Open Post
Jun. 25th, 2025 01:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)

I am not ashamed.
I never finished reading the Harry Potter series back in the day when my sons were Potterheads. I plowed through the early books and quite enjoyed them. But as my sons became the standard-issue hormonal teenagers and I had to deal with the real life teenagers, I stopped reading them or watching the movies (#’s 4 through 7) because the books pretty accurately portrayed the angsty/self absorption that is bog standard for that age grouping. I had enough of that shit in my real life.
So, I did buy an “all in one” e-book copy of the series a couple years ago but I was still working and the electrons remained frozen on silicon until last week.
So I decided to see what happened in the books.
First, I really think that Ms. Rowling knows how to spin a yarn. I think that this is a solid piece of writing. I can understand why the kids liked it, but what I find interesting is how much I enjoyed it. I am definitely not the demographic it was written for.
So I decided this morning that I need to do a slow read and pull out the now passé methodology of literature outlines and criticism taught by Lavon Lake at Clearfield High School a long time ago.
What I am finding interesting is peering in on the still passionate foofooraw of the factions within the fan base. People study these books closely and spend as much (probably more) time as folks currently studying the Iliad.
I am going to do a slow-re-read, and maybe watch the movies. Not because it is great literature, but because I want to figure out just why it is so enjoyable. I will probably fail.
I have to consider the simple idea that it is like chocolate ice cream. It is pleasing in a manner that defies description, it doesn’t hurt anything, and sometimes, when the mood suits you, a person can obsess on it for a brief period of time.
Correlation is not causality:
Look, everyone is low-key a-twitter about trumpy’s latest bit of performative art over in the middle east. I remember him doing something similar back around this time in his first term. He blew a bunch of holes in the Syrian desert and that did nothing particularly useful other than letting the male/female news-whores (Mika and Joe and their ilk) dismount the “I hate Trump” train for a day or two.
I can’t say that this time is different other than the fact that I have successfully weaned myself off mainstream media and at this time I take my news-whores in written form and have a much higher threshold of disbelief.
Look, when I was still in my serious tin-foil hat days, I found it interesting that one could take a plain-vanilla, reasonably accurate set of data like sunspots and map “shit-hitting-the-fan” events on the poor, innocent graph and believe that it meant something. Now I am not so certain.
My latest worldview is that especially here in the land-o-the-free and to a unknown extent elsewhere, we have the attention span of a swarm of gnats. We act like everything that happened two weeks ago is ancient history. I cling to data like sunspots not because they are correlative/causitive, but because they remind me that history is there and echoes throughout the actions of the world.
History is there, from Darius to Sikes-Picot to the six-day-war. People in that region remember it all and act on that history. We are a bit player in that context. Maybe we ought to step aside and let them continue.
Again, this is a email that I am using as a post because I am to lazy to re-write it to make it seem stand-alone
I don't disagree with your philosophy. It just isn't how I prefer to operate inside my own brain.
I am not a great thinker, and truthfully spending too much time thinking about thinking makes me want to drink more than is good for me. So I do read your thoughts and mash them into my unordered and almost certainly incomplete view of how my brain works. I suppose my thinking about the way that consciousness works is like how I view the function of carburetors. I have a level of understanding of function day to day, and I know enough to guess correctly (at least the majority of the time) when to take the car into a skilled mechanic. I suppose that I read (and most of the time agree with) your writings because you think like the guys who wrote the service manuals. Me, I just drive the car.
Looking forward to the AI issue. I mostly think that it is a definitions issue. Look, not that many people in the world have "intelligence". What is being passed off as intelligence (both human and artificial) is the ability to absorb and execute a set of rules provided by people above us in the social pecking order. It isn't the intelligence of a healthy 12th century hunter-gatherer (which requires a much larger and diverse statistical universe), but it is an intelligence of sorts. Simply put, in the Industrial West today, intelligence is defined as the ability to follow the boss's algorithm faithfully. For most of the people in the "laptop class" which we used to be members of, this makes obtaining the means to purchase milk and cookies extremely difficult.
The unpleasant thought that I have been having of late is that my individual consciousness is perhaps more complex than I am capable of understanding. Doesn't mean that I am going to stop trying and I will probably keep plugging away at the issue, but I am increasingly accepting of the idea that I am probably wrong. I am also quite uncomfortable with the idea that my consciousness is not just mine. But it appears to be true. Right now I am beavering away, trying to come up with a valid argument for the idea that what I call "my" consciousness is mine alone and is not structured and effected by the world around me.
pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate
My sneaking hunch is that in my efforts to isolate and characterize a single phenomenon, I am chasing a simplicity that just doesn't describe the whole process I am trying to understand.
So, I ponder for a while, get frustrated, go for a walk, have a glass of wine, and then think about something else for a while.
Today I get the joy(?) of attending a one-year old's birthday party. The group attending is 20-somethings all on their first child. I am certain that I thought similar thoughts about my children during these years, but I am afraid that listening to a new parents delusions concerning the perfection of their child and the nobility of their sacrifice for the good of the anointed child is wearisome to me. The less-than-subtle hints that I should be "doing more" is quite annoying.
There is too much happening that is totally out of my control of ability to affect any change.
That is why I have been failing in my attempts to try and make sense of just what the F is happening. Too many moving parts that seem to be getting seriously out of synch.
I have about four or five pieces sitting in the woodpile that try to make sense of what is happening and none of them are worth a bucket of warm spit. I think that we are in a place where "damned if you do and damned if your don't" holds sway.
People don't like the idea that consequences occur whether you like it or not. One of the main ways that this manifests itself is the need to identify a person/organization to blame. What I am saying is that the society/culture/civilization is to blame and what we are experiencing now is things that have always been in the cards are playing out in a way that was always evident.
Look, I am not going to assign blame, especially here in the lala land of the internet, where by the simple fact that you are reading it and busily assigning blame is only possible due to the availability of a shard of the problem you are busily pecking away on.
The wind is changing. Best use your time and energy to make certain you don't end up on the rocks.
I tend to love the damn things (Venn Diagrams that is). I find them interesting in the sense that they do provide a visual to kick off thinking about a subject. I usually manage over time to start modifying them in my head. They aren’t really all that good a way to accurately depict nuance and conflict within the particular system, but they ça donne à réfléchir.
Consider the simple diagram above. This is (to me at least) a reasonable view of how to discuss politics in America. I think that the colors accurately reflect how most of my friends view the situation.
But I think that it is really not all that easy. The sizes of the pinkish and the bluish right/wrong circles are not exactly equal as shown, even worse, the labels can be swapped by merely changing who is looking at it. It is kind of a “Schroedinger’s label” kind of event, where you can imagine the labels in a digital closet somewhere and they only settle down, almost randomly on one of the two circles on you see above when someone allows them on the computer screen.
I suppose that what I worry about the most is that the little football shape that is the intersection of right and wrong where realistic compromises can be made is shrinking. The two circles are moving away from each other and the space where compromises can be made is shrinking.
I think that I read somewhere that a significant minority of the US feels that an upcoming civil war is in the cards. I have a hunch that there is no valid and falsifiable methodology that the yellow journalist who wrote the piece can produce to support his/her claim (label warning: I do not consider polls valid as their statistical universe is always constructed to support a pre-existing opinion). But in this case, if I were to pull an opinion out of my ass (like the original writer, what sauce for the goose after all) I would not disagree with the 40% estimate, but rather hedge my claim by stating +/- 15%.
Politics is an odd beast that sleeps in the purplish intersection above. Politics is also the human means of everything not turning into an oversized barroom brawl. The solutions that politics gives you never really make anyone happy, it just makes the solution offered not worth fighting about.
The way that the country seems to be moving is that the sideways movement of the two circles is proceeding apace and the little football shape is growing smaller. All I can hope for is that their speed doesn’t increase.
I realized something fun while trying to read one of my favorite parts of the Iliad in Greek:
ἐν μὲν γαῖαν ἔτευξ’, ἐν δ’ οὐρανόν, ἐν δὲ θάλασσαν,
ἠέλιόν τ’ ἀκάμαντα σελήνην τε πλήθουσαν,
ἐν δὲ τὰ τείρεα πάντα, τά τ’ οὐρανὸς ἐστεφάνωται,
Πληϊάδας θ’ Ὑάδας τε τό τε σθένος Ὠρίωνος
Ἄρκτόν θ’, ἣν καὶ Ἄμαξαν ἐπίκλησιν καλέουσιν,
ἥ τ’ αὐτοῦ στρέφεται καί τ’ Ὠρίωνα δοκεύει,
οἴη δ’ ἄμμορός ἐστι λοετρῶν Ὠκεανοῖο.On it, he made the earth, the sky, the sea,
the sun that never sleeps, the swelling moon,
and all the signs which circle the heavens:
the Pleiades, the Huades, mighty Orion,
and the Bear (which they also call the Wagon),
which always spins in place, watching Orion closely,
and, alone, being free of bathing in the Ocean.(Hephaistos decorates the shield of Akhilleus. Homer, Iliad XVIII 483–9, as translated—hopefully not too badly!—by yours truly.)
This is, in fact, almost all that is said of the hieroglyphs on the walls of the great Temple by the archaic Poets. The Homer of the Iliad makes one other reference to the skies:
τὸν δ’ ὃ γέρων Πρίαμος πρῶτος ἴδεν ὀφθαλμοῖσι
παμφαίνονθ’ ὥς τ’ ἀστέρ’ ἐπεσσύμενον πεδίοιο,
ὅς ῥά τ’ ὀπώρης εἶσιν, ἀρίζηλοι δέ οἱ αὐγαὶ
φαίνονται πολλοῖσι μετ’ ἀστράσι νυκτὸς ἀμολγῷ,
ὅν τε κύν’ Ὠρίωνος ἐπίκλησιν καλέουσι.
λαμπρότατος μὲν ὅ γ’ ἐστί, κακὸν δέ τε σῆμα τέτυκται,
καί τε φέρει πολλὸν πυρετὸν δειλοῖσι βροτοῖσιν:And first the old man Priamos saw him with his eyes
charging the plain and shining like that star
which rises in late summer, whose conspicuous twinkling
outshines the many stars in the dead of night,
and which they call by the name "the dog of Orion."
It is the brightest of all, but it is made out to be an evil sign,
for it brings much heat to wretched mortals; [...](Priam sees Akhilleus in his divine armor. Homer, Iliad XXII 25–31, as translated—hopefully not too badly!—by yours truly. The precision of "dead of night" is doubtful, since ἀμολγῷ is a hapax legomenon, but the gist is clear enough.)
Meanwhile, Hesiod adds agricultural timing to the rising and setting of these but mentions no other celestial figures. "The Bear" is the Greek name, and "the Wagon" the Mesopotamian name, for the constellation we Americans call "the Big Dipper." That Orion and the Big Dipper and Sirius are emphasized is surely no surprise, as even a city kid like me in a misbegotten age like this one recognizes these three beyond all others. The Pleiades and Huades are a little surprising—even knowing where to look I have not managed to identify them—but I suppose that, given their intimate connection with trade (Pleiades means "sailors") and agriculture (Huades means "rain-bringers"), their import to the Greeks is obvious enough.
But let me focus on the Bear's behavior: always watching Orion and never going near the water. "The sea" must be the horizon, as the Big Dipper is far enough north that it remains in the sky all year round at the latitude of Greece. Presumably, then, the sky is simply heaven, and the "underworld" is the part of the sky below the horizon which we do not see.
Now, I have said before that Osiris is Orion, the "great man of heaven;" that Horos is Sirius, his son and the brightest star of heaven, literally following Orion's footsteps; and that Isis and Anoubis are Argo Navis and Canopus, searching for Osiris in their little boat together. We might see Egypt as heaven, the sea as the horizon, and Bublos as the underworld. The original home of Osiris is obviously heaven, but Seth kills him and he floats to the ocean, which seems a clear reference to Orion falling below the horizon; Isis follows him and brings him back from the underworld, which is just as clear a reference to Argo Navis following Orion in the sky and Orion rising back up above the horizon again. (Indeed, after he returns, the boat becomes visible again, as Isis searches for Osiris's pieces.) That Osiris is "king of Duat" may be a reference to the fact that he is the most conspicuous constellation in the southern sky, and perhaps then it is no surprise that Odusseus saw Orion when he went to Haides.
I wonder if the Greeks got their star lore from Egypt (presumably via Syria—noting Homer's reference to "the Wagon," and noting that the name Orion is believed to be from Akkadian uru-anna "light of heaven"); if so, then perhaps it is no accident that the Bear is the only other constellation mentioned. Who watches Osiris carefully and never leaves Egypt? Why, Seth does; and Plutarch even tells us (Isis and Osiris §21, though be advised that I ignore his celestial associations for Isis and Horos) that the Egyptians associate the Bear with Seth. (I can even sorta see the Seth-animal in the shape of the Bear.) So perhaps we have another piece of the myth, still written in the stars.
As for the Pleiades, these are not directly referenced as far as I can tell in the Egyptian myth (though perhaps these are the servant-girls of Astarte which invite Isis into the palace). It seems noteworthy that Osiris was forced to the sea unwillingly, while Orion chases the Pleiades into the sea; perhaps this is why the Greeks emphasize sensual desire as the cause of the fall of the soul, while the Egyptians seem to have seen it more as simple necessity.
Very speculatively, I wonder if Thoueris and the serpent are the Little Dipper (an obvious choice for the consort of the Big Dipper) and the constellation Draco, respectively; the Little Dipper defecting to Horos because Polaris points the way North, and Horos begins his upward journey once she joins him. Certainly, the Staff of Asklepios—another symbol of the soul's purification—is a reference to the world axis, topped by Polaris, around which a great serpent is coiled...