logic

... No belief is true, no matter how popular or plausible

... No belief is true, no matter how popular or plausible

... No belief is true, no matter how popular or plausible

... No belief is true, no matter how popular or plausible

... No belief is true, no matter how popular or plausible

... No belief is true, no matter how popular or plausible

... No belief is true, no matter how popular or plausible

Could it be ethically ok to not vote? note: I posted this two hours before Biden stepped down. It’s possible that a different Dem candidate could change my choices, but my overall perspective feels the same.

A lot of people I’m close to have very strong opinions that to not vote in this presidential election is wrong. But I have no interest in voting. It genuinely seems to me that things will be perfectly not ideal no matter what happens in the election.

My best guess of what’s happening culturally is that the mean green meme has gotten really far down its negative feedback loop, and red, orange, and amber are swarming on the attack. If that’s right, a breaking point of sorts will have to be hit for teal to get to its tipping point. In 12-step terms, green would have to hit rock bottom to be able to finally admit it has a problem and needs help.

I wouldn’t be surprised if teal’s tipping point would have to be particularly intense because it’s also the tipping point into second tier, and we have no historical reference for what it takes for a culture to begin to get a foothold in a new tier (the big bang, the formulation of simple cells, and the leap from apes to humans might be comparable but difficult to translate…)

This thought process just leaves me trusting what’s happening, and voting just doesn’t feel like one of the ways I want to participate in this happening.

Terrence Howard maybe a crackpot, but he isn't all wrong. Terrence Howard is mostly known as an actor, but he’s recently been interviewed by Joe Rogan for his book 1 x 1 = 2. The book is intentionally provocative and intended to critique how trusted math and science are in a civilizational context.

I haven’t read the book, and I think Terrence introduces much more confusion than clarity, I think there is something of value in what he is attempting to do (even though the attempt has little if any merit given the conclusions and claims that Terrence makes).

I think he is attempting to bring a qualitative sense of humanity back into relevance (with a sense that numeracy has overly quantified and objectified our experience).

While Joe Rogan expressed that he didn’t fully understand the point that Terrence was trying to make, he did stay open to the possibility that he was missing something that would help get Terrence’s point.

Most critics have been hard on Terrence (claiming pseudo-science, fraud, sensationalism, or insanity), and have been critical of Joe Rogan because he didn’t push back harder on obviously non-sensical ideas. My friend Erik has posted a video criticizing one of the debunkers for seeming to intentionally miss Terrences intended insight. It can also give you a bit of a brief intro into the topic if you are interested.

But I think there is a deeper motive and validity to be discerned.

One claim by Terrence is that 0 x 1 apple being equal to zero apples is nonsensical because you’ve destroyed something that used to exist (the apple), whereas what is intended by the equation is there are zero occurrences of the abstract category apple which results in zero actual apples.

Another claim is that $1 x $1 = $1 is nonsense if you also say that 100 cents * 100 cents = 10,000 cents.

It is clear in this example that there is a confusion about units (we don’t recognize units of a square dollar or a square cent).

I think Terrence is trying to point out something similar to what Bucky Fuller says when Bucky claims that the continued use of the word sunrise is harmful, even if we know what is meant is a portion of the earth turning into alignment with the sun’s rays.

The very subtle point that I’d make is that saying 1 x category of apple = 1 actual apple seems to be valid to us, but misses that there is still a whole lot of context that is missing from that actual apple, and much abstraction that pollutes our understanding of what is actually happening in the world.

Thoughts?