Imagine.

Imagine you meet someone. This person wears an eye mask on both eyes, and uses a white cane to find their way around. It does not take long for you to figure out that this person is blind.

Then this person comes up to you, knowing that you have a keen ear for others. This person explains: “I have never seen a picture in my life. Recently, I acquired this camera and I wanted to take pictures of the world around me. Unfortunately, I cannot see the pictures taken by this camera. I am very sad.”

As a kind hearted person, what would be your reaction?

A colleague of mine wisely suggested: it is important to be kind, but this person could be explained clearly and easily that their expectations were not set properly. A camera does not make a blind person able to see pictures, and there is not much more to be said about the situation.

End of round one.

To your other self, now imagine. Imagine you witness the following situation, as an external observer.

It is day in a featureful neighborhood in a friendly city. The day is bright and sunny.

You see a person, otherwise healthy and without unusal traits, holding a camera to take a picture of the scenery.

You notice that the flash is activated as indicated by the pulsing LED indicator. However you can see also that the flash is oriented incorrectly, i.e. pointing in the direction of the person holding the camera instead of the direction of the scenery.

The person actionates the trigger, and receives the light in the face.

After a few minutes it appears clear that the person recovers their sight but expresses their inconfort with the situation to a another passer-by also interested in the situation.

The person and the passer-by talk for a while, apparently discussing the features of the camera. You overhear the passer-by suggesting confidently: “your eyes have expressed pain when you took the picture. Our shared common sense recommends that you mutilate them.”

You observe (with no means to interfere) that the person agrees and dutifully blinds themselves permanently. For the purpose of this “dream” you can let yourself imagine that the mutiliation completed quickly and was relatively painless.

Then this person comes up to you, knowing that you have a keen ear for others. This person explains: “I have never seen a picture in my life. Recently, I acquired this camera and I wanted to take pictures of the world around me. Unfortunately, I cannot see the pictures taken by this camera. I am very sad.”

As a kind hearted person, what would be your reaction?

End of round two.

Statements:

• knowledge and wisdom can help avoid complex situations.
• knowledge makes it more difficult to deal with complex situations.
• lack of curiosity and painful narrow-mindedness can be interchangeable.
• ignorance makes people weak.

Today a friend pointed me to the documentary Earthlings which seems to be already known of everyone but me. A half-enlightening experience: while I was already aware of the issues, and I already knew some facts, the images made my understanding more vivid; an unpleasant but refreshing enhancement.

But still, something in this documentary was bothering me all the way. Now I can see it: the title.

“ Earthlings ”

And the documentary goes over animals, about how humans relate to (and use) other animals. Did they not forget something?

What about the other earthlings?

Turning vegetarian after watching such a documentary completely misses the point. All in all, any human has to learn to deal with fellow living beings. That always involves killing to survive, often in nasty ways for convenience. We should just choose how to minimize the amount of inconvenience for our community of earthlings as a whole.

Topic for this week's discussions: if you were to get a mental picture (or a perception) of each living thing that is used or killed to sustain your own life, where each being would be expressing their opinion by speaking in their own distinct voice (possibly a little squeaky), how would you deal with the situation? Imagine, for example, the opinion of that branch of parsley on the cutting board if it was expressing human-like feelings and consciousness about its fate…

Life is tough.

One day, we will wake up in the morning and see a world devoid of plants. Like the dolphins, they will have left us to our own device.

In 1793, as it just overtook power in France, the new government decided to open the tombs of the French kings in Saint-Denis and throw a thousand years of history into a pit as a celebration of their victory.

In 2001, the Taliban destroyed the two gigantic Buddhas of Bamyan, erasing 1400 years of historical significance with a few kilograms of plastic.

Now I wonder; why putting so much effort in erasing their own past, if their position in their present time was accepted, justifiable and welcome?

Today I use this page as a public notepad:

• the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn as modern versions of Russel's teapot - refuting the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions
• to read: A Devil's Chaplain by Richard Dawkins and its elaboration on the theme of the teapot
• Solipsism, Russel's Five Minute Hypothesis and the Brain in a vat theory as philosophical parallels to religion
• the Sentient Puddle of Douglas Adams as a relativized justification for the perfection of the world
• Infant metaphysics - how humans develop and absorb the distinction between self and reality - as a part of Developmental psychology
• the Humpback_anglerfish and a specific drawing of Saturday Morning Breakfast cereal as a depiction of the essential role of males from the point of view of females

Alleen in de logica, in de wiskunde en in de natuurwetenschappen is de waarheid anoniem, dat wil zeggen objektief geldig; gaat het over mensen en hun meningen, dan kan zoiets als waarheid alleen geboren worden wanneer men het gezicht en het stemgeluid van de spreker er bij geleverd krijgt. — Harry Mulisch

Translates roughly as follows: “Only in logic, mathematics and nature science is truth anonym, i.e. objectively valid. When it deals with people and their opinions, something like truth can only appear when the face and voice of its bearer is delivered with it.”

A kōan (公案) is a story, dialogue, question, generally containing aspects that are inaccessible to rational understanding, yet that may be accessible to intuition.

Sometimes kōans appear out of nowhere, and I was today witness to a beautiful one:

(20:32) <@kena> sylvain_: c'est quoi l'art pour toi ?
(20:57) < sylvain> je suis inculte, nul, con et moche, et tu me
         poses cette question ?
(21:04) <@kena> tu dois avoir une opinion non ?
(21:43) < sylvain> je sais pas
(21:43) < sylvain> les filles me détestent totues
(21:43) < sylvain> j'en ai marre
(21:43) <@kena> ça répond pas vraiment à la question
(21:43) <@kena> je sais pas moi 
(21:43) <@kena> invente un truc
(21:44) < sylvain> faut que je trouve des choess à photographier.

Thanks, Sylvain.

However, its being common does not make it acceptable as a fact of life — at least not when taken literally.

Today, let's try to reformulate the idea in a broader sense, to capture the abstract idea behind: individuals who chose to not contribute to society but benefit from it are parasitic and should be eliminated.

Unfortunately, this new phrasing is too general and must be specified to apply to the real world. One of the possible specific phrasings, applied to a world where work is the only contribution perceived as valuable (such as the world viewed from the middle-class), is the one in the title of this post.

Myself, I prefer to use this idea to define acceptable goals in life for individuals, that should be pursued during the lifetime to escape the state of parasite in which every child is born by default.

Some of the goals I have identified so far include:

• giving love
• teaching (as in: educating children, transmitting knowledge, etc)
• helping curing diseases
• producing food (up to the necessary quantity, not more)
• expressing emotions (including through forms of art)
• support other people through hardships

Note that the following items do not qualify as honorable goals to pursue under my model, although they can be combined with any of the above:

• working as a mean to create wealth
• giving birth
• searching for truth (either via science or religion)

Note also that people who are born with or were inflicted with handicaps that prevent them from contributing cannot be considered as “parasites” under the previous definition - the idea explicitly mentions “choice” as the selection criterion.

Quote of the day:

Freedom is a terrible gift, and the theory behind all dictatorships is that “the people” do not want freedom. They want bread and circuses. They want workman's compensation and fringe benefits and TV. Give up your free will, give up your freedom to make choices, listen to the expert, and you will have three cars in your garage, steak on the table, and you will no longer have to suffer the agony of choice. — Madeleine L'Engle

Working for a software publisher in the licensing business is like working in a retirement house with the elderly.

They will die soon.

I would take care of them, make sure that they are happy and enjoy the most out of their remaining days, and they will die soon.

I share their concerns, I try to relieve them from the occasional pain, but I let them die.

We have fun together, I help them with their short-term projects, and we spend time together as if it was the greatest of their life. But they will die.

We may not share the same philosophical views; we may even have conflicting morals; but I display a tolerant attitude because they will die soon, not I, because abstract conflicts is not the nicest thing to live at the end of their life, and foremost because I could use their experience, too.

And I am happy that they die soon; for they are not needed any more and would become soon a burden if we let them live too long.

And yet there is hope. Because software companies can change, and rise from their ashes. They die, and then they are born again, younger. IBM did it. Apple did it. I wish I could witness it for myself.

When I stumbled across this piece of politically incorrect art about the close relationship between religion and economics (reminds me of the one between religion and football) I felt amused at first, then scared about how obvious the link is and how very few people do actually notice.

And then I found a possibly explanation: many people do notice, but they do not care. Or sometimes, they do, but only to see the good side of it. There is a lot of money to be made, and religion is providing quite a few of them.

It was interesting to discover today an interesting example that this explanation might have something true about it. Even if it hasn't, I love the schadenfreude of imagining what the site makers think about their potential customers.