing the fact that money doesn't make much at all "ok". The link is worth a sad read. 

So what is a Minnesotan to do? LEAVE!

Do Lockdowns Encourage Greater Virus Lethality?

Interesting article about a possibility why Covid evolved may be more lethal. 

The 1918 lethal flu started out mild like typical flu. The common flu (and colds) spread easily and don't kill their hosts ... or often don't even make them ill enough to stay home. All the better to let their hosts get out and spread better. The strains that are LESS lethal are naturally selected. 

In 1918 europe however, the sick soldier was often sicker (cold, nasty trenches, etc) and was therefore transported to hospitals by healthcare workers. The sicker you were, the more likely you were to get transported and spread the flu. The MORE severe (and thus more likely to be lethal) strains were naturally selected. 

Ridley (the author of the column) is smart and quite humble (I've read books and other articles by him) -- he admits to making mistakes, unlike our "experts" and mass media. 

There is some evidence that the response to Covid may be causing selection of more severe (and thus more likely to be lethal) strains with the health system as a vector. 

**IF** this is a factor, encouraging people to go and get tested (not a problem if you believe masks are very effective), and making them afraid enough that they are driven to seek hospitals for treatment. 

If we allowed the general population to get out, the less severe strains would win the selection race. 

As Ridley points out, we don't KNOW that ... it is a possibility. 

If we were a free society with lots people thinking and discussing their thoughts,  very little censorship (either overt or through shaming) of possibly "crazy" ideas, past experience would suggest that better ideas being "naturally selected" would win out. 

In our current culture, the expression of thoughts like this article is likely to get you labeled as a "dangerous crank" and possibly "cancelled", or at least shamed. 

Respect for actual free speech and diviersity of thought/discussion as a prime cultural value once "naturally selected" the old territory between Mexico and Canada as "exceptional". 

What is cancel culture and shaming selecting? 

Fundamentals, Ten Keys To Reality

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/a-theoretical-physicist-gets-down-to-the-basics/2021/01/07/c9e65468-47c7-11eb-975c-d17b8815a66d_story.html 

The book would be better titled "10 Keys to Physics and Physicalist Reality", although the real purpose appears to be "how to convince those inconvenienced by souls that they don't have one". 

Frank is a pure materialist -- it is all "space, time, and matter". He likes to borrow phrases from Christianity, eg "born again", and apply them to materialism. One must be "born again" -- to a "complimentary" reality. Bohr first introduced complementarity --  "it is BOTH a wave and a particle", which always reminds me of the "New Shimmer", which is BOTH a dessert topping and a floor wax! 

Complementarity can be understood as the physics version of dialectics -- the ability to view issues from multiple perspectives and to arrive at the most economical and reasonable understanding of seemingly contradictory information and views. You dialectically can have your cake and eat it too!

Arnold Sommerfeld claimed (p 206); "It is clear that complementarity overthrows the scholastic ontology. What is truth? We pose Pilates question not in a  skeptical, non-scientific sense, but rather in the confidence that further work on this new situation will lead to a deeper understanding of the physical and mental world". 

If you want to understand "scholastic ontology", which is supposedly "overthrown", this would be a start. Ontology is about "what is" ... what "actually exists", what it means to exist, what category it is, the subject of universals, etc. --like quantum physics,  it is hard to pin down -- it is metaphysics. To attempt to simplify. it is pretty much a "world view" that has roughly three model/ontological positions: 

1. Realism says there is an external reality independent of human perception. ie. if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, it still makes a sound. 
2. Idealism says that reality can only be understood via the human mind and socially constructed meanings -- the unheard tree does not make a sound, and thinking it does shows you are corrupted by the patriarchy. 
3. Materialism says there is ONLY the material world! Spirit and consciousness are illusions. Reality is all just meaningless random "stuff", including YOU! 

The scholastics were Christian thinkers who sought to understand general philosophical problems like faith, reason, will, intellect, realism, nominalism,  etc, and what could be "known" (epistemology). 

The book seems to present a fairly reachable high level understanding of the current "Standard Model" of physics -- Big Bang, Quantum Physics, quarks,  uncertainty principle, etc -- "reality" is just a complex arrangement of "mass, charge, spin" in Frank's mind. (assuming he has a mind -- true materialism calls the existence of "mind" into question!)

Where the book fails is that it is really just description of "stuff" ("matter", particles, forces, etc) that tries to lure one into thinking that if you explain the things we can observe and measure, that is all there is -- ie, placing  your faith in materialism is "being born again". We "know" there isn't anything beyond the observed because we have not observed it -- we "know" there are no black swans because we have not seen one! (there are, there is a book by that title that I read prior to blogging everything)

Of course we really don't know that, anymore than we can know if we have a wave or particle prior to observation. Honest faith in godless materialism philosophically "resolves" to determinism -- human choice - "Free Will" is collateral damage. Frank isn't comfortable with that, so on page 218 he declares that materialistic determinism and free will both exist through the principle of complementarity.  

However, on page 225, he decides that since you have read this book, the evidence for scientific fundamentalism is overwhelming and indisputable. "To deny it is dishonest. To ignore it is foolish." He goes on to deny that there is such a thing as a soul, but then at the bottom of page 227 he asserts that; "When we see ourselves as patterns in matter, it is natural to draw our circle of kinship very far and wide indeed". 

"Natural"? Frank has just provided a view of the MECHANISM of the universe -- he did not say WHY. The answer to why is a matter of faith, no different from the faith of materialism. I believe heaven and hell both exist, and our faith resolves our destination. I can believe that material exists and with the addition of the secret sauce of consciousness/will, it can build cool stuff and blow it up -- scientific materialism will never tell us whether to build a bomb or an MRI.

If you want to understand the current state of physics a bit better, this book is fine, just ignore the metaphysics, Frank didn't get a Nobel there. I'd recommend "The Fabric Of the Cosmos" as a better choice. 

Biden, Barrett - Good Faith, Bad Faith

 https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-left-said-amy-coney-barretts-faith-made-her-radical-now-they-say-joe-bidens-faith-makes-him-devout

Documenting the fact that if the left didn't have double standards, they would have no standards at all is a thankless, tiresome task. It mostly makes people of actual Christian faith exasperated to the point of anger, and for the left, it is merely documenting that they have "truth", and anyone that disagrees is a hateful heretic. The religion of Wokeism believes that those who disagree are irredeemable deplorable. 

The completely opposite treatment of Biden and Barrett, two supposed Catholics is clear -- but to half the country, completely meaningless. For the woke, Biden's form of "Catholicism" that denies major teachings of the supposed church is "the real faith".  Barrett's actual Catholic faith is deplorable. 

Just three months ago, the same media praising Biden for his “devout” faith was working feverishly to convince anyone who would listen that Amy Coney Barrett’s strict adherence to Catholic teachings made her a “radical.”

Hate Versus Disagreement

 https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/01/a-tsunami-of-hate.php

Being able to civilly discuss and disagree is critical to human relations. We are all unique, and being comfortable in discussing our unique perspectives with others is as important part of faith, family and community -- the things that make life worth living. 

The left in Wokeistan HATES those that have significant disagreement with them. BLM states it plainly -- "Silence Is Violence", and voiced disagreement is even worse. 

The problem is not that we disagree. We are not suffering as a nation from healthy disagreement. We are suffering from a Tsunami of Hate emanating from the Democrat Party that seeks to demonize, criminalize and extinguish dissent from the 75 million supporters of Donald Trump. It is now official Washington dogma that to question an election result – something the congressional Democrats have done in the face of every Republican presidential victory since 2000 – is now “insurrection” and “domestic terrorism,” or the incitement thereto, and needs to be prosecuted and suppressed.

The whole linked article is well worth the read. 

In order for people to continue to live with each other, there must be a decent level of "cultural memory". It isn't just "Democrats" that declared W Bush and Trump to not be valid presidents -- and thus worthy of being constantly attacked and threatened with or actually impeached, it was nearly the entire MSM, the "professional class" (especially legal), and the entire "educational" (indoctrination) system. 

If something can't go on forever, it won't. A house divided against itself cannot stand. 

Davos Reset, Leveraging Covid

 https://www.weforum.org/events/the-davos-agenda-2021

As Rahm Emanuel famously said;

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

I believe that the RESPONSE to Covid was engineered on a global basis. The virus may well have been engineered as well, there are a lot of pieces of evidence that point that way. Naturally, that evidence is largely suppressed, however the fact that viruses are being modified to do good things means they can be modified for bad things. Any powerful technology can be used as a weapon -- think nuclear power. "Coincidences" of the magnitude of Covid at the time it happened largely aren't coincidences. 

Abortion convinces me that the general population has no respect for life. If you have no respect for life, and you have the means, doesn't getting rid of a bunch of old people, small businesses, and Trump, while padding your pockets and prepping for a "reset" to give you even more power seem like a "no brainer"?

When you see the worlds "elite" meeting annually under the cover of "we are doing a lot of good things", I think we have PLENTY of evidence that what they are doing is increasing their own wealth and screwing the middle and lower classes. 

Witness this chart from  National Review  

In 2016 the people woke up a bit and realized they were getting screwed by the "elite". In 2020, 10 million more of them woke up -- and the elite decided that enough was enough, so they cheated -- they doubled down on the "Covid Crisis", and made "elections" a thing of the past. 

The link at the top is worth following and crying a bit -- when you have a bunch of billionaires marketing their "good deeds", the pitch is pretty slick. What you really need to know is this ... it is time for the elite to do a "reset": 

Inevitably, the event for the 1,200-plus delegates from 60 countries aims to respond to the apocalyptic events of the past 12 months. “A crucial year to rebuild trust” is the theme, built around the “great reset” that World Economic Forum (WEF) founder Klaus Schwab and Prince Charles launched last year.

Remember "Hope and Change"? It's accelerating to a new global level.  

Damn The Environment, Invest In Lithium

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact?fbclid=IwAR2xqU3xKobB0E8SrU99RyB8JPYFaHUYttjGq-Ww0I8sYUut08BcWdRH5N8 

The world is filled with winners and losers. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. 

The world is on a "clean energy" binge -- so what is the equal and opposite reaction? Lithium, cobalt, manganese and other things have to be mined, processed, transported, etc. So there is collateral damage to the environment. Who cares? The "right" people get rich and the oil and gas workers get the shaft.  

My current (small) investment in lithium is LIT ... based on my investment expertise, I'd recommend selling that puppy short! (NO! I'm kidding! Unless you are a Davos elite insider, short selling is RISKY). 

Much like the Covid panic, where the elite made LOTS of money (Amazon, Google, WalMart, people that were in the know that after the crash, governments would go on a printing binge, etc). 

Who makes lots of money from Biden being "elected"? Wind / solar companies, rail companies like BNSF because pipelines are being cancelled, so more has to move by rail (Warren Buffet owns BNSF) ... 

Short Squeeze For Dummies

 https://www.kiplinger.com/investing/602165/what-exactly-is-a-short-squeeze

I've always been a dummy investor, so the whole Gamestop deal was a mystery -- especially since I no longer follow the MSM, it had to show up on Power Line before I cared enough to look. 

The Spectator has a somewhat interesting column on more of the psychology and real world human effects. 

There is a lot of sadness about our tragic money obsessed culture in the link -- the profanity is just the beginning: 

And boy has it worked. The user who first pitched GameStop on Reddit is called DeepFuckingValue. His original investment of $50,000 is now worth $50 million. This weekend he celebrated his gains in a video by dipping chicken tenderloins in a glass of Champagne. He still hasn’t sold.

For the congenitally stupid like me, the Kiplinger link covers it well -- I DID know "selling short" is betting the stock goes down, I just had a VERY foggy idea of what the mechanism was. 

Short selling – or shorting – is placing a bet that a stock declines in value. To do this, you borrow shares from another investor and then sell them. (Your broker does this for you behind the scenes.)

But remember: Those shares aren't yours to sell. You borrowed them. This means you are obligated to buy the shares back so you can to return them to the original owner.

There is an old saying attributed to Daniel Drew, a legendary speculator of the late 1800s:

"He who sells what isn't his'n, must buy it back or go to pris'n."

They don't send bankrupt short sellers to prison anymore, but the obligation to buy the shares back is very real. And this is where short squeezes come into play.

In the physical world, it would be like you borrowed 100 rounds of ammo from your friend when you went to the range, because you thought you were a little "short". Assume ammo was going for .10 a round  (so $10 for the 100). A guy at the range was buying ammo at .10 a round (he didn't bring enough) and you decided you were done shooting, and sold him what you borrowed ... so now you have $10, and no ammo. 

Unfortunately, you forgot to get more ammo, and now you are out. So when your friend asks for the ammo back, you find that ammo has gone up to $10 a round (where it is today BTW if you can get it) ... so you have to pay $100 for it, and therefore lost $90. 

The market (broker) doesn't trust you like your friend, so you have to "cover" as the price of the stock rises ... and keep covering as the price goes up -- and it can go up A LOT, theoretically infinitely. If you can't cover, you MUST actually buy the stock and give it back, thus making the stock rise in "value".  (the scare quotes are because the underlying real world value of the stock (the earnings of the company and sale price of its assets) are often way less than the stock price. In markets, "value" is whatever people are either willing -- or forced to pay if they can't cover the margin call. 

So short selling is very risky ... your potential gain is limited, your potential loss is unlimited. 

Naturally, on the chance you buy the actual stock at $10 (ammo at .10 a round) and it gets into a "squeeze" (like say Biden gets elected and he bans ammo sales), and stock (ammo) goes up to $1,000, AND YOU SELL IT, you made $990. (often, the other problem is that you are greedy, don't sell in time, so just lose your $10) 

... and now you know why I have a stockpile of ammo.  

Things like the Gamestop squeeze add to to the uncertainty of markets -- people have to sell assets they otherwise would like to keep in order to cover the margin -- other stocks, or maybe gold, thus causing their values to drop -- at least temporarily. 

So I think I understand it now -- always dangerous!