Two weeks ago I caught a cold, and, partly having to do with my failure to execute a proper Operation: Shutdown, I ended up with acute bronchitis. Only within the last few days have I begun returning to my typical active lifestyle, though I do so by pretending that the infection has gone away when in truth it's still there. Based on previous experiences I expect that it will linger around for a few more weeks though in a more benign form.
Two days into being sick and detecting an increasingly raspy breath, I scheduled an appointment with the doctor and managed to see him that day. I told him about my sinus infection and bronchitis; he was patient with my questions and then prescribed antibiotics. Only after fulfilling the prescription and taking a pill or two did I bother to do some online research to figure out what exactly acute bronchitis is. The interesting bit I found out is this: according to WebMD, acute bronchitis is usually caused by a virus, and only in about 10% of cases is it caused by bacteria. Also, according to Wikipedia, the color of the sputum (coughed-up mucus) may indicate whether the infection is viral or bacterial; white indicates a virus; yellowish-green indicates bacteria. My sputum is white, so antibiotics, which treat only bacterial infections, are an unlikely cure, though useful as placebo (until I began learning about bronchitis).
But this is not a post about getting sick or about the medical industry or about anything of the like. Rather, this is a post about a recent realization of mine, which is this: it's important to know your stuff. I mean this in the literal sense, that one should garner, at least to a moderate degree, knowhow and tools for maintaining the things they own and often use. For everyone this entails gaining a basic understanding of the body and medicines and remedies because we all have bodies, and we all get sick and injured. More generally, it entails becoming handier with the things around us.
It might be that I value handiness because I lack it myself. For years I was happy to take my bicycle to the experts, the folks at the bike shop, to have it serviced for all but the simplest of maintenance and repairs. In the meantime, by riding bicycles and hanging around other cyclists, I couldn't help but pick up some basic bicycle maintenance knowhow, and I started doing more things myself at home. In doing so one thing I discovered is this: I can do a better job with the repairs that I know than a professional bike mechanic. It's not that I'm better at bicycle maintenance than them because I'm not; rather, it's that forces conspire to prevent the mechanic from spending too much time on any one bike whereas I will do a more thorough job. I care more about my bike than the bike shop mechanic. Even the most caring and sympathetic of bike mechanics is not going to adjust my rear derailleur quite as finely as I will when he has ten other repairs to make before his shift is over in two hours.
The bike shop mechanic has too many repairs to make and so must follow something like the 80/20 rule and end up doing each job less ably than he is capable of. The general practitioner has too many liabilities to tell a patient that he probably has a viral infection and that the only thing to do is to let the illness run its course and that antibiotics are a waste.
I realize that a common and powerful counterargument to the idea of individuals pursuing generalized knowledge and skills is that an economy increases in efficiency as individuals tend toward specialization, not generalization. A person is more effective at doing one type of activity ten times than he is doing ten types of activity one time each. I understand this argument and will accept its validity. The question I would like to raise is: to whose benefit is it that a specialization-based economy is more efficient?
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Breakup!
Last week I broke up with my operating system. I'm pretty sure this is a "for real" breakup and not a mere spat, so I feel confident describing the situation here publicly.
Firstly, let me say that I consider my time with Ubuntu to have been well spent. We were together since about 2005. (It's difficult to say exactly when we first became "on" because, like many relationships, ours began tentatively.) During that time we grew together, and I even introduced Ubuntu to my parents. Ubuntu and I underwent many system upgrades, a transition to a wonderful new laptop, and even a fresh install. Through it all Ubuntu treated me well--perhaps a little too well. I grew lazy and stupid, enabled by the comfort of being with an operating system that made system administration simple.
But then the unthinkable happened. My rock steady Ubuntu began gaining weight. For sure, Ubuntu was never the slimmest OS of the bunch, and I was okay with that. There are things more important than a trim physique, and I was smart enough to realize a good thing when I had it. But it was the most recent upgrade from Jaunty to Karmic during which my precious operating system became morbidly obese, bursting the seams of my laptop despite the machine's dual-core processor and 2GB of memory. Ubuntu had become fat indeed. I even began viewing its other positive attributes in a different, less accepting way. By last week I made the decision to split, and on Thursday I installed Arch Linux.
I heard of Arch Linux through a coworker several months ago. It's not as polished and refined as Ubuntu and makes less of an attempt to make administration easy-to-use. The benefit of this is that Arch Linux is lightweight and flexible. These two defining characteristics, so opposite of Ubuntu, may mean Arch Linux is a rebound operating system. I don't know. Perhaps it's telling that today is day five into our relationship and I'm still happily running twm--without a graphical display manager, no less--and it's from the command line that I'm doing things like bringing up wireless, starting Firefox, and suspending the computer. My terminal is xterm. My volume control is alsamixer.
So I don't know. Whatever the future holds for me and Arch Linux, I know this much: for me a computer is not and cannot be a mere appliance, and the right operating system for me is one that enables me to cultivate my garden, not to outsource the landscaping duties.
Firstly, let me say that I consider my time with Ubuntu to have been well spent. We were together since about 2005. (It's difficult to say exactly when we first became "on" because, like many relationships, ours began tentatively.) During that time we grew together, and I even introduced Ubuntu to my parents. Ubuntu and I underwent many system upgrades, a transition to a wonderful new laptop, and even a fresh install. Through it all Ubuntu treated me well--perhaps a little too well. I grew lazy and stupid, enabled by the comfort of being with an operating system that made system administration simple.
But then the unthinkable happened. My rock steady Ubuntu began gaining weight. For sure, Ubuntu was never the slimmest OS of the bunch, and I was okay with that. There are things more important than a trim physique, and I was smart enough to realize a good thing when I had it. But it was the most recent upgrade from Jaunty to Karmic during which my precious operating system became morbidly obese, bursting the seams of my laptop despite the machine's dual-core processor and 2GB of memory. Ubuntu had become fat indeed. I even began viewing its other positive attributes in a different, less accepting way. By last week I made the decision to split, and on Thursday I installed Arch Linux.
I heard of Arch Linux through a coworker several months ago. It's not as polished and refined as Ubuntu and makes less of an attempt to make administration easy-to-use. The benefit of this is that Arch Linux is lightweight and flexible. These two defining characteristics, so opposite of Ubuntu, may mean Arch Linux is a rebound operating system. I don't know. Perhaps it's telling that today is day five into our relationship and I'm still happily running twm--without a graphical display manager, no less--and it's from the command line that I'm doing things like bringing up wireless, starting Firefox, and suspending the computer. My terminal is xterm. My volume control is alsamixer.
So I don't know. Whatever the future holds for me and Arch Linux, I know this much: for me a computer is not and cannot be a mere appliance, and the right operating system for me is one that enables me to cultivate my garden, not to outsource the landscaping duties.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
On money and wealth, pt. 3
What are inflation and deflation?
If real wealth and virtual wealth are traded for each other then it follows that each are subject to the effects of supply and demand. For example, if the amount of all real wealth remains unchanged and the amount of virtual wealth increases then we expect one unit of virtual wealth to trade for a lesser amount of real wealth than it did previously. This is one form of inflation, and it fits with its classic definition of too much money chasing too few goods and services.
But in the previous post I wrote that it's curious how during inflation goods' and services' prices increase but become cheaper and how during deflation goods' and services' prices decrease but become more expensive. The classic definition of inflation suggests that prices increase, goods and services become more expensive, and that is all there is to it. What do I mean when I say that prices increase and goods and services become cheaper?
Though all we need to satisfy our immediate needs and wants is real wealth, virtual wealth is no mere medium of exchange nor is it only a product of greed and excess. Virtual wealth is conducive for creating real wealth. Anyone who has been on the borrowing end of a student loan knows this. Instead of borrowing to go to school, one could save all the necessary money first and then go to school using the savings. However, such a strategy, though fiscally safer, is less feasible. How long would it take a doctor-to-be to save enough money for medical school? Much too long. He would be saving money through a less-skilled and lower-paying career, and so by the time he graduated from medical school there's a chance he might be on his way to reentering medical school--this time as a cadaver. Instead, the more feasible strategy is to borrow the necessary money for medical school--i.e., to create a promise--and pay back the money using the smaller proportionate savings from a better-paying medical career. The doctor benefits because it's easier for him to borrow and pay back than it is for him to save, and society benefits because we all enjoy having younger doctors with longer careers. This is an example of virtual wealth creating real wealth.
Because of the power of virtual wealth, in a capitalist economy there exists a motive towards over-promising, a motive towards the excessive creation of virtual wealth. It is observed by many that it is generally easier to pay for things in the future than it is to pay for them in the present, and we come to finance an ever greater amount of things in the present based on a promise to pay for them in the future. When the strategy works all is well; the amount of real wealth increases and things are easier to pay for in the future, though optimism and the ratio of virtual-to-real wealth increase too. The result is a benign form of inflation whereby prices have increased due to the increase in the ratio of virtual-to-real wealth while simultaneously people are able to afford more due to the increase in real wealth.
The downside is, as we are now seeing, that these same economic forces also work in reverse. If things generally become more difficult to pay for in the future than in the present, such as due to a future limitation of resources, then promises become worth less. It becomes more difficult to finance things in the present, and so the amount of both real and virtual wealth decrease, and the unwinding of virtual wealth happens faster than the unwinding of real wealth. The result is a malign form of deflation whereby prices have decreased due to the decrease in the ratio of virtual-to-real wealth while simultaneously people are less able to afford as much due to the decrease in real wealth.
Final thoughts
This is an awful series of blog posts, is it not? If you've made it this far then you did a better job than me. I think I started doubting what I was writing around halfway through. Again, thinking about economics leads me to the conclusion that the subject is far too complex for my comprehension. It was fun to try, though.
I'm inclined to state my contrarian prediction that deflation, via pessimism and loan defaults and a generally recessing real economy, is more likely in our nearish future than inflation, via optimism and good credit and a generally growing real economy. But after thinking about the matter these last two weeks, I think my prediction may be the product of an overly limited imagination.
I do believe that the virtual economy is forever tethered to the health of the real economy, and, like how a spring resists movement in either direction away from its resting state, that markets swing up and down only as far as the varying manias and depressions with which men move them. And I am worried that environmental destruction, either through climate change or resource depletion, poses a very serious risk for our real economy and way of life. But when has it not posed such a risk?
I will quit the maze for now with the hope of someday returning with better insight.
If real wealth and virtual wealth are traded for each other then it follows that each are subject to the effects of supply and demand. For example, if the amount of all real wealth remains unchanged and the amount of virtual wealth increases then we expect one unit of virtual wealth to trade for a lesser amount of real wealth than it did previously. This is one form of inflation, and it fits with its classic definition of too much money chasing too few goods and services.
But in the previous post I wrote that it's curious how during inflation goods' and services' prices increase but become cheaper and how during deflation goods' and services' prices decrease but become more expensive. The classic definition of inflation suggests that prices increase, goods and services become more expensive, and that is all there is to it. What do I mean when I say that prices increase and goods and services become cheaper?
Though all we need to satisfy our immediate needs and wants is real wealth, virtual wealth is no mere medium of exchange nor is it only a product of greed and excess. Virtual wealth is conducive for creating real wealth. Anyone who has been on the borrowing end of a student loan knows this. Instead of borrowing to go to school, one could save all the necessary money first and then go to school using the savings. However, such a strategy, though fiscally safer, is less feasible. How long would it take a doctor-to-be to save enough money for medical school? Much too long. He would be saving money through a less-skilled and lower-paying career, and so by the time he graduated from medical school there's a chance he might be on his way to reentering medical school--this time as a cadaver. Instead, the more feasible strategy is to borrow the necessary money for medical school--i.e., to create a promise--and pay back the money using the smaller proportionate savings from a better-paying medical career. The doctor benefits because it's easier for him to borrow and pay back than it is for him to save, and society benefits because we all enjoy having younger doctors with longer careers. This is an example of virtual wealth creating real wealth.
Because of the power of virtual wealth, in a capitalist economy there exists a motive towards over-promising, a motive towards the excessive creation of virtual wealth. It is observed by many that it is generally easier to pay for things in the future than it is to pay for them in the present, and we come to finance an ever greater amount of things in the present based on a promise to pay for them in the future. When the strategy works all is well; the amount of real wealth increases and things are easier to pay for in the future, though optimism and the ratio of virtual-to-real wealth increase too. The result is a benign form of inflation whereby prices have increased due to the increase in the ratio of virtual-to-real wealth while simultaneously people are able to afford more due to the increase in real wealth.
The downside is, as we are now seeing, that these same economic forces also work in reverse. If things generally become more difficult to pay for in the future than in the present, such as due to a future limitation of resources, then promises become worth less. It becomes more difficult to finance things in the present, and so the amount of both real and virtual wealth decrease, and the unwinding of virtual wealth happens faster than the unwinding of real wealth. The result is a malign form of deflation whereby prices have decreased due to the decrease in the ratio of virtual-to-real wealth while simultaneously people are less able to afford as much due to the decrease in real wealth.
Final thoughts
This is an awful series of blog posts, is it not? If you've made it this far then you did a better job than me. I think I started doubting what I was writing around halfway through. Again, thinking about economics leads me to the conclusion that the subject is far too complex for my comprehension. It was fun to try, though.
I'm inclined to state my contrarian prediction that deflation, via pessimism and loan defaults and a generally recessing real economy, is more likely in our nearish future than inflation, via optimism and good credit and a generally growing real economy. But after thinking about the matter these last two weeks, I think my prediction may be the product of an overly limited imagination.
I do believe that the virtual economy is forever tethered to the health of the real economy, and, like how a spring resists movement in either direction away from its resting state, that markets swing up and down only as far as the varying manias and depressions with which men move them. And I am worried that environmental destruction, either through climate change or resource depletion, poses a very serious risk for our real economy and way of life. But when has it not posed such a risk?
I will quit the maze for now with the hope of someday returning with better insight.
Monday, February 15, 2010
On money and wealth, pt. 2
What is wealth?
Wealth is anything of value.
This is a broad definition but is useful because, in light on the previous post, it suggests a two-way subgrouping of the forms of wealth: things of transferable value based on a promise (i.e., money) and everything else (i.e., tangible things of transferable value, such as bananas and bicycles; ethereal things, such as love and friendship; and tangible things lying beyond traditional economic scope, such as the biosphere). I wrote in the previous post that the ideas I'm presenting are all unoriginal, and indeed, economics already has terms for these two subgroups of wealth; they are called virtual wealth and real wealth.
If all individuals were entirely self-sufficient then there would be no need for virtual wealth. We would surround ourselves only with things to satisfy our immediate needs and wants and would have no need for moneys such as pocket change, checking accounts, home mortgages, retirement portfolios, or annuities. This is an important point to keep in mind; any economy, no matter how prosperous it is, depends at its foundation upon real wealth, real things to satisfy real needs and wants. No matter how complex its markets, an economy must deliver real wealth to individuals for that economy to be considered well functioning. But individuals are not self-sufficient, and so we have virtual wealth in addition to real wealth in all but the most primitive of economies.
In the well functioning economy, trades involving both virtual wealth and real wealth are seamless. We rarely think how when trading greenbacks for bananas at the grocery store we are trading away something lacking intrinsic utility--paper bills (which are actually composed of cotton fiber)1--to gain something possessing intrinsic utility--bananas. In a poorly functioning economy where cash has lost most of its value, we become intimately aware of the fact because the grocery store's shelves are empty and we cannot make such a trade. In the case of the well functioning economy, the trade between virtual and real wealth is viable because the promise on which the virtual wealth's value is based is worth as much as the real wealth's utility. In the poorly functioning economy, the promise is worth less if anything at all.
1Actually, it's not entirely true that paper bills lack utility; they make great makeshift patches for bicycle tires that have suffered a blowout.
Wealth is anything of value.
This is a broad definition but is useful because, in light on the previous post, it suggests a two-way subgrouping of the forms of wealth: things of transferable value based on a promise (i.e., money) and everything else (i.e., tangible things of transferable value, such as bananas and bicycles; ethereal things, such as love and friendship; and tangible things lying beyond traditional economic scope, such as the biosphere). I wrote in the previous post that the ideas I'm presenting are all unoriginal, and indeed, economics already has terms for these two subgroups of wealth; they are called virtual wealth and real wealth.
If all individuals were entirely self-sufficient then there would be no need for virtual wealth. We would surround ourselves only with things to satisfy our immediate needs and wants and would have no need for moneys such as pocket change, checking accounts, home mortgages, retirement portfolios, or annuities. This is an important point to keep in mind; any economy, no matter how prosperous it is, depends at its foundation upon real wealth, real things to satisfy real needs and wants. No matter how complex its markets, an economy must deliver real wealth to individuals for that economy to be considered well functioning. But individuals are not self-sufficient, and so we have virtual wealth in addition to real wealth in all but the most primitive of economies.
In the well functioning economy, trades involving both virtual wealth and real wealth are seamless. We rarely think how when trading greenbacks for bananas at the grocery store we are trading away something lacking intrinsic utility--paper bills (which are actually composed of cotton fiber)1--to gain something possessing intrinsic utility--bananas. In a poorly functioning economy where cash has lost most of its value, we become intimately aware of the fact because the grocery store's shelves are empty and we cannot make such a trade. In the case of the well functioning economy, the trade between virtual and real wealth is viable because the promise on which the virtual wealth's value is based is worth as much as the real wealth's utility. In the poorly functioning economy, the promise is worth less if anything at all.
1Actually, it's not entirely true that paper bills lack utility; they make great makeshift patches for bicycle tires that have suffered a blowout.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
On money and wealth, pt. 1
Economics is something of a voodoo subject with many well educated people using confusing terminology to offset how they're as unable to predict the future as someone lacking their education. But why would we expect economists to be able to predict the future? We don't expect biologists to predict the future adaptations of a species, and their field has a unifying theory unlike economics. Unfortunately, what is lost in the jargon of economics is an opportunity for non-economists such as you and me to gain an understanding into one of the principal methods by which people interact: through money.
In this series of posts I'd like to explain some insights into what money and wealth actually are and some interesting conclusions. These insights are far from original; together they are a mishmash of others' ideas but weave a coherent model of explanation. There are other valid models to explain money and wealth; this one I'm writing about I find useful for thinking about the current state of the economy.
What is money?
It's curious how during inflation goods' and services' prices increase but become cheaper for most people and how during deflation goods' and services' prices decrease but become more expensive for most people. I think that by understanding this unintuitive correlation between prices and affordability one demonstrates a fairly comprehensive understanding of the money supply and what money actually is. But what does it mean for something to become priced higher (or lower) while at the same time becoming more (or less) affordable?
It means that the affordability of a good or a service has less to do with price and more to do with how much a buyer is willing to spend. For example, if the price of bananas doubles and my salary triples then bananas have become cheaper to me. Inversely, if the price of bananas decreases by half and I lose my job then bananas have become more expensive to me. But does there really exist such a correlation between salaries and prices?
I'll describe a model for wealth that answers this question in the affirmative, though it will take some time to do so. But I'm not an economist; I care little for the field's maze of jargon; and so I'll try to outline my ideas as clearly as possible. Here it is, starting with a subtype of wealth: money.
All money is a promise to pay in the future. It could be a promise to pay just about anything at anytime, made from anyone and to anyone, and the specifics of the promise depend upon the form that money takes. In the cases where the form of money is very specific, such as an IOU from my friend, the promise tends toward the concrete; my friend promises to pay me something very specific, such as lunch. In the cases where the form of money is very general, such as the greenbacks in my pocket, the promise tends toward the abstract; many people are promising to pay many others, including themselves and the next generation, a great many unspecified things, such as a banana crop next year or even something ethereal, such as technological advancement. (These abstractions are terribly complex, and in this post I'll attempt to demystify things by focusing on the simple to highlight the conceptual rather than on the complex to detail the exact.) In any case a promise has been made, and that promise is what gives the money its value because money has no value of its own. In the case of the IOU, value derives from the likelihood that my friend will give me something of value in the future, such as a lunch; in the case of the greenbacks, value derives from the likelihood that the world will continue producing things of direct value to me (and others) and that I (and others) will be able to trade the greenbacks for those things of value, such as a lunch, a bicycle, or shelter for a month. In both cases the money's value depends upon the likelihood that something of value is owed.
Money is something of value based on a promise, but is it true that money is anything of value based on a promise?
No, though most such things are. There are some more ethereal types of promises that are of value but do not make sense to consider as money. A good example of such a thing is love. Love has value and is based, among other things, on a promise, but love isn't money because it's nontransferable (at least, not willfully and not controllably). For example, my mother's love for me is valuable to me, but I cannot make it valuable to you except only indirectly, such as if I took you, a stranger, to my parents' house and my mom made lunch for both of us.
This transferable element of money's value is what distinguishes it from other things of value based on a promise. So here's my definition of money: money is anything of transferable value based on a promise.
In the next post I'll philosophize about what wealth is.
In this series of posts I'd like to explain some insights into what money and wealth actually are and some interesting conclusions. These insights are far from original; together they are a mishmash of others' ideas but weave a coherent model of explanation. There are other valid models to explain money and wealth; this one I'm writing about I find useful for thinking about the current state of the economy.
What is money?
It's curious how during inflation goods' and services' prices increase but become cheaper for most people and how during deflation goods' and services' prices decrease but become more expensive for most people. I think that by understanding this unintuitive correlation between prices and affordability one demonstrates a fairly comprehensive understanding of the money supply and what money actually is. But what does it mean for something to become priced higher (or lower) while at the same time becoming more (or less) affordable?
It means that the affordability of a good or a service has less to do with price and more to do with how much a buyer is willing to spend. For example, if the price of bananas doubles and my salary triples then bananas have become cheaper to me. Inversely, if the price of bananas decreases by half and I lose my job then bananas have become more expensive to me. But does there really exist such a correlation between salaries and prices?
I'll describe a model for wealth that answers this question in the affirmative, though it will take some time to do so. But I'm not an economist; I care little for the field's maze of jargon; and so I'll try to outline my ideas as clearly as possible. Here it is, starting with a subtype of wealth: money.
All money is a promise to pay in the future. It could be a promise to pay just about anything at anytime, made from anyone and to anyone, and the specifics of the promise depend upon the form that money takes. In the cases where the form of money is very specific, such as an IOU from my friend, the promise tends toward the concrete; my friend promises to pay me something very specific, such as lunch. In the cases where the form of money is very general, such as the greenbacks in my pocket, the promise tends toward the abstract; many people are promising to pay many others, including themselves and the next generation, a great many unspecified things, such as a banana crop next year or even something ethereal, such as technological advancement. (These abstractions are terribly complex, and in this post I'll attempt to demystify things by focusing on the simple to highlight the conceptual rather than on the complex to detail the exact.) In any case a promise has been made, and that promise is what gives the money its value because money has no value of its own. In the case of the IOU, value derives from the likelihood that my friend will give me something of value in the future, such as a lunch; in the case of the greenbacks, value derives from the likelihood that the world will continue producing things of direct value to me (and others) and that I (and others) will be able to trade the greenbacks for those things of value, such as a lunch, a bicycle, or shelter for a month. In both cases the money's value depends upon the likelihood that something of value is owed.
Money is something of value based on a promise, but is it true that money is anything of value based on a promise?
No, though most such things are. There are some more ethereal types of promises that are of value but do not make sense to consider as money. A good example of such a thing is love. Love has value and is based, among other things, on a promise, but love isn't money because it's nontransferable (at least, not willfully and not controllably). For example, my mother's love for me is valuable to me, but I cannot make it valuable to you except only indirectly, such as if I took you, a stranger, to my parents' house and my mom made lunch for both of us.
This transferable element of money's value is what distinguishes it from other things of value based on a promise. So here's my definition of money: money is anything of transferable value based on a promise.
In the next post I'll philosophize about what wealth is.
Monday, February 8, 2010
A Will to Philosophy
What makes a person scientific? What makes a person philosophic? What are the differences between science and philosophy? To answer these questions it is helpful to begin by asking how science and philosophy are similar.
Both science and philosophy have as goals the discovery of truth about universe. Their scope may range from the grandness of all the cosmos to the tininess of quanta, from the farthest and oldest of galaxies to the nearest and newest of simple wonders here on earth, from the elegant concreteness of physics to the entangling nebulousness of metaphysics. Always both seek discovery of truth through practical investigation rather than through revelation or a dependence upon the supernatural.
Their investigations both follow specific method, but here lies the fundamental difference. The method of science is experiment and theory; the method of philosophy is reason alone. Science seeks truth through evidence and repeatability; philosophy does not. Science is philosophy with falsifiability.
This key difference may make science seem the better of the two, but evidence and falsifiability are not always advantageous in the search for knowledge. While they help science to discover knowledge with better accuracy and reliability, and from that we achieve some rather fantastic results, such as putting men on the moon and safely returning them to earth, science's need for evidence and reliability forbears it from seeking out truth that is currently untestable. Scientists may speculate at great length about the untestable, but when doing so they are being philosophers, not scientists.
I like science, but I am no scientist. I enjoy thinking speculatively, and I enjoy identifying and understanding complex patterns in the world around me. I prefer to build knowledge upward toward the abstract more than downward toward the concrete. I enjoy grand ideas. I also don't like to be proved wrong, and so I am a philosopher.
I'd like to make a shift here at Just Enough Craig and share more philosophy and less lifestyle--at least, fewer aspects of lifestyle that have little application of philosophy. I think I'll start with my next post by discussing some of my reflections on the most dismal of sciences, which I think is not so much a science as it is a philosophy: economics.
Both science and philosophy have as goals the discovery of truth about universe. Their scope may range from the grandness of all the cosmos to the tininess of quanta, from the farthest and oldest of galaxies to the nearest and newest of simple wonders here on earth, from the elegant concreteness of physics to the entangling nebulousness of metaphysics. Always both seek discovery of truth through practical investigation rather than through revelation or a dependence upon the supernatural.
Their investigations both follow specific method, but here lies the fundamental difference. The method of science is experiment and theory; the method of philosophy is reason alone. Science seeks truth through evidence and repeatability; philosophy does not. Science is philosophy with falsifiability.
This key difference may make science seem the better of the two, but evidence and falsifiability are not always advantageous in the search for knowledge. While they help science to discover knowledge with better accuracy and reliability, and from that we achieve some rather fantastic results, such as putting men on the moon and safely returning them to earth, science's need for evidence and reliability forbears it from seeking out truth that is currently untestable. Scientists may speculate at great length about the untestable, but when doing so they are being philosophers, not scientists.
I like science, but I am no scientist. I enjoy thinking speculatively, and I enjoy identifying and understanding complex patterns in the world around me. I prefer to build knowledge upward toward the abstract more than downward toward the concrete. I enjoy grand ideas. I also don't like to be proved wrong, and so I am a philosopher.
I'd like to make a shift here at Just Enough Craig and share more philosophy and less lifestyle--at least, fewer aspects of lifestyle that have little application of philosophy. I think I'll start with my next post by discussing some of my reflections on the most dismal of sciences, which I think is not so much a science as it is a philosophy: economics.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
O woman, perfect woman!
Laura recently wrote for me a George and Azazel story and gave it to me as a gift. It made me laugh every bit as much as a real George and Azazel story, and so I'm publishing it here so that others may laugh as well.
For those of you who don't know what a George and Azazel story is (and don't wish to follow the above link), here's a brief description. Isaac simov wrote about a dozen short stories involving his fictional friend George and George's ability to conjure a two-centimeter tall demon, Azazel, who possesses advanced powers. Azazel won't help George directly but helps George help others—to comically disastrous results. Much of the humor of a George and Azazel story is that it uses a rather formulaic set of gags: George's demeaning narration of the story over a meal, George stiffing the narrator with the check, and the narrator not believing a word of it anyway. And of course the reader is busy trying to figure out the twist of how George and Azazel are going to mess things up this time.
And so here it is. By the way, this story is purely fictional.
O woman, perfect woman!
George sighed dramatically, "Oh woman, perfect woman! What distraction was meant to mankind when thou wast made a devil!"
I said, "I suppose you have finally reached the age at which one realizes that attractive women forever will be out of your reach."
"Nonsense!" he replied, as he gulped down half of the second beverage I soon would be purchasing for him. "You may think that it is merely your overgrown muttonchops and your inadequate writing that deters so many women from approaching you, but female relationships are much more complicated than that, old man. With a personality such as mine, the women in my life have never been a problem."
"You only speak the truth, since women do not seem to be in existence in your life."
George had not heard this last statement, however, for he was already drifting off into his own nostalgia. I could tell by the look in his eyes that he was preparing to divulge a tale involving the two centimeter demon he claims to call up on a regular basis.
* * *
My friend Craig Middleton Brandenburg [said George], whom you have never met for he only intermingles with individuals at a much higher level of fitness and intelligence than yourself, did have these troubles with women to which I could not possibly relate. He appreciated all the physical aspects of women and perfected the art of meeting their lips with his own. Beyond these traits, he could not find a woman who met his desires.
He would say to me, "I can't understand it, George. I have a complex mind full of interesting ideas. I am well toned and fit in all the appropriate areas. I am unquestionably adept in the skills of love, though I have not been granted many opportunities to practice such skills. I have come into contact with so many women in various facets of my life, yet none induce those magnificent feelings of love which countless scores of fortunate men prior to my existence have experienced."
His words immediately evoked such strong feelings of pity that I could barely contain. Fortunately, I had been granted the ability to appreciate and adore women for their true aesthetic purpose. Sadly, Brandenburg was determined to look beyond these imperative qualities and find a woman who held traits which simply cannot coexist with true womanly characteristics. I had a strong bond with him that stemmed from the years we were neighbors in an area of the country that claims everything to be bigger. Brandenburg had proven this claim to be true, in specific structures of his anatomy, furthering my desire to assist him in finding a woman of worth.
"Craig," I said in my most comforting tone, as I inched myself away from his gargantuan feet, "I believe I can help you solve this problem. Please tell me what qualities seem to be lacking in the women you have come into contact with thus far."
He thought for a few moments and said in a hushed tone, for he did not want to impart any question about his love of women, "It seems my intellectual capabilities and recreational activities are not often found with the female species. I would be forever indebted to you if you could find these qualities in a woman."
Astonished at his inability to weigh the importance of appearance, I curtly added, "with those necessary womanly characteristics, of course."
"Of course!" Brandenburg added in a boisterous, yet hesitant manner.
That evening I summoned Azazel, the two-centimeter demon I most likely have not mentioned to you bef— All right, old man, so I may have mentioned him before. I thought that I should take into consideration the dementia that occurs at an age such as yours. In any case, I called up Azazel for his assistance on this urgent matter.
As he appeared, his legs were moving in an outlandish and rapid circular motion while his arms were elevated high into the air.
He angrily exclaimed in his squeaking voice, "I was in the midst of becoming the new champion of the most prestigious competition in my land. An assemblage of glorious samini awaits my arrival."
"I apologize for interrupting, Azazel," I said, thankful that he did not intend to further elaborate on such an insipid topic, for which I cared nearly as little as I do for your own monotonous stories, old man, "but there exists an extremely urgent issue at hand."
"As usual," he muttered.
I hurriedly described the complex dilemma that suffered dear Brandenburg, emphasizing his desires to attain an individual with feminine beauty combined with other less feminine characteristics. "I see that you share in my shock of Brandenburg's expectations of a woman," I continued, "but I feel he is a most deserving specimen of man."
Azazel proceeded into a trance of deep thought for longer than I generally care to wait, but he eventually piped up. "I can perform this task for you, but it will not be easy. As you are well aware, I cannot create something from nothing, so I must first acquire an appropriate woman form. In addition, since some of the brain chemistry you request may not exist in this female brain, I must make exchanges with an individual comprised of the desirable characteristics. Are you willing to allow the permanent brain alteration of two of your worldly beings?"
I expressed my feigned compassion for the two unknown entities, stating with great effort, "though I must weigh the risks involved in this matter, I do believe that any two people would gladly volunteer for such a project if they knew what great worldly benefits they would be doing."
"Well, then. We must go for a walk so that I may pinpoint an appropriate model of woman."
I immediately placed Azazel into my breast pocket, carefully enough that his abhorrent tail would not cause any damage to my best dress shirt, and we went out into the city night. We carefully selected a woman who frequented facilities that were also of Brandenburg's interest to improve their chances of meeting. Eventually, Azazel's work was done, and he huffed back out of sight.
After waiting a few weeks, allowing Brandenburg enough time to get to know this newly improved woman, I arranged a time for us to meet. I ambled into the restaurant, one which is far too classy for a mediocre taste such as yours, and caught a glimpse of Brandenburg sipping a beer and waiting patiently for my arrival. Taking note of the glow of cheer on his face, I found it quite reasonable to order a drink for myself, ensuring that it would be added to his tab. I could hardly take my place at the table before he began.
"Oh, George, what a pleasure it truly is to see you!" Brandenburg exclaimed. "It appears that my troubles with women are over."
"Well that is certainly wonderful to hear, Craig. Please, tell me more," I responded, knowing perfectly well that the longer I listened to the stereotypic egocentric drivel of a man newly in love, the more I could add to his tab. Which reminds, old man, you seem to frequently have the same characteristic to your speech, yet you have no such excuse.
"She's one in a million for sure, though I admit I have not yet calculated this precisely. Honestly, though, I could not imagine anyone quite like her. You may not believe me, but this woman actually prefers the joys of fitness and intellect to the typical female vices of throwing away money and layering herself with makeup. I admit, the female inadequacies that naturally exist do prevent her from being quite as fit and intellectually inclined as I, but she'll do just fine. We became acquainted playing soccer, imagine that? She has joined me for bike rides, excruciatingly slow, but pleasant nonetheless just to have her delightful company. We even engaged in a match of Scrabble and she won! It was a fluke of course, as she wouldn't have had a chance if I had drawn better tiles and hadn't let her take so much time, but impressive still! George, I couldn't be happier."
I let him continue with all the wonders of this new creation until I had finally had my fill—of his speech and of his beers—and politely congratulated him once more on his good fortune.
* * *
George gazed silently into the distance for a few minutes. Since I had already paid the bill, I assumed this wasn't a ploy and that his tale was complete.
"I find it a relief to hear that you finally have had some success with your mysterious demon," I expressed to the back of George's head.
"A success," he cried out in a high pitched squeal, "is far from what this was, you fool."
"I don't seem to have followed you. Craig sounded quite in love with a well-suited woman."
"Certainly he was, at first. However, other manly qualities commenced soon after." George's face transformed into a pouty-lipped, puppy-dog-eyed stare before he went on. "The demise began with a quiet passage of gas. At this point, Brandenburg was still so smitten that he romanticized the event, to my utter disgust from briefly allowing the thought of a woman engaging in such wretched activities. Sadly this was only the beginning. As their intimacy increased, so did the horror, with more of the previous and belches also! I discovered this tragedy when I visited him at their place of residence, immediately thrown back by the crude smell that exited through his door. As it turns out, these bodily functions were only a partial contribution to the odors. In addition, the beast of a woman detested showering and only did so a few times a week, after Brandenburg begged of her to do so. A few minutes later, the woman strolled into the room—at least Azazel was successful at finding a woman of physical beauty—and thumped Brandenburg on the back of his head for no reason at all. This may have been considered some type of love tap if she was an ordinary woman, but this was no ordinary woman, proved by the way Brandenburg flinched in response to the touch of her hand. And if you don't find that to be horrific enough, I won't even let you gander at what he was doing when I arrived. He was folding laundry! In response to my look of disbelief, Brandenburg muttered under his breath, `she is the only woman I would never trust with my laundry.' He, with a perfectly good woman at hand, was stuck doing the laundry."
George paused momentarily, folding his arms tightly across his chest and shaking his head with a remorseful sigh.
"I conjured up Azazel as soon as I could to solve this problem. Unfortunately, Brandenburg did not specify clearly enough which manly qualities he desired. Azazel took from the male specimen whatever characteristics he saw fit, and passed them onto the woman. Even worse, Azazel refused to share with me who his male specimen may have been. The possibilities are too tragic to even think about."
With that, George uncrossed his legs, swept the five dollar tip into a rose colored change purse, which I had never noticed him carrying before, stood up with a huff, and sashayed out the door.
For those of you who don't know what a George and Azazel story is (and don't wish to follow the above link), here's a brief description. Isaac simov wrote about a dozen short stories involving his fictional friend George and George's ability to conjure a two-centimeter tall demon, Azazel, who possesses advanced powers. Azazel won't help George directly but helps George help others—to comically disastrous results. Much of the humor of a George and Azazel story is that it uses a rather formulaic set of gags: George's demeaning narration of the story over a meal, George stiffing the narrator with the check, and the narrator not believing a word of it anyway. And of course the reader is busy trying to figure out the twist of how George and Azazel are going to mess things up this time.
And so here it is. By the way, this story is purely fictional.
O woman, perfect woman!
O woman, perfect woman! what distractionGeorge and I were sitting at a local restaurant, where George frequently allowed me the privilege of paying the bill. The bartender, who was femininely proportioned in all the right places, strolled away after placing the change in George's outstretched hand.
Was meant to mankind when thou wast made a devil!
- John Fletcher
Monsieur Thomas
George sighed dramatically, "Oh woman, perfect woman! What distraction was meant to mankind when thou wast made a devil!"
I said, "I suppose you have finally reached the age at which one realizes that attractive women forever will be out of your reach."
"Nonsense!" he replied, as he gulped down half of the second beverage I soon would be purchasing for him. "You may think that it is merely your overgrown muttonchops and your inadequate writing that deters so many women from approaching you, but female relationships are much more complicated than that, old man. With a personality such as mine, the women in my life have never been a problem."
"You only speak the truth, since women do not seem to be in existence in your life."
George had not heard this last statement, however, for he was already drifting off into his own nostalgia. I could tell by the look in his eyes that he was preparing to divulge a tale involving the two centimeter demon he claims to call up on a regular basis.
* * *
My friend Craig Middleton Brandenburg [said George], whom you have never met for he only intermingles with individuals at a much higher level of fitness and intelligence than yourself, did have these troubles with women to which I could not possibly relate. He appreciated all the physical aspects of women and perfected the art of meeting their lips with his own. Beyond these traits, he could not find a woman who met his desires.
He would say to me, "I can't understand it, George. I have a complex mind full of interesting ideas. I am well toned and fit in all the appropriate areas. I am unquestionably adept in the skills of love, though I have not been granted many opportunities to practice such skills. I have come into contact with so many women in various facets of my life, yet none induce those magnificent feelings of love which countless scores of fortunate men prior to my existence have experienced."
His words immediately evoked such strong feelings of pity that I could barely contain. Fortunately, I had been granted the ability to appreciate and adore women for their true aesthetic purpose. Sadly, Brandenburg was determined to look beyond these imperative qualities and find a woman who held traits which simply cannot coexist with true womanly characteristics. I had a strong bond with him that stemmed from the years we were neighbors in an area of the country that claims everything to be bigger. Brandenburg had proven this claim to be true, in specific structures of his anatomy, furthering my desire to assist him in finding a woman of worth.
"Craig," I said in my most comforting tone, as I inched myself away from his gargantuan feet, "I believe I can help you solve this problem. Please tell me what qualities seem to be lacking in the women you have come into contact with thus far."
He thought for a few moments and said in a hushed tone, for he did not want to impart any question about his love of women, "It seems my intellectual capabilities and recreational activities are not often found with the female species. I would be forever indebted to you if you could find these qualities in a woman."
Astonished at his inability to weigh the importance of appearance, I curtly added, "with those necessary womanly characteristics, of course."
"Of course!" Brandenburg added in a boisterous, yet hesitant manner.
That evening I summoned Azazel, the two-centimeter demon I most likely have not mentioned to you bef— All right, old man, so I may have mentioned him before. I thought that I should take into consideration the dementia that occurs at an age such as yours. In any case, I called up Azazel for his assistance on this urgent matter.
As he appeared, his legs were moving in an outlandish and rapid circular motion while his arms were elevated high into the air.
He angrily exclaimed in his squeaking voice, "I was in the midst of becoming the new champion of the most prestigious competition in my land. An assemblage of glorious samini awaits my arrival."
"I apologize for interrupting, Azazel," I said, thankful that he did not intend to further elaborate on such an insipid topic, for which I cared nearly as little as I do for your own monotonous stories, old man, "but there exists an extremely urgent issue at hand."
"As usual," he muttered.
I hurriedly described the complex dilemma that suffered dear Brandenburg, emphasizing his desires to attain an individual with feminine beauty combined with other less feminine characteristics. "I see that you share in my shock of Brandenburg's expectations of a woman," I continued, "but I feel he is a most deserving specimen of man."
Azazel proceeded into a trance of deep thought for longer than I generally care to wait, but he eventually piped up. "I can perform this task for you, but it will not be easy. As you are well aware, I cannot create something from nothing, so I must first acquire an appropriate woman form. In addition, since some of the brain chemistry you request may not exist in this female brain, I must make exchanges with an individual comprised of the desirable characteristics. Are you willing to allow the permanent brain alteration of two of your worldly beings?"
I expressed my feigned compassion for the two unknown entities, stating with great effort, "though I must weigh the risks involved in this matter, I do believe that any two people would gladly volunteer for such a project if they knew what great worldly benefits they would be doing."
"Well, then. We must go for a walk so that I may pinpoint an appropriate model of woman."
I immediately placed Azazel into my breast pocket, carefully enough that his abhorrent tail would not cause any damage to my best dress shirt, and we went out into the city night. We carefully selected a woman who frequented facilities that were also of Brandenburg's interest to improve their chances of meeting. Eventually, Azazel's work was done, and he huffed back out of sight.
After waiting a few weeks, allowing Brandenburg enough time to get to know this newly improved woman, I arranged a time for us to meet. I ambled into the restaurant, one which is far too classy for a mediocre taste such as yours, and caught a glimpse of Brandenburg sipping a beer and waiting patiently for my arrival. Taking note of the glow of cheer on his face, I found it quite reasonable to order a drink for myself, ensuring that it would be added to his tab. I could hardly take my place at the table before he began.
"Oh, George, what a pleasure it truly is to see you!" Brandenburg exclaimed. "It appears that my troubles with women are over."
"Well that is certainly wonderful to hear, Craig. Please, tell me more," I responded, knowing perfectly well that the longer I listened to the stereotypic egocentric drivel of a man newly in love, the more I could add to his tab. Which reminds, old man, you seem to frequently have the same characteristic to your speech, yet you have no such excuse.
"She's one in a million for sure, though I admit I have not yet calculated this precisely. Honestly, though, I could not imagine anyone quite like her. You may not believe me, but this woman actually prefers the joys of fitness and intellect to the typical female vices of throwing away money and layering herself with makeup. I admit, the female inadequacies that naturally exist do prevent her from being quite as fit and intellectually inclined as I, but she'll do just fine. We became acquainted playing soccer, imagine that? She has joined me for bike rides, excruciatingly slow, but pleasant nonetheless just to have her delightful company. We even engaged in a match of Scrabble and she won! It was a fluke of course, as she wouldn't have had a chance if I had drawn better tiles and hadn't let her take so much time, but impressive still! George, I couldn't be happier."
I let him continue with all the wonders of this new creation until I had finally had my fill—of his speech and of his beers—and politely congratulated him once more on his good fortune.
* * *
George gazed silently into the distance for a few minutes. Since I had already paid the bill, I assumed this wasn't a ploy and that his tale was complete.
"I find it a relief to hear that you finally have had some success with your mysterious demon," I expressed to the back of George's head.
"A success," he cried out in a high pitched squeal, "is far from what this was, you fool."
"I don't seem to have followed you. Craig sounded quite in love with a well-suited woman."
"Certainly he was, at first. However, other manly qualities commenced soon after." George's face transformed into a pouty-lipped, puppy-dog-eyed stare before he went on. "The demise began with a quiet passage of gas. At this point, Brandenburg was still so smitten that he romanticized the event, to my utter disgust from briefly allowing the thought of a woman engaging in such wretched activities. Sadly this was only the beginning. As their intimacy increased, so did the horror, with more of the previous and belches also! I discovered this tragedy when I visited him at their place of residence, immediately thrown back by the crude smell that exited through his door. As it turns out, these bodily functions were only a partial contribution to the odors. In addition, the beast of a woman detested showering and only did so a few times a week, after Brandenburg begged of her to do so. A few minutes later, the woman strolled into the room—at least Azazel was successful at finding a woman of physical beauty—and thumped Brandenburg on the back of his head for no reason at all. This may have been considered some type of love tap if she was an ordinary woman, but this was no ordinary woman, proved by the way Brandenburg flinched in response to the touch of her hand. And if you don't find that to be horrific enough, I won't even let you gander at what he was doing when I arrived. He was folding laundry! In response to my look of disbelief, Brandenburg muttered under his breath, `she is the only woman I would never trust with my laundry.' He, with a perfectly good woman at hand, was stuck doing the laundry."
George paused momentarily, folding his arms tightly across his chest and shaking his head with a remorseful sigh.
"I conjured up Azazel as soon as I could to solve this problem. Unfortunately, Brandenburg did not specify clearly enough which manly qualities he desired. Azazel took from the male specimen whatever characteristics he saw fit, and passed them onto the woman. Even worse, Azazel refused to share with me who his male specimen may have been. The possibilities are too tragic to even think about."
With that, George uncrossed his legs, swept the five dollar tip into a rose colored change purse, which I had never noticed him carrying before, stood up with a huff, and sashayed out the door.
Monday, February 1, 2010
The Monday Post
I'm not only quitting the news; I'm quitting many things. So many things that I feel like I'm on my way to becoming a first-rate quitter. Here are some other notable quits going on.
- I'm quitting Gmail's archive feature. Filling a bottomless hole with emails doesn't have a net positive impact on my life.
- I will quit my year-old-and-growing archive of photos and will save but a few. The backups aren't worth it.
- I'd like to quit the more mindless parts of my music collection and listen to more jazz and classical.
- I'm in the slow process of quitting a lot of my cotton. Cotton is an okay fabric for indoors, but it underperforms in the outdoors.
- I've done well with quitting eating out, or, as I sometimes think of it, paying a lot for extra salt, but there remains room for improvement here.
- I've quit the trumpet. This is a bad result of having too little time and making painful cuts.
- I don't spend much time on personal software projects anymore, and this too is bad. I enjoy writing and running simulations to answer questions I think up such as: "What's the average number of points on a Boggle board?" or "What's the ideal Yahtzee strategy?" But like with the trumpet, painful cuts have been made.
Adulthood has for me been the unsteady progression from an abundance of free time to a perceived lack thereof. I suspect this is the way of things for most people.
Last year I experienced the inflection point where I stopped looking for things to do and began looking for the time to do the things I no longer had the time to do. Mainly, this involved denying the inflection point's existence and waiting for things to settle down.
This new year I feel a resolution to do something about it. It started off as trying harder to get more done, but I know my willpower limitations pretty well by now and that I'm not going to fix the problem permanently merely by trying harder. I'm developing a weekly routine to budget time for my priorities and am thus trying to become the organized kind of person I used to laugh at.
My schedule is a work in progress, but for now expect this: a new Just
Enough Craig post on Monday and Thursday evenings.
- I'm quitting Gmail's archive feature. Filling a bottomless hole with emails doesn't have a net positive impact on my life.
- I will quit my year-old-and-growing archive of photos and will save but a few. The backups aren't worth it.
- I'd like to quit the more mindless parts of my music collection and listen to more jazz and classical.
- I'm in the slow process of quitting a lot of my cotton. Cotton is an okay fabric for indoors, but it underperforms in the outdoors.
- I've done well with quitting eating out, or, as I sometimes think of it, paying a lot for extra salt, but there remains room for improvement here.
- I've quit the trumpet. This is a bad result of having too little time and making painful cuts.
- I don't spend much time on personal software projects anymore, and this too is bad. I enjoy writing and running simulations to answer questions I think up such as: "What's the average number of points on a Boggle board?" or "What's the ideal Yahtzee strategy?" But like with the trumpet, painful cuts have been made.
Adulthood has for me been the unsteady progression from an abundance of free time to a perceived lack thereof. I suspect this is the way of things for most people.
Last year I experienced the inflection point where I stopped looking for things to do and began looking for the time to do the things I no longer had the time to do. Mainly, this involved denying the inflection point's existence and waiting for things to settle down.
This new year I feel a resolution to do something about it. It started off as trying harder to get more done, but I know my willpower limitations pretty well by now and that I'm not going to fix the problem permanently merely by trying harder. I'm developing a weekly routine to budget time for my priorities and am thus trying to become the organized kind of person I used to laugh at.
My schedule is a work in progress, but for now expect this: a new Just
Enough Craig post on Monday and Thursday evenings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)