Belly Button Lint

Feeling Lint-y?

Tag: reason

  • Theme:

    rationality backwards to desire: kaledescopic chaos

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    First, logic doesn’t lead to thoughts: thoughts back into form from desire. Notions take shape from the possible harm or potential ramifications that feed you or free you. Logic is merely how we present our desires to sell them.

    Consider "expectations" from a pathological person: they are not based on reason but a pattern of recognizing irrational audience demands, which continually ratchet upwards and spin sideways in their demands, conveniently shifting to maintain power. This is a vice of kaleidoscopic chaos, ever restricting while shifting in pattern.

    The delusion is to consider that we can identify the pattern: our irrationality competing with theirs.

    –
    –
    –

  • Theme:

    Scripted Failure: Emotions as progress

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    Rejecting algorithmic and scientific models for historical prediction leaves communities opting for non-hierarchical, human-centric engagement. They often experience catastrophic breakdowns on schedule; refusing predictive models, they predictably collapse.

    The apparent solidarity and spontaneity in these ‘hippie utopias’ are ironically scripted and performed, ensuring their failure. We have comprehensively mapped emotions heuristics, so retreating into feelings as a basis for progress or escape is the inverse: a truly automated failure.

    Idea from Benjamin Bratton

  • Theme:

    law over social pressure

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    The two primary ways of societal control are law and social pressure.

    Social pressure functions as moral norms, restricting behavior by conformity or compliance for inclusion.

    Generally, norms are better for governance than laws, which must be parsed and ponderously enforced in cold, bureaucratic processes. However, public outcry can overcome sober traditions or common sense wisdom, shifting into hysterical punishment through exclusion and reputational attacks as mob mentality infects once sane citizens.

    This is when the law’s ponderous methodology performs its role: to slow down the fickle mob, doling out justice at a glacial pace.

    –
    –
    –

  • Theme:

    mapping: data vs subject

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    Retraining as remapping: We have been trained to consider charts, graphs, and geography when determining how we fit into social, political, or even viral epidemiological narratives.

    This statistical awareness is often a reductive summary standing in for the whole or the specific. Yet, we should consider whether the map/model is the ground against which we are the figure (ground>figure as data>individual) or the inverse, where we are the ground and the data is the figure (figure>ground as individual>data). If the data is the figure, we can fight to edit it and overcome it.

    We are trained to read a model (map/chart) a certain way—to see where we fit against the legend or true north—but if we self-compose (create ourselves) based on a low-resolution model, we can see that our society is trained to reinforce statistical normativity, so consider ourselves in relation to the position of external determinants.

    Whether the individual is subservient to the data (ground>figure) the normalization of relating to a model confronts the notion of “individuality”, from which we swing back to challenging the data (figure>ground) as a zero-point from which to model social autonomy, which of course remodels the model.

  • Theme:

    Mystical reversal: empirical empowerment

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    A supernatural realm persists, enacting odd changes while remaining veiled from comprehension. This mysterious realm seems to serve as the underlying foundation of the palpable, natural world we inhabit. With careful attunement and rituals, we can align with the mystery, predicting and anticipating its caprice.

    While embracing empiricism or materialism might seem to disregard this mystical dimension it is not at odds with it, rather it reverses our relationship: by empowering the physical we induce change on our terms for tangible profit or benefit attempting to reduce dependence on "magical" influence.

  • Theme:

    Workplace idiocy

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    In the workplace, the common-sense logic of working hard, not taking any vacation days, and not complaining about anything does not get you promoted.

    Instead, consider that you must be just polarizing enough to be noticed (and possibly disliked) by some leaders in order to be championed by one leader. Once this Executive goes to bat for you (defends you), they must not back down in the competitive arena of high-power egos. The champion must then fight for your promotion to further validate his/her stance.

    Fighting for a stable, hyper-productive wallflower is seldom heard of.

    Your best bet is to be a hard-driving idiot: look like you are passionately working hard, saying “yes” to everything, and hurting yourself. Solve problems that don’t exist. Get others to help your silly crusades. This creates a much better emotional spectacle than methodical, logical progress, with the bonus of involving others which looks like leadership.

  • Theme:

    Constructive / Destructive Paradox

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    For all of our cleverness and rationality, our ability to build tools, create marvels, and harness the energy of Atoms, we also fall prey to cults and wish death upon ourselves to serve in-group demands.

    Despite all of our capabilities and rationality, we can be convinced to suicide ourselves.

    Our creative, constructive aspect is more than equaled by our delusional, destructive self. This begs the corollary question of these traits: are they inherently interdependent?

  • Theme:

    Shielding yourself with social intent

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    A clever and increasingly common rhetorical device is to claim intent, despite reality.

    For instance, a specific person argues against health studies on obesity, claiming they are to shame people. If prejudice can be assigned, medical studies and their real-world repercussions (death) are invalid. If you get in trouble at work for stealing, it is the deviously ill-intentioned underling who is to blame, not your actions.

    The fascinating part about assigning blame, or labeling ill-intent, is it allows one to reassert protagonist status; it dodges responsibility for actions. After all, disciplined behavior is an obnoxious remnant of "tradition" that should be discarded.

    Yet, more troublesome is when actions cease to count and intent overshadows outcomes, we begin to notice intent shifts to victimization and societal injustice, expanding the shield of intent into nobility.

    –
    –
    –

  • Theme:

    Replacing Lost Things

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    Humans have loss aversion, where instead of considering wins and losses as equivalent, a loss feels more devastating than a corresponding gain.
    It is not strictly rational. However, if you extend your body to apply to your psychology, losing a limb can be the end of you, while not getting an extra meal (gain) will merely be a little bit painful.

    Daniel Kahneman has pointed this out: typically, our mammalian survival behaviors underlie our materialism and economic decisions.

    –
    –
    –

  • Theme:

    Irrationality as Reasonable (zero-trust)

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    The quest for safety drives people. There are those who, in pursuing security under the government’s umbrella, flaunt laws and traditions yet claim to deserve state privileges nonetheless. Others maintain severe traditions that reject the state’s authority and claim sovereign privilege.

    This oddly hypocritical juxtaposition in our ideological stance pairs with self-preservation strategies. When a Kafkaesque scenario of distrust in leaders, prevailing narratives, and corporate entities leaves us in a “zero-trust” society, there is seemingly little benefit and much potential harm in extending trust to any institution. As a result, we drop back into fractious local networks of individuals to seek communion, safety, and trust.

    Counterintuitively, trust is not necessary when something is reasonable: no trust is extended when we all agree. And so, to invoke trust, we must evoke irrationality: social tests that go to unreasonable extremes bind loyalty, creating in-group and out-group affiliation.

    While rationality should lead to trust, it is more of a survival imperative to adopt irrationality, making it more reasonable when system trust is lost.