On Politics 1 (or Argumentation)

Two Heads, One Body:

Typical ‘political’ issues are misguided and reductive. There’s the issue itself and the illusion of this two-sided argument that’s already explicated and requires little to no original thought on which to base one’s own opinion. Instead of organically synthesizing arguments or voices regarding the matter at hand from experience and gathering, processing, and analsynthesis of information (essay on the five senses and differential geometry coming soon) filtered through the brain to prevent the noise from overwhelming the signal, the majority more or less picks a side and spews preexisting bullshit at the other like children outside at recess arguing about a game of whatever.

Sorry kids I’m not saying you spew bullshit per se, but these arguments are localized, and the motive is to assert dominance rather than persuade…which is acceptable to an extent when at play, but because kids are likely mimicking, consciously or un-, what they’ve absorbserved from adult interaction supposedly instilled with experience and maturity, though frequently regressing to playground-conflict-like proselytization, there exists an unacceptability vector pointed towards these nebulous authority figures.

The first-order issue is why does this second-order issue exist? The drug issue became a ‘war’ against drug trafficking and its inherent violence (partly a function of its illegality, but this isn’t an essay about legality, it’s about responsibility) when the primary problem in America starts with: why are so many (often young) people choosing to take drugs?

One pseudo-answer concerns society and inevitability. One problem identified: the environment. That’s a big fucking problem, and admit and accept it: the same prescriptive advice given to addicts because the system has its own defense mechanisms. WE FUCKED UP! Who is we? It doesn’t matter. Everybody. Accept what has happened, use new knowledge, make progress, unite.

Conjecture: If the two ‘sides’ spent their creative energy solving the underlying issue cooperatively to the mutual benefit of themselves and their immediate environment (and with major issues like drugs this expands in concentric spheres of exponentially-increasing radii) instead of conducting experiments to find the maximum amount of literal and figurative noise one human or one organization of humans can disseminate (conclusion: upper bound as a function of and solely limited by degree of human ignorance, likely approaching arbitrarily large values; treat like infinity), then someanything will be better than the current situation.

-BB

On Intelligence

Smart wears many guises
I find utility in the ability to detect humility in humanity. I find prerequisite true intelligence, the sort of knowledge that catalyzes progress, giving-tree-deep-rooted compassion and empathy (love) for life in its infinite forms. True, symmetrically, the aforementioned induces an equivalently profound acceptance of the antithesis, the antipode,the abyss et al. The first step is to figure out the why and the how of existence, generally speaking, such that you have a dynamic foundation to process and SYNTHESIZE new knowledge;
then,
life becomes a filling-in of the details, a recognition of the patterns, an optimization of efficiency over iterations, a never-ever-ending, though certainly cyclingcirclingspiraling, progression towards EVERYTHING. Yet Everything (and everything) is, so it never has to
END

-BB