OT: totally off-topic (Was: Re: broken schools)

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote:
>

You learn a lot of odd stuff of usenet and mailinglists! ;)

>
Indeed.  I often recommend it to people who study a foreign language.
Writing it each day is a very efficient way to get the language into
your memory.  With the tools we have now, it's even pure joy.  But, you
know, so far, I've never seen *anybody* following my advice in this
matter.  (I've been making this recommendation for some two decades.)

>
It's a good point! I never thought of it like that, but now that you mention it,
the fact that a big part of my working life has always been english written
text, I am certain it has helped improve my english.
>

order to increase the number of consumers, and the government happily
agreed in order to be able to tax the other half of the population!

>
I wouldn't quite say the rich *created* feminism.  But, surely, like
every agent would do, when they see something (that they didn't create)
can help them in their quest, they use it.  Obviously.  Rulers often
look into philosophy, say, as an accomplice.

>
This is the truth!
>

What is your USENET client or text editors?  Look above---your client or
text editor almost does what's called ``embarrassing line wrap''.  It's
quite it because it doesn't mess up quote attribution, but it doesn't
know how to fill the paragraph properly.  Perhaps your client could
invoke the GNU EMACS so that you can handle this with the GNU EMACS (or
vim).  But your client must leave the message alone after you're done.

>
For short messages it is pine. For long messages it's vim.
>

I think you use alpine, right?  Can it do a better job?
>
(I often fix your quotes, but I won't fix it this time to let you see it
clearly.)

>
Hmm, I never thought about it. For me, all quotes look alright. Could you send
me an exact copy and mark where the error is? Maybe I've gotten so used to it I
don't notice it?

Omg, it turns out it's *my* fault!  Sorry about that.  I mean---not my
fault exactly, but Gnus'.  Gnus is messing up my quotes when I M-RET at
points to reply---it messes up quotes above and sometimes quotes below.
Incredible.  I must report this.  (It sometimes does and I don't see it,
so it goes broken up.)

This is Gnus v5.13 running on GNU Emacs 29.4 (build 1,
x86_64-unknown-openbsd, GTK+ Version 3.24.43, cairo version 1.18.2) of
2024-09-28.

Could very well be. The problem with the privacy of the mind, type
of arguments is that it is difficult to prove anything.

>
Proving anything is quite useless for regular people.  Proving is useful
in math, less in science and that's just about it, I think.  (By the
way, when I see people saying things like ``scientifically proven'',
they have no idea what they're talking about.)

>
Well, let's make the distinction of proof (math) and evidence
(science). Maybe that makes it more clear?

By ``proving anything'' I had in mind any kind of good argument.  It's
of no use to a lot of people.  People are not making very rational
decisions.  I mean---they make rational decisions in a certain level,
but it's not very deep reason.  That's why society is full of apparent
paradoxes.

Of course you're right.  But I also think we've historically a problem
there, which I'm calling a ``war'' here.  And the reason I consider it
pretty bad it's because it's an inner war.  When men and women don't get
along, that's because they're not getting along with themselves.

>
Interesting. Could you give an example?

>
Can we begin with women in some Arab cultures?  Some don't even let them
drive.  Doesn't this suggest a certain battle between the sexes?

>
Battle for me is something intentional, and intentional conflict between two
groups. Even though it is not good, I don't know if I would categorize it as a
"battle" between the sexes. Just a backwards, retarded culture and religion,
that will hopefully go away in a generation or two. =/

It's okay---I don't care for the words.  If not war or battle, something
else.  We're both seeing what's hapenning.  I call it one thing and you
call it another.  I might find it disturbing and you might call me too
sensitive.  That's what we're dealing with every day.  Similarly, some
people might find it's all beautiful and they could be on drugs, say. :)
We need to deal with this.  That's a pretty big part of communication.
That's why I appreciate some of the art of listening.  I appreciate
thoughts like those of David Bohm that one would find in ``On
Dialogue''.  By the way, whatever changes you're seeing, I say it's all
on the surface.

But let's look at our own culture.  Here's a true story.  I have a
friend who is considered very sweet and polite by everyone who meets
him.  He tells me about all of his dates and girlfriends and whatever.
I never told him because I don't even think he would understand it, but
he objectifies women quite clearly (to me).  For instance, he was
chatting with a girl on an app some time ago and they were talking about
meeting up.  The girl was a bit unstable with the commitment to meeting
in person and he was losing a bit of patience; another girl came up and
agreed to meet him.  As he was telling me the story, he made remarks
such to the effect of---whatever; I get the problem solved.
>
In other words, he is looking for services; if one company doesn't
satisfy him; he goes with another and that's it.  What looks like
someone's impatience with people's complications might actually be
hiding a certain outlook on life, which I call materialism.  He can't
see that he's getting involved with people.  His outlook is not that of
someone who sees oneself intertwined with everybody else.  He seems
himself quite separate from everybody else.

>
Well, from one point of view, he is. He is an individual, and I would say that
as long as he is open with only looking for certain services, and a woman is
looking to provide services, that's good!

Your ``that's good'' here is likely materialist.  You might be saying
``if they're happy, what's the problem?''  That's essentially
saying---it's not my problem.  People can often claim to be happy and
even appear happy, when in reality...  That's parents worry so much
about their children (and often others beyond than theirs).

While people often remark how polite and sweet he is---and I like him
too---, I actually say that he has a health problem that makes him quite
insensitive.  Who is suffering the most?  Himself.  His insensibility,
for example, blinds him even to his own nutrition.  He's losing his
health slowly year after year.

>
That is sad. =(

Such is life.  It's difficult.  You can tell people of their symptons,
but they don't see it---they don't believe it.  When people can't tune
themselves to intelligence, it becomes quite difficult to do anything
intelligent.

What about women?  Same thing.  People are very insensitive because
their sensors are all turned off or broken.  (And the mystery goes away
when watch them closely: nearly everyone is drugging themselves daily
with coffee, processed foods, medicine and all the rest of it.)
>
And that's the case with the most of the world.
>
Oh, here's an example from today.  Today I woke up with my neighbor
having a little party in his house early morning---that means it
probably started a night out.  He lives in his house with his wife.  His
wife was not in this party.  It was actually a two-couple party.
Believe it or not, my bedroom faces his pool directly.  (Not much
privacy for sure.)  I got up, saw what was going on and did not even
open my window to give him a bit of privacy in his little party.
Chatting went on for a while and then suddenly silence.  So I looked and
then his friend was likely inside the house and he was having sex in the
pool.

>
Wow! Brazil, here I come! ;)

Lol.  You could be getting the wrong impression. :) But the real remark
to be made here, in a more serious tone, is that this is no good.  For
instance, when I saw them in the swimming pool, the first thing I
thought was---omg, what a place for that.  And he was in own home---he
likely left the most comfortable place for his friend.  Of course,
people might love this kind of stuff.  It's not shameful or obscene or
whatever---I couldn't care less about any of that.  I'm saying it's just
a someone trying to get some relief, without much of a clue of what's
going on.

By the way, if I were mildly inclined to the same, I could likely be
there myself.  When they moved in, they threw various parties and
invited me to them all.  I had lots of chances to blend in, but I
couldn't, really: I don't drink; I don't stay up all the night; what I
eat is the nearly the bare minimum and from a very picky selection.
It's a totally different life style.  And, hey, don't get me wrong: I
actually like them.  I like both of them.  One of the first things I do
when I wake up is open up my window.  I love natural light.  I only
opened my window by midday that day---that's when they had already left
home (likely to some more fun).  I also spotted my neighbor's friend
with his head down on a table trying to rest a bit.  In all probability,
they spent the night out, arrived in the morning with the two girls and
didn't sleep for a minute.  Of course, with whisky, Red Bulls, beers and
that kind of nonsense.

That's one of the things I eventually noticed.  The first thing to do to
put your life in order is to quit all drugs---bad food included.  To
enjoy a whole night without sleep, you gotta be on something.  The body
loves to sleep if it's well regulated.

Hmm, I never think I ever experienced anything like it in the far, far
north. People are way too reserved for anything like that to happen,
at least where I have been living, oh, and of course there's never
been any swimming pools close by as well. ;)

I do believe Brazilians are on average less reserved.  There's a lot of
poor people here.  People who live in the slums, for example.  I have
never been too close, but they're everywhere so I often observe them.
One problem I've spent some hours (that is, almost nothing) on is why do
poor people talk so loud.  My hypothesis is that they grow up in
space-deprived environments, neighbors are too close by, no privacy and
so on.  It becomes the normal thing, so they might not feel being
exposed at all to whoever is around.

And that's the second time I spot something.  The first was months ago
in a similar situation.  Night out followed by coming home with some new
friends.  This time the girl was actually cute and perhaps didn't sleep
with him, but he seemed to enjoy kissing her.
>
I figure he thinks he's enjoying life, but I actually think he doesn't
like his wife at all.  So why are they together?  There are no paradoxes

>
If all are in on it, who am I to judge? Our dear lord teaches us to "judge
not...". On the other hand, if his wife is not in on it, it is very sad and
immoral.

I claim she is in on it, not consciously in on it though.  But she's in
on it in a deeper level.  For instance, I classify her as an alcoholic.
I don't think her husband is an alcoholic in the same level as she is,
but technically I do include him in the alcoholism classification, too.
He surely needs alcohol, for example, to have the kind of night we
described earlier.  So many people do.

in this world.  There's some business going on; there is a contract
there.  His wife must be getting something from the deal and he's
getting something else.
>
That's not affection.

>
Difficult to say without knowing them better. But it certainly does sound
unorthodox to me.

Yeah---this is not a serious analysis.  It's all guess based on
statistics.

Where does this come from?  I don't know the beginning of it all, but
surely this goes back to thousands of years.  Recently, I learned that
archaeologists discovered human civilizations in the tropical forests
150,000 years ago.  Was men and women at war back then?  I don't know,
but I would easily guess so.  I think the problem goes way back.

>
I think lumping society into two groups, and thinking abotu conflict in terms of
those two groups, risks obscuring the real issues. I am certain there are many
harmonious couples out there. I try to judge based on individual situations and
behaviours, instead of making blanket statements.

Agreed!

I don't really separate men and women.  I think of them as two sides of
the same coin.

>
I think of them as individuals.

>
I know.  But we are not individuals.  Even evolutionary biologists are
getting there already [1].

>
How come we are not individuals? If not individuals, what then?

That's too difficult of a conversation.  We're in comp.misc.  Let's call
it a thread and end this.  If you're curious, you could look at two
perspectives: one, which is the evolutionary biology one---there's the
article I linked in a previous post.  Another perspective, more
difficult to parse, is that of someone such as Jiddu Krishnamurti---very
interesting perspective there.

The logical end point of "woke" when they realise that all groups
eventually boil down to unique individuals. Welcome to libertarianism!
=D

>
You lost me there.

>
Woke is about finding or creating ever smaller groups, and competing to see who
is most hurt, and who gets the most privilege. In the left, this woke movement
has created more and more sub-groups, and they are all competing for a limited
resource (political power) and the more groups there are, the more fighting will
go on between them, and eventually all common ground is lost and it will
disintegrate.
>
The only logical way out of this dilemma, is to continue to shrink the groups
until they consist of groups with one member, the individual, and then they can
reach the conclusion that we are all individuals, and the only way to
sustainably create a society is if all individuals are respected.

Of course. 

This stuff is all complete nonsense.  Not even worth a discussion.  I
don't even use the word you began your paragraph---I never said it out
loud and never wrote it.  Let's keep it that way. :)

Complicate? How come? To me it is one of the most liberating
realizations of my life. =) For me it is I guess an honest life, a
life where you think through your values and goals, and then strive
to realize them and maximize the amount of long term happiness you
can get.

>
An expert could likely complicate your life by trying to show that it's
either false or meaningless.  (Don't ask me to do it---I'm just the
student.)  They could attack ``reason for one's existence'' as
meaningless and they could certainly attack ``subjective'' by claiming
that the vast majority of the world is quite objective.

>
Hah... I'll take the challenge! ;) I agree, objectively speaking, that there is
no reason.

No reason?  I think there is reason. :)

But since for me, it is moved into the subjective realm, it is safe
from any attack from "experts" since science, being descriptive, is
not able to "crack" the subjective level.

I've seen this before.  It's typical.  You're putting too much precision
into things.  For instance, you said (likely below) that we can't know
for sure; we can infer.  Sure---knowing for sure is too difficult.  We
can infer and that's good.  We all look and the see the Moon out there.
We're sure it's there.  End of the story. :)  It's not subjective.
That's what I mean.

But, sure, I read Descartes's ``Discourse on the Method''.  I loved
seeing him doubting everything and starting from scratch.  I think that
book has a serious educational philosophy because it gives us the
example of an independent mind (in pretty ordinary steps) organizing
itself and preparing itself for more work.

But I also think (in retrospective) it's a bit childish, too.  I don't
need to doubt so much.  I see the intellect being too precious, being
considered more than it really is.  For instance, I just sit and feel
myself.  Here I am---therefore I am.  End of story. :)

It's not subjective.  We all have seen the same stuff.  Of course, from
where you look is different from where I look.  But we're seeing the
same things---evidently.  It's what nearly all of the evidence shows.

Oh, this might get complicated. Lived life, as in my subjective
experience, I would argue, can never become objectively analyzed,
since it is impossible for descriptive science to "get" what it's
like to be the subjective me.

>
To your content perhaps, but people can infer what's in you by looking
from the outside.  The inner /is/ the outer.  You're a human being.
Everybody else knows what's like to be a human being.
>
You can deny it all 'til the end of times.

>
You can infer based on behaviour, but you can never "know". My subjectivity and
how I experience things, are "locked" into the processing of my brain, as my
cosciousness collides with reality.
>
So yes, you are right, we can infer, but that is not certain knowledge, and in
some cases, such as quantum physics, not even knowledge.

You're correct, of course, but see above.

Life, descriptive, external, life, as understood by science, can
definitely be categorized and analyzed. In terms of happiness, you
can go so far as positive psychology and statistically analyze
"happy" people and draw conclusions about what life factors tend to
contribute to their happiness.

>
Freud observed himself and made conclusions that apply to everyone else.
Like everyone else, he perhaps made mistakes in the fine details of
things, but he also made huge contributions---from a unitary sample
space.

>
True, but freud these days is disproven. As you say, he did lay a good
foundation for psychology however, and it has progress from him.

I don't think he's disproven at all. :) Look, it doesn't matter if a
mathematician got a conjecture wrong---he did a lot of useful work in
his life.  Same with Freud---just his independence from public opinion
makes him a type of Socrates.

In my notebook, I have no values and no goals, which is all very
liberating.  I've had lots of them.  They were no good.

>
If you have no goals, how do you determine your actions? Surely they are not
just random acts?

They're surely not random.  I actually try not to determine.  I listen
closely on a daily basis.  Then I see something I need to do, then I do
it.

What I do each day is the right thing.  What's to do the right thing?
Impossible to tell because I don't have a method to say what it is.  I
know only what the right thing is when the moment of doing it arrives
and I see only a single possible thing to do---the adequate one.

>
Well, it seems you do have a goal! Maybe you apply the via negativa?
Do not do the wrong thing, and then pursue, at random or based on
preference, the actions that remain after the obviously wrong ones
(based on your values) are eliminated?

I think you can put it either way.  My agreeing with your words or
disagreeing won't quite do much of anything to you.  But you can count
on my honesty here.

I don't mind saying I have a goal, say.  But I think the best choice of
words is to say I don't.  Because I really don't.  Remember I said I
really wanna have kids?  You can call it a goal. :) But that would be
too simplistic to the point of being false.  It's not quite true that I
want to have kids.  What I want is a healthy life and I think a healthy
life would evolve towards that too.  But you can likely bet that I
wouldn't do anything out of the ordinary to make that happen.  If all I
can see in my life is a disease and death, say, I think I would go down
with it.  Let me put it in terms of chess---lol.  If all I can see is no
way out out of the check mate strategy of my opponent, I make all the
moves that I can until he check mates me.  No desperation.  I think that
living life as it is is quite a victory---to use words that are siblings
of ``goal''.

People often ask me---what would you do in that situation?  The answer
is always---I don't know.  I might know *then*, but certainly not now.
``Oh, come on; please answer it.''  I could give you an answer, even a
serious one; but the fact is that I really only know what I'm going to
really do at the moment I'm doing.  (Humorously, if you want to play
around with fiction, I can come up with lots of answers for you.)

>
It seems, like me, you are not always comfortable with
counterfactuals.

A beg your pardon?  I'm not sure what you mean, but I think I agree.  A
counterfactual is something that goes against the facts.  Surely.  I
could never deny that 1 + 1 = 2, say.  I can't even ignore evidence.  I
don't mind leaving questions open at all.  Every now and then it's a
good idea to hang a question mark on all those things we've long taken
for granted.  (Is that Bertrand Russell again?)