All are genetically members of the human species (unless asked)
Homo garrulus chatterbox man (do birds sing?)
Homo laborans working man (the animal that does socially useful labor)
Homo letalis killing man (deliberate or otherwise)
Homo immunis untaxed man (rich man or President of the U.S.)
Homo corpus corporate man (not actually a living human, a minion)
Homo faber the man that makes (toolmaker)
I do not need to compose any analysis of the "soap" because that task has been done well. In fact it was done well long ago, even before I was born:
Radios became extremely popular and widespread in the late 1920s and especially the 1930s, in no small part because of soap operas. Writing a decade later, this is what writer James Thurber had to say about the new kind of entertainment that still dominates daytime entertainment:
“A soap opera is a kind of sandwich, whose recipe is simple enough, although it took years to compound. Between thick slices of advertising, spread twelve minutes of dialogue, add predicament, villainy, and female suffering in equal measure, throw in a dash of nobility, sprinkle with tears, season with organ music, cover with a rich announcer sauce, and serve five times a week.”
Here is the webpage where I found this half-remembered quote (using Google):
https://anothercenturyblog.com/2017/01/25/soap-sandwich/
I do not know what soap operas appear on daytime television these days. With the fertilizing influences of technology and an advanced entertainment industry the genre has undergone a metamorphosis and proliferation. It is now enough less than it was to attract some male interest but it has also expanded and taken on real life (as in "Reality") to make it more awful, more monstrous, than I ever imagined it could be.
I knew that my wife enjoyed soaps when I married her. This fascination would have bothered me except that my own mother was an addict. It did not bother me when she lost interest for a long time. Now it is back with a vengeance in the form of "Ninety Day Fiancee" - along with all of the associated spinoffs and commentaries.
This could be one more step toward our apotheosis into the metaverse, a sneak preview. Or eventually it could become Teilhard de Chardin's "Noosphere". Lord help us.
Early in my career at Boeing I bought a rubber stamp with a single word on it: "Bullshit". For obvious reasons I never used it. I think that I still have it in a clear plastic envelope somewhere.
There are a few other resources that I have admired over the years... yet at the same time the years have taught me not to actually pull the trigger. I would have to say that this wisdom is part of my two step plan. (1) Shut up. (2) Stop caring.
they're not stupid... they're:
Just the temptation is enough to convict me of terminal contempt for my fellow man. The truth is that the world is full of stupid people. It is so full of stupid people that others have no choice but to right-size everything that they match the capacities of the people around them.
Now I have reached an age where people can say that I am stupid without fear of contradiction.
They say that with two points you can define a line. A mere three nonlinear points will constrain a plane. Plunging forward I can hypothesize that four (non-planar) points will confine your reality to just one of the many alternative three dimensional spaces. I am unable to plunge beyond this point, or unwilling. That other required dimension of our existence is so tenuous, so poignant. Even having arrived at this point in time I am unable to constrain the future, or to free the past.
What if I wanted to fully define a human being? Would it even be possible without a very large amount of data? In the science fiction novel Cyteen by C.J. Cherryh a case is made that such a task is possible, at least in a specific very practical sense. She starts off by duplicating the environment, the upbringing, and the genetics. There are large quantities of video from the life of the person in question. The author's master touch is to have a highly tuned instrument for reading the results: that selfsame genetic and life story copy of the original person. Even so, the challenge remains a puzzle, remains a challenge.
I can see that "the future" in a larger sense is not constrained. The possibilities are endless. At the same time, I feel time closing in on me. I can use probability to place an outer limit on the total years of my future. At the same time I can see my past as an endless series of missed opportunities, either because I chose the wrong alternative or else because I lacked the perception to see the possibilities. No matter, the past is immutable and therefore poor material for any great sense of regret.
Even if my genetics were fully recorded, I am still the best record of the story of my life. No one knows all of it, not even me. I just know more of it than anyone else. It would be next to impossible to recreate the circumstances of my childhood. My parents are gone along with their impulses and dreams. The places that I lived and the kids that I knew have gone their way. I am guessing that there will come a time when most of the people that I once knew are dead, if that time has not already passed. My life expectancy if I were born today would be 77 years. Having reached 72 years of age the tables now predict that half of the people of my age and sex will be dead at age 85.
Not good odds. I am like the scientist who does not really have knowledge and so uses probability to describe things.
I have been reflecting on the extremely unpleasant ideological uniformity of the conservative members of my world. It is never enough to just condemn a certain behavior. I must also meditate about it and philosophize about it. This uniformity of belief is condensed for me in a personal memory of my father and a neighbor sitting side by side on the couch in my living room after meeting for the first time. Somehow they discovered that they were both conservatives and, possibly as a show of solidarity for me, began comparing their views on various points of conservative doctrine. Point by point they established that they were in absolute agreement on the whole boatload. I was astounded.
This was a number of years ago. There has always been partisans. It is my view that right-wing partisans are much more regimented than left-wing partisans. This could be an artifact of me hanging out with a lot more and extreme conservatives than people at the other end of the political spectrum. I actually lived in a left-wing commune for a time after leaving college. They never actually referred to me as a fascist. Mostly, my conservative friends do not call me a communist, or even a Marxist. I have benefited from not having any strong doctrines. I have some strong views that verge on Social Darwinism as tempered by the Christ-like human experience.
So now to return to the (non)debate in my living room so many years ago.
I had my own reasons for not jumping into the "fray". I saw no reason to argue with either of them and I wanted to get along with both of them. I have a theory about how they were able to put on this show for me. I believe that they both were listening to Rush Limbaugh at the time. No doubt they were avoiding areas of potential debate by sticking to the Word as revealed by Limbaugh (possibly leveraging an inside joke for my benefit). It is incredible and somewhat repulsive to see that much agreement between two strangers. There is also the possibility that they authentically believed what they were saying. I have reason to think otherwise.
Today a memory came to me of a film (Five Million Years to Earth) where genocidal/suicidal martians shape the evolution of apes on earth toward intelligence along with a self-selecting tropism toward martian identity. Activation of an ancient martian artifact causes humans with that tropism to form groups to weed out all the others. I recall watching this movie in Rhode Island with my brother, Jack, and his first wife (she was good at screaming in horror at all the right times, sometimes making me jump out of my skin).
Opposition to diversity of opinion is probably a self-defeating proposition. Certainly that was not something that Dad especially advocated. He was always taking the other side of every argument, possibly in order to "educate" us or possibly to test our loyalty/gullibility. It was a game that no one could win. At a certain point I stopped arguing with him, which was another source of outrage from him. I will always respect his memory for what he accomplished and for his steady pragmatism. I have less respect for his constant one-up-man-ship as applied to his sons. Later in life that impulse fell away, possibly because we have to make more choices in our relationships as we go into decline. I suppose it all comes down to wanting respect from one's children and seeking that respect in the most obvious ways.
It seems as though conservative regimentation of thought has gotten ever more ridiculous. The viral QAnon conspiracies are just the latest but the overall tension between these theories/world views, sometimes directly competing, and now also with down to earth reality now threatens to explode the conservative right wing into a million pieces. That is just my opinion and I could be proven wrong. I fear that moment when the Right gets its act together - no matter how self-defeating.
One more piece of the puzzle: human history is dotted with "replacement events". These are times when one group of people occupy resources previously occupied by others, often associated with mass murders. This is something that happens at many levels. In genetics a particular allele will become standard in a population over time. These incremental changes, of course, are the substance of evolution. Whether the changes are incremental or catastrophically fast we have to recognize that change will always be the substance of our lives. Some of that change is driven by martian-type reactionary tropisms, Regardless, there will be change and that change will be aggravated by advances in science in the near future that will allow us to decide what that change will be in our descendants.
Change is also driven by incremental differences in death rates. It turns out that "hope" is a survival attribute (The Dying Russians). Who knew? It is once again aggravated by ideological uniformity (Russia Predicts Highest Population Decline since 2006 Amid Pandemic). Nor do the increments have to be big. On the other hand none of us are going to get out of this world alive.
Within a few months after my mother died I started to worry that I was losing her in additional ways beyond the enormity of her death. Memory is a fluid medium, subject to reinterpretation, changes of focus, and loss of detail. Memories carry meaning and sentiment but that sentiment is dulled each time the memory is replayed. It has been thirty-eight years since her death and I greatly question whether my memories, my heavily reworked and rerecorded memories, are authentic anymore.
From time to time some token from the past manifests itself. Most recently it was a large business envelope full of receipts and dated 1982 that I received in a box from my brother shortly before my father's death. Sometimes patterns emerge out of the past. Sometimes realizations come to me. In this case I realized that the envelope had been a work in progress, a progress that was interrupted by my mother's diagnosis of lung cancer in late 1982. She died in early 1983.
It was a message from the past that had lain in a drawer rarely touched. After thirty-eight years my grief was made fresh, possibly shared with someone who could never discard an object that unintentionally became filled with powerful emotions. It became a memento of a life shared for thirty-eight, then held in a drawer for thirty-eight years of separation. A life interrupted.
Yes, I still remember essential details about my mother. I am lately surrounded by her images, images now enriched by an adult's perception of what they mean. If I have it wrong it is way too late to change or fix my memories now.
Managing real-time applications is one of the greatest of computing challenges, both in coding and in implementation. The ultimate real-time application would be consciousness (distinguished from "intelligence" which is a series of parlor tricks). As usual, I am too harsh since the quality of consciousness, and even any resulting wisdom, arises out of the various faculties that comprise those very parlor tricks. All of my understanding of consciousness is shaped by my understanding of computers and my observation that there is so much of it that I can not observe.
Camus suggests that the resolution of the question of the purpose of life (with that ultimate resolution of suicide) is an ongoing problem of consciousness, with the resolution lying at hand while varying the answers from moment to moment throughout our lives. The decision not to kill oneself is a matter of policy that might (along with fear and the perception of the finality of nothingness) carry one over a few rough spots - perhaps only to be overridden by an especially fraught or meaningful moment.
Out of my current (dilettante as usual) reading of Camus: I see that he distinguishes between truth and meaning. As a side note: I once postulated that "meaning is a relationship between ontology and truth". I now realize that is the ideal rather than what we see in the beliefs of the people around us. I also subscribe to the idea that there is an identity between Truth and Beauty (as in that moment of consciousness captured in the poem by Emily Dickinson: "I died for beauty". Regardless, Camus suggests that we spend our lives in the search for meaning. Certainly that is true for me, with the qualification that for me truth is the higher goal, whatever that means. In it most fundamental sense it means that I say more than I should say in the service of truth. It also means that I may die for the truth.
There is a classic computer science exercise where the student is asked to program a robot to brush its teeth. It is an essay question where one must not leave out any detail in the description of the process. I will not entangle myself in this tar baby. Instead, I will propose a similar exercise where the student is asked to layout the basic assumptions associated with the search for meaning in Camus' absurd universe. As a clue I am going to suggest that a belief in "cause and effect" is a prerequisite if meaning is not to become a totally random construct without any basis in observation, received reality, or established wisdom.
I am entertaining the idea that quantum entanglement is just another way of saying there is a cause and effect relationship between two entities. That opens up a whole universe of possible ways for there to be a cause and effect relationship between two entities, a man and a woman for instance. Now we can approach the discussion of some of the crazier concepts such as autopoiesis and structural coupling as yammered about by Maturana and Varela. After all, people talk the way birds sing - for the sheer joy of it.
