Enlightened Conflict

Order and Chaos

February 3rd, 2017

order chaos consistent hugh

 

============

 

“There seems to be a kind of order in the universe … in the movement of the stars and the turning of the Earth and the changing of the seasons.

 

But human life is almost pure chaos.

Everyone takes his stance, asserts his own right and feelings, mistaking the motives of others, and his own.”

 

—-

Katherine Anne Porter

 

================

 

Well.

 

What an interesting thought this quote offers.

historic thinkerSuggesting that it isn’t Life that is random and chaotic … but rather us.

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

This suggests that Life, if left alone, would be quiet, orderly and consistent.

That is something quite contrary to what I have written and what I believe most of us tend to think about.

 

I know I tend to think of Life as indifferent to us and , in fact, tends to care only about itself and its humorous existence by randomly pulling the strings of our Life on occasion just to make sure we are paying attention.

 

What if I have been thinking about it all wrong?

 

What if it is really just us crazy humans and not Life itself that creates the sometimes quirky zigs & zags in Life?

 

Wow.

 

If it is us then … well … we all better get our shit together.

 

This would mean that not only do we need to stop thinking about how we adapt to the quirks of everyday life but that we need to become better fighters of better human behavior <and attitudes I would imagine>.

 

Why?met the enemy and it is us pogo

 

Well.

 

Because this means the enemy is us.

 

This would suggest that there is, and will always … always, be something good we will need to be fighting for.

 

This would also suggest that what we see as true individual autonomy, which we most often associate with a sense of freedom, is a false narrative.

 

It is false because our self-interest and autonomy is not unfettered by rules or obligations to others but rather constricted, or fettered, by other people.

 

I would imagine we could view this on maybe several levels … our own self interest, imposed self interest <rules and guidelines set up by some larger entity> and the other persons’ self interest.

 

We then see the world as an orderly place if, and only of, all those things are aligned and all have the same interest at the same time for some meaningful amount of time from which we can get some sense of orderliness.

This would also then suggest that any adversity is not Life imposed but self imposed <if not by you but by someone else>.

 

But there is another aspect. I need to go back to the interest trinity of own self interest, imposed self interest <rules and guidelines set up by some larger entity> and the other persons’ self interest.

opinions fight myself

For if we only seek obedience to the ‘imposed interest’ we are doomed for failure.

Simplistically this is why authoritarianism and totalitarianism and autocracies fail.

They try to impose self interest which, more likely than not, does not actually align with real self interest and this generates a feeling of adversity … and chaos.

Which is slightly odd in that we are generating chaos from order.

All this does is point out that imposed order is more likely to create chaos than not.

 

There is a phrase called ‘obedient autonomy’ and I am purposefully misusing it to make a point.

 

Individualistic autonomy is a false narrative. Yes. we can make individual choices but unless we are on some island, alone, … we inevitably interact with other people and are connected culturally in a variety of ways.

 

We must have some self-imposed order to enable the greater whole to have a greater good.

Our self imposed order limits chaos created by people … not created by Life.

 

And … if we get our self imposed order wrong? Whew. It only creates more adversity, more angst, more friction and more inefficient cultural and societal behavior.

 

All that philosophical mumbo jumbo aside … here is my point.

 

We sometimes confuse what appears to be a disorderly and uncertain world with what is actually just disorderly and uncertain people.

 

Therefore, maybe we confuse chaos or randomness with what is actually unpredictability due to our lack of understanding or information <or maybe a thread of ignorance>.

next generation of thinkers

I believe we all know that there has to be some kind of standard, some kind of mutual agreement and that ‘some’ means it should be captured in some laws, rules and guidelines. That is not really ‘imposed interest’ but rather ‘interest captured in guidelines.’

This shouldn’t be that hard to grasp because, similarly, we all know there are clearly some scientific laws that govern the universe.

These are the things that help make some aspects of life predictable and orderly.

 

I read somewhere … there isn’t really much variation from stone to stone, or from lion to lion, or from cloud to cloud to us people. Therefore, you would have to say that without people the universe is extremely orderly with the occasional exception that actually proves the rule rather than disprove this rule of thinking.

 

Therefore, if we see randomness or we see chaos, it is not ‘the world’ nor is it some ‘universe thing’ … but rather people and personalities creating what we “see”.

 

 

thinker thumbtackWhy does that matter?

 

Because what people make … people can unmake.

Just ponder that when you think about a universe and world and Life which seems uncertain and out of control.

 

It is people creating that feeling of chaos & uncertainty and those people’s behaviors can always be constrained and contained by other peoples who are in the right and seek some orderliness.

raincoats

December 29th, 2016

 autumn-rain-fall

=========

 

“Because of the way this garment <Mackintosh raincoat> is made.

There is no stitching involved, it’s completely bonded/glued, in order to keep the garment completely waterproof. I owned a vintage Mac that I wore for years in my early twenties until someone stole it at a party.

Even after literally doing everything to wear it out, that coat always looked immaculate.”

============

 

Ok.

 

Today is the 250th birthday of the guy who invented the Mackintosh raincoat <a Glasgow Scot named Charles Macintosh>.

 

 

 

raincoat-charles-macintosh-google-doodle

 

I used to own a Mac. It was hot when wearing … but that sonuvabitch kept you dry as a bone.

 

Alas.

 

I believe it was a victim of one of the dozens of moves I have made as part of some garage sale or some Goodwill donation as I was purging things <that I only ended up rebuying again at some point>.

 

Charles Macintosh was a Scottish chemist and inventor of waterproof fabric.

 

Why am I writing about raincoats today <other than the fact I rue ditching my fabulous Mac>?

 

It is a reminder that inventions don’t have to be glamorous and that inventing is rarely glamorous.

 

It is a reminder that even with all the apps being ‘invented’ almost 95% of them are wasted energy and wasted money.

 

It is a reminder that most of the inventions that truly matter to us are the fruits of labor and not complete ingenuity but rather a practical ‘what the hell can I do with this’ attitude.

 

For example.

 

Macintosh had a nothing-wasted mind-set.

 

—-

His discovery of the long-sought solvent for rubber came out of his search for uses of some of the nastiest by-products of the nineteenth century progress,” Barnett writes. “Gas lamps were becoming popular in the cities of Europe, lighting up the wealthier streets and private homes. But the tar sludge left behind in the manufacture of coal gas was a public menace … Macintosh saw practical uses in the sludge and wastewater, which include valuable ammonia.

In 1819, Glasgow Gas Works was only too happy to sign a contract to sell him all the waste it produced.”

 

According to Today in Science, the sludge led to Macintosh’s famed invention:

In June 1823, Macintosh patented his process using a solution of india-rubber in naphtha soaked between two layers of cloth forming a sandwich that was pressed together. The rubber interior provided a layer impermeable to water, though still flexible.

His patent, No. 4,804, described how to “manufacture for rendering the texture of hemp, flax, wool, cotton, silk, and also leather, paper and other substances impervious to water and air.”

—-

 

From the nasty by products of civilization, which were thrown out as useless by the majority, one guy developed the rainproof fabric.

 

lamp bulb tulips isolated on white with clipping path

My point is that great ideas rarely arise from nothing … they arise from something. And they arise from someone who sees something in what others deem as useless or unimportant or some version of waste of time.

 

My point is that even disruption is defined by “discovering an unconventional way to do conventional things.’

 

My point is that the most meaningful inventions, the ones which impact the way we live, are not glitzy or glamorous or ‘seeking to be a global brand’ but rather pragmatic, practical and part of a way of living Life.

 

My point is that the best raincoat in the world was made from human excrement and industrial waste.

 

My point is that everything is useful.

 

young people smarter egg context

My point is that it is fairly likely that the next great idea is not going to be found by some branding guru or within some big high falutin’ brand but from someone we don’t know working in some garage using all the shit, some ideas and probably some random by-products … that all the ‘smart people’ have thrown away.

 

innocent until proven guilty

October 30th, 2016

 

i-was-innocent

—————–

 

“Those who love you are not fooled by mistakes you have made, or by dark images you hold about yourself.

 

They remember your beauty when you feel ugly; your wholeness when you are broken; your innocence when you feel guilty; and your purpose when you are confused. “

 

=

Alan Cohen

 

——————–

 

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

 

One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged.

 

————————-

 

I used the opening quote in this post in my ‘recognizing the real person’ post in which I suggested judging people is more difficult than many of us make it out to young innocence decisions context inspiresbe <“I could tell whether that person was guilty or not”, immediately, being one of the most misguided, and potentially damning, things we do>.

 

Thinking someone is guilty of something is an insidious little thought.

 

Like John Green said …

 

============

 “Once you think a thought, it is extremely difficult to unthink it.”

 

——–

John Green

===============

 

That is the reason why innocent until proven guilty is difficult to grasp, difficult to do and difficult to practice.

 

And it is even more so in today’s world.

 

While our court system continues to practice ‘innocent until proven guilty’ … this practice continuously crashes into a society, and certainly a social world online, that immediately rushes to a “guilty until proven innocent” verdict world.

 

And if you do try and suggest that someone should wait until the facts come out … or that maybe, just maybe, someone is innocent … you are blasted for be being naïve or ignoring ‘common sense thinking.’

 

Well.

 

The whole scenario bothers me.

5.0.2

5.0.2

You are either a believer of innocent until proven guilty or you are not.

 

It is not contextual or situational or ‘right for one person and not right for another person.’

 

It is one of the basic beliefs of the American society.

And maybe we need a lesson in social studies or civic studies to remind ourselves of that.

 

 

I once wrote … we all have guilt for something. The something could be big … it could be very small. But that is the funny thing about guilt … its size doesn’t matter. Normal laws of space & weight do not apply to guilt. A sliver of guilt can bear the same weight as a mountain of guilt.

All that matters is how we choose to bear that weight.

 

 

innocent no_one_is_innocent-graffitiI sometimes think because we all know we are guilty of something that we struggle to find innocence in others in the public eye. And, yet, I should remind everyone, that while we may be guilty of something, we are more likely than not … innocent of more than we are guilty of.

And, maybe we should all self reflect a little, I tend to believe we would all like to be judged more often by the bulk of our innocence than on the sliver of guilts we may bear.

 

We should sit and think about that.

All of us.

 

There is no such thing as an innocent word.

 

They are all going to end up being guilty of something.

I say that because we should use words wisely with regard to people’s innocence.

 

Anyway.

 

I could get extremely philosophic with regard to why we people may err on the side of wanting to jump to ‘guilty’ rather than innocence but I will not.

 

I will not because America actually makes it much simpler.

 

Innocent until proven guilty is part of who we are as a country.

 

Just as a right to bear arms.

 

Just as a right to speech.

 

Just as a right to believe different thoughts.

 

Just as a right to your own religion and religious thoughts.

 

And, yes, even people in the public eye deserve the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

 

And that means people in roles of responsibility … well … have a responsibility to maintain that same belief and vocalize it.

 

This presidential election has not only been crazy but it has brought out craziness with regard to who and what we are as a country.

 

What someone is guilty of is not something to be speculated.innocent-until-proven-guilty

 

Why?

 

Because they are innocent until proven guilty.

 

The right to be presumed innocent is one of the mainstays of who and what we are as Americans. And, yet, the presumption of innocence is undergoing an uncomfortable change in ‘society law’ which is encouraged by an increasing amount <oddly> by extreme conservative websites & spokespeople <who are supposed to be the ultimate purveyors of the constitution and constitutional rights> as well as … uhm … natural human behavior <which embodies a natural instinct to ‘where there is smoke there is fire’ attitude>.

 

We cannot, and should not, ignore these dynamics. But the right to be presumed innocent is one of the main procedural safeguards in the framework of an American criminal system. And it should remain one of the main procedural, mental, safeguards in the societal framework.

 

It not only benefits the accused but it benefits society.

If we sacrifice that we sacrifice more than just the right we sacrifice a significant part of … well … a ‘better society’ and better citizenship.

 

As Ben Franklin noted … giving us liberty for the sake of security means we are not deserving of the freedoms.

 

Look.

 

Yes.

 

Presidential campaigns seem to bring out the worst in everyone.

 

One of the things that forces us to bring out our best is … is … well … innocent until proven guilty.

 

Yes.

 

The worst thrives in a public social online universe that feeds on ‘guilty until proven innocent” <which our forefathers inherently understood that ‘perceptions of guilt are almost unrecoverable in the public eye and thought to head that off at the pass>.

And that means ‘our best’ needs to have some backbone and resolve and resilience in the face of our worst.

 

Innocent until proven guilty.

 

This is a constitutional right.

 

And maybe some Republicans <and the RNC> need to be reminded of that. It is part of what makes America different and makes America fair & reasonable & … well … makes Hillary different from Trump.

 

I believe if you feel like you have done nothing wrong of course stand up and say so.

 

I believe if you have done something wrong of course stand up and say so.

 

But ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is not about what you have done right or wrong … it is what America stands for.

guilty-until-proven-innocent

Someone smarter than I needs to figure out how to remind everyone of that.

This is simply my small attempt to do so.

 

I have no idea whether Hillary Clinton has done anything criminal or is a criminal. What I do know is that we are all innocent until proven guilty.

And shouting from the mountaintop that someone is guilty, without specific proof, does not make it so.

 

If I were the Clinton campaign I would make the ‘high road’ pivot in the last week based on ‘innocent until proven guilty.’

I believe they have the opportunity because of this new FBI thing to pivot against the so-called law & order candidate and his “law” surrogates who seem to have forgotten that the whole foundation of law & order is innocent until proven guilty. The heinous “they look guilty” is at the root of profiling, stop & frisk, prejudice against Muslims, Jewish people, Catholics as well as ‘anyone who does not look like me’ … and the rights of everyone in America.

we-are-innocent-until-proven-guilty

Regardless.

 

This is bigger than any presidential election.

 

Innocent until proven guilty is institutional.

 

And to defray this part of our institution is to seed rot in our house. And, at this time and place, I see far too many responsible people irresponsibly planting seeds of this rot.

 

Anyone shouting guilty, without any real proof … and I mean REAL proof <not speculation or innuendoes or ‘common sense’> is rotten.

 

We need to eliminate the rot. We need to refind who and what we are as Americans. Americans who are innocent until proven guilty.

defining serial philanderer versus serial creep

October 14th, 2016

yes no hand statement 

 

Well.

 

Let me say this about Trump … because of this asshat I have had to have more conversations about guys, what we do and what we say, and don’t say, and why we do the things we do, or don’t do, then I have in years.

 

 

trump-not-all-men-are-like-thatOn October 9th I had to walk through what guys really don’t say in a locker room.

 

And what guys do say <and they don’t say any of the shit that Trump senior & junior imply we do>.

 

Today I felt the need to define the difference between a serial philanderer and a serial creep.

 

Now.

 

The Trump campaign is gonna do their damndest to blur the distinction the best they can.

 

Ignore the blurring.

 

I am gonna make it simple.

 

A father, husband, or any adult man knows the one guy you don’t trust around your wife, girlfriend/partner or … well … any woman. They are on constant low level “flirt status’ trolling for anyone who expresses even one iota of interest.

They are the ‘dogs’ who just want to sleep with any woman they can.

That guy is a serial philanderer.

 

 

A father, husband, or any adult man knows the one guy you don’t trust around your daughter.

That guy is a serial creep.

 

That was, and is, simple.

 

Now.

 

There is going to be a bunch of crap being thrown around to blur the discussion and to attempt to create some random equivalencies in order to attach Hillary to Bill <and inevitably> to Trump on this issue.

 

As Trump would say … “disaster” of a plan. ‘Poor judgement.’

 

A wife is a victim of a husband’s infidelity. Period.

 

A woman, all women, are victims of a creep. Period.

 

thinking inside head possibilities finiteBill. If we were to judge him thru a 2016 lens, versus whatever year lens we are trying to go back to, yes … he is guilty of .. well … I am not sure what he is guilty of.

He has faced allegations of which none have been proven in court <and the women , I believe, have had their day in court>. He had sex with a consenting adult <that is infidelity and not a crime>. So I guess in 2016 lens he would be viewed as a serial philanderer. But I also don’t remember him ever using the words Trump does nor do I ever remember him treating women in general as Trump does. Nor … which everyone seems to forget … do I remember Bill showing the overall pattern of disdain for people beyond women.

Regardless.

Adultery is adultery. On that issue both Trump and Bill were adulterers and philanderers.

Not a crime. Just a moral crime.

 

Trump. Here is Trump’s problem. He has been a bragging hyperbole driven lying asshole throughout this entire campaign. For the most part … everyone knows that he exaggerates everything. But. When you listen to the bus “grab & touch anyone I want” tape. And listen to what he says. And you combine it with everything else you have seen and heard … well … you sit back and go … whoa … that’s not exaggeration or sexist stupidity … I believe he actually does, and did, that.

 

Bill didn’t paw at women. He slept with them as an adulterer.

Trump not only was an adulterer but he took advantage of his position to touch, kiss and non consensually paw at women <while verbally demeaning them>.

That makes him a creep.

 

 

Hillary.

I don’t think she can say this <because she would be crucified> but I think she would say thru a 2016 culture lens she would have acted differently back in business context young old thinking smarterwhatever year that was. We view sexual assault <as well as many things culturally> differently now versus then <thankfully I may add>.

But that is a guess.

What I do know is that it is only hearsay that she did anything to the women. She stood by her husband as her husband lied to her. She stopped standing by her husband <speaking out against allegations against her husband> after he told her the truth. That’s kind of what wives do.

They are the last ones to know, the last ones to believe and the last ones left out there feeling & looking stupid. And that is why trying to tie her to her husband’s infidelity is a losing strategy. Women know that.

 

And to suggest she is an “enabler”? geez. That suggests she was the Madam for Bill’s whorehouse. On so many levels, mostly by simply viewing Hillary through a brainiac thought leader lens, that seems incredibly unlikely.

 

The biggest problem for Trump continues to be actually his biggest most effective strategy.

False equivalence.

 

As he did in the debate the other night he tried to diminish his sexist asshatedness by … well … comparing it to ISIS. Well, yes, he looks good in that equivalence.

 

Next.

 

What he does is to suggest that “well, he did it too” as an equivalence. That may work in 2nd grade but in the adult world individuals are responsible for their actions.

Period.

 

 

The last thing he, and his rabid surrogates, are masters at is ‘isolating an incident’ to create equivalence. He treats each asshat incident as a solitary event and finds an equivalence to diminish its importance <or heinousness>.

And you know what? If it were just one incident most of us would sit back and go “okay, you really aren’t an asshat … you just showed a moment of poor judgement.” But if you unbundle his isolation techniques and rebundle everything that he does, and has done, he shows an overall pattern of … well … being a heinous self-serving asshole bully who believes he deserves anything he wants … and if he doesn’t get it becomes a petulant rich kid focused on some revenge.

 

<the latter does not reflect anything I want in a president>

 

Bill was a good president who was an adulterer. He also seems like he was a public servant to, and of, the citizens of America <and not sexist>. Oh. And he married a headstrong independent smart woman.

 

Trump was an adulterer. A creep with regard to women overall. Sexist. And , in general, the worst type of soulless capitalist you can imagine.

 

Hillary will be a good president who was not an adulterer, did not divorce her husband despite his flaws, has shown no signs of being anything but an ambitious public servant woman … and married an incredibly smart articulate flawed man.

 

All flawed.

 

But not all flaws are equal.

 

Anyway.

 

As Michelle Obama just said in a fabulous speech yesterday … “Enough is enough.”

 

================

 

“We live in the real world, with real problems that need real solutions.

We need someone with pragmatic approaches that include patience and compassion. That is Hillary Clinton.”

 

Idaho Statesman, the state’s most widely circulated newspaper, criticized Trump as insufficiently reliable on conservative issues, or unreliable, period.

===========

 

A presidential candidate can’t say anything, and I truly mean ‘anything’, if its creepy <because no adult wants their son or daughter to be confused in thinking serial-obama-michelle-not-politics-as-usual-1of it as “wow, the guy who is running our country can say it … and think it … so why the fuck can’t I ??!!??”>.

That’s why a presidential debate is … uhm … well … there is no age limit to view it because they are supposed to represent what is the best of us <not the worst>. That’s why words matter.

 

This horrible Donald Trump event is much bigger than a political event. This is a cultural “education level event.”

Someone on twitter called this election ‘the Sweet Meteor of Death’ but I disagree.

 

Our first black president changed America. Anyone would be silly to not think that.

Our first female president will also change America. Anyone would be silly to not think that.

 

And the change occurs in some horrible public ways.

 

But not all change is equal.

 

Obama ran against decent human beings who competed based on ideas and hopes … not racism.

Clinton, a woman, is faced with a non-decent individual who is competing not on ideas … and certainly not positivism or hope … but instead is plucking every misogynist and xenophobic and sexist string anyone anywhere could play.

 

I read somewhere … we are witnessing what Obama’s 2008 campaign would have been like if Obama had been running against a George Wallace.

 

In this case we are witnessing the Mad Men masculinity campaign against the woman of the future.

 

This will define who and what we are as people.

 

I listened to Michelle Obama in New Hampshire on 10/13 <and I am truly speak the truthhonored Michelle Obama is our First Lady>.

 

“Trump’s comments about women have shaken me to my core in a way that I couldn’t have predicted.”

“This was a powerful individual speaking openly about sexually predatory behavior.”

 

“This is certainly beyond the basic standards of human decency.”

 

    This is not normal, this is not politics as usual. This is disgraceful, it is intolerable, and it doesn’t matter what party you belong to… No woman deserves to be treated this way – none of us deserves this kind of abuse.

 

“If Trump is elected we’re telling our sons it’s ok to humiliate women.” 

 

Me.

 

I do not like how Trump conducts his businesses competitively or organizationally … and I do not like how he conducts himself personally.

I do not believe this is who we are as decent people nor do I believe he represents who we are as a country.

And … paraphrasing our FLOTUS … I will not let anyone tell us differently.

Enlightened Conflict