Schedule crush time. As you currently can worry without further action for various reasons, (timing, uncertainty of response, not knowing what to say, if you should – a quandary FAR worse than Heisenberg as that only went across two variables), schedule it. I’m not kidding. You’re drawn to that, so give it its due and full focus. During that time, draw, paint, make music, write prose or poetry, pace back and forth, criticize yourself in any which way you want. *ding* bell goes off. Time’s up. Put it aside. Schedule as many times through the day as needed. 15m every hour. 3 hour block of time. 17 seconds out of every minute. All up to you.

Schedule crush time. As [read full article]

 

I realized tonight that a lot of my apathy towards finding and promoting the perfect political system (a hobby that many people I know online engage in) is partially due to my generation (GenX, which I knew) but surprisingly, as I expounded on my thoughts in a long comment, I realized I was greatly influenced by The Great Gatsby, especially this notion of an untouchable Aristocracy that no amount of money or political clout can overcome. So, in search of new perspective, I found this positive portrait of Old Money that I hadn’t thought of. “There’s another side of Old Money, however, that makes for a less interesting story, but a more interesting study. It’s the Old Money that has integrity; that lives far below its means; that raises it children to be productive, well-adjusted adults; that uses its position and resources not just to preserve and expand its wealth, but to quietly make the world a better place for everyone. While much of what comprises the culture of Old Money is antithetical to modern society, it has nothing to do with being a snob. Old Money dresses and behaves so that it is not obvious how much money it has or what position it holds in society. Old Money treats others without regard for how much money they have or what position they hold in society.” “The Old Money families of Boston, and of other major cities in America, personify a code of behavior: that of an educated, articulate individual who places the interests of his or her community on par with their own personal interests. They prioritize quality of life over a standard of living, eschewing vulgar displays of wealth. They pass this philosophy on to their children, and their children to their children. They act as role models for New Money and the general public.” http://www.ivy-style.com/the-great-gatsby-and-old-money-versus-new.html

I realized tonight that
[read full article]
 

I believe that we live in a class system of some kind, everywhere in the world. [THIS IS MY FIRST TIME PUTTING THIS INTO WORDS] This class system has many components to it, the most obvious is “have / have not”, but in modern times it’s usually “have more / have less” — but it’s not a smooth gradient. You’re born into it and you die in it. It either takes generations or a con game (to fool those in your class or lower that you’ve reached a higher class and it is they who lift you up into an “phantom higher class” only recognized by sames and lowers but not uppers. “Nouveau riche” are that kind of phantom higher class and it can show up at any level. Below a certain class – and I don’t know what that is precisely, you can be taught to believe that it is possible to overcome your class of birth and rise up, either through acquisition or, more commonly, by having the correct political stance. “If you hold the correct political stance, you are as good as being in the higher classes because you understand them.” is the thinking. But I think that’s false. The highest you can ascend is a “phantom higher class” based upon having a correct political stance, whatever you determine that is, So, that’ two phantom higher classes that I see. A large democracy (of whatever style, direct, indirect, representative, etc) based upon correct ideas won’t propel anybody into a higher class *even if they gain the political power through the election process”. They will still remain in the phantom higher class, whether through ideals or money. [contrast alexandria ocasio-cortez vs trump]. Trump’s family money is still Nouveau riche, despite it being a couple of generations. It will likely be gone or dwindling within a generation or two, despite all of the game playing now. AOC’s making it politically. She believes she has the correct political stance and has ascended, through democratic processes, to a level of political sway. But it is a phantom higher class of ideals and those threatened by it are either of the phantom money class or the phantom ideal classes. But Aristocracy is Aristocracy and it is from their perspective they clearly know the differences. With all of this, I accept the planet’s class system as something that is changeable but not simply by election or money or both. I also say “I believe in democracy” as a shorthand for some basic human rights are correct in any and every political system. “I believe in democracy” is not saying I believe in mob rule, because I don’t think mob rule is possible. So who I fight for is the classes within my purview – my range. The highest I could ascend is just below phantom money or phantom correct political stances. Mind you, I hold phantom correct political stances. But I believe they have limits that cannot be surmounted. Marrying into it is the only way and that would only benefit children not myself. So, I don’t know if I am a Vulcan or a hobbit or a hooligan. But the author of that piece, Professor Arturo Bris, is undoubtedly in the phantom correct political stance zone. A Professor at IMD World Competitiveness Center, created in 1989, a respected business school, think tank, educating the Aristocracy and the rest of us alike. But he is of “the rest of us”. Not Aristocracy. He does not think like Aristocracy. His 3 categories do not apply to Aristocracy. His school is not for Aristocracy for they don’t need a school. I don’t bemoan Aristocracy. I just know that no matter how correct my political stance may be, or Professor Arturo Bris’, its effect will have a limited application. So, I will be his hobbit or Vulcan or hooligan. But I know I could just as easily be him and he me. But unless there is a complete loss of family identity, no Aristocrat will be either of us.

I believe that we
[read full article]
 

I was surprised to see this from Creative Systems Thinking, a page that is normally about how systems function, defining terminology, exploring complexities. But it makes a strange kind of sense. You can try to apply basic logic to the system at play here and say, “The boys committed perjury under oath and are clearing the air now as fathers and adults to get closure”, or you could say, “They need money and since Michael Jackson can’t defend himself, it’s free money” or any number of other possibilities. Quickly, it becomes quite complicated. Your own participation in the story changes its outcome. It’s likely you have an opinion, perhaps formed from a love or dislike of Michael Jackson, perhaps from being inclined to believe “accusations are usually false” or “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”. And all of this can take place without even seeing the four hour documentary, and without reading this Rolling Stone review. Simply reading a summary of a review of a documentary is enough to start this process occurring.

I was surprised to … [read full article]