Book Review/Podcast 162: Tender is the Flesh by Agustina Bazterrica

Go to www.joesnotesblog.com for full show notes and links! 

In lieu of a standard book review, I decided to post my conversation with Channing on our podcast, The Fleeting Thoughts Podcast, about the book. Check it out on your favorite podcast app or on Youtube! 

https://fleetingthoughts.libsyn.com/episode-162-tender-is-the-flesh-and-cannibalism

Direct Download: 

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/fleetingthoughts/FTP_Podcast_162__final_audio_small.mp3

Youtube:

On Ego and Roles (Thoughts)

When I am working and ask if I can help and the customer responds automatically with "No, I'm fine." When really what they want is for someone to help them find the thing they are looking for but they don't want anyone to think that they are helpless, weak, or can't find it on their own. Inevitably, within a few seconds, they raise my attention with, "Actually, where is the so and so?" 

Sometimes I smile when I filled with a sense of ego. When I accomplish something difficult or figure something out that is meaningful, or when someone says that I did a good job. I am consumed by a sense of pride and confidence. I smile and look inward to congratulate myself. "What a good job I have done!" "They like me!" Then I am struck by another thought and I smile to myself and I accept my pride and release the feeling of ego and move on with life. If I allow myself to live in the past accomplishments I will have a harder time recognizing the current experience and become distracted from those around me who rely on my judgment and expertise. If I forget those around me in pursuit of prolonging my sense of self-worth then I forget to treat people as I would prefer to be treated. I prefer to those around me to acknowledge my existence and be present around me. I want to be a part of their world, not a ghost adjacent. 

My longing to be perfect is a reflection of my dysfunctional ego. An ego that will not be satisfied with anything less than perfection creates an endless cycle of failure. Instead of being satisfied with improvement with an upward trajectory, an inflated ego demands a level of expertise that is only afforded to those that are practiced, educated, and experienced, and only to varying degrees regardless of said experience. 

I get nervous before I stream myself live, offer my opinions to superiors, or try to impress loved ones. I want to control the perception of others in a way that makes me think that they think that I am awesome. That I am wise, courageous, strong, funny, healthy, sexy, and all other archetypes of awesomeness. When I am nervous I forget to be in the moment and I forget to focus on the task at hand. In the back of my mind, I am imagining those that are watching me and attempting to will them into seeing me in a positive light. 

This is illogical for many reasons. Firstly, I am incapable of accurately predicting the thoughts of others. Secondly, I have no control over and shouldn't require control over the thoughts of others. Thirdly, I have to accept that not all people will like me, hate me, love me, think about me, forget me, know me and in fact, most people will never think about me at all. Even those who have met me will rarely think of me twice. And my best friends, family members, and lovers will only think of me occasionally and with only a small fragment of an accurate impression of myself. 

My ego allows me to spite others for not caring enough about me. When I choose not to call a friend and use the excuse that they haven't called me in "who knows how long" or when I say to myself, "if they wanted to talk to me they would call me." My ego tells me that in order to be my friend you have to put in the same amount of effort I put in so when my friends don't put in the effort it is simply a reflection of my effort. My ego tells me that if I text them first then I am the weak one. 

My ego makes me want to show how amazing I am by working harder than anyone else, even though I am lazier than I could be, waste plenty of time, and only marginally work toward bettering myself. When I judge others as being lazy because they don't answer a phone I don't want to answer. When I look around at everyone and think "these lazy fucks!".    

I am full of shit. 

Any desire that is born simply for the need to impress others is shallow and elusive. To understand what others want one would have to constantly be probing and questioning those around them to gain insight into what might impress others. To make your parents proud you have to constantly be assessing their pride in your deeds, or lack of deeds. Maybe your parents are elusive as well. They disguise their pride and your ego becomes lost and confused. 

Roles: 

The ego is an expression of the collective idealism you create around the perception of yourself. The ideal self is postulated within the mind and over time it evolves. Whenever you contemplate yourself as being in alignment with your perceived ideal self your ego is satisfied. 

Be wary of the ideal self as this is generated with others in mind. We generate and develop our conception of ourselves by comparing ourselves to those around us. We impersonate, mimic, and react to the world and we are shaped by its actions. We are told who we are by witnessing the world. We know we are human because other humans look the same and identify as humans. Are parents and siblings become role models and we become like them. Adapting and surviving. But we are not them and so we take different paths and soon we learn of the paths of many others. Through stories, we learn about the lives of others and we incorporate those archetypes into our bank of lives to emulate. "I like that person. I don't like that person." We identify allies and enemies by taking sides in stories and justifying actions. We place ourselves into the story and take on the roles of its characters. We imagine living the lives of these characters and 

These stories are ancient but in the age of information, the stories are overwhelming. From before we are alive we are inflicted with stories. Many of them that are purposely unrealistic in a way that clouds the mind with counterfactuals and contrivances. (This has been an attempt to get the word contrivances into a sentence.)

We can't trust the news to tell us what is really going on. 

Politicians attempt to convince others that they are the hero in a virtue story. A story about how people should act. A story about how people should try to help others. A story about service and chastity. A story about trust and courage. These are just stories. They are not real. Politicians are professional administrators with jobs related to spending the public's money. They determine their own salaries, bonuses, and benefits. 

There are no roles. Your life is not a story. You are an ape on Earth, on your way to death while witnessing the deaths of those around you. You didn't choose to be born and you will most likely remain ignorant to anything deeply true in the universe. You will only tenuously grasp reality and mostly fumble along getting by on sheer momentum, determination, and luck.  

Luck is another word for ignorance. Luck is not knowing the causal link from an outcome to its salient cause. Luck is seeing a result without seeing the effort put into it. It is assigning positive or negative value based on its relative benefit to the individual. 

Talking About Suicide

Some people think that talking about suicide will cause more suicide. I doubt it. The thing that causes more suicides is indifference, hate, and physiology. Abuse and neglect. Biological abnormalities and shitty luck cause suicides. Talking about suicide or joking about suicide doesn't cause suicide. Not any more than talking about violence causes violence. Talking about something removes the burden of trying to ignore it. Maybe talking about why we don't talk about suicide from more angles will help us see it more clearly. Here are some angles.

Maybe people don't talk about suicide because they are superstitious. They think that talking about something makes it occur. I suppose there is a kernel of truth in the idea that concepts can influence behavior but the idea that saying a word would cause the universe to focus on persecuting you is irrational. The universe doesn't have you in mind because it is not conscious and you are not that special.

Maybe people don't talk about suicide because they are afraid of their own thoughts of suicide and they are trying to suppress them.

Maybe people don't talk about suicide because they have known someone who committed suicide and they are traumatized by the experience. Now the word brings up terror and they can not engage in a nonemotional conversation about suicide. The whole concept is tainted with direct personal experience. I'm not sure but I think if someone can accept and get past having someone close commit suicide the person might be able to communicate to others how devastating it is and how if someone is thinking about committing suicide they should not dismiss the effect it might have on others. Many people care more about those around them than themselves and if they were truly alone they might kill themself but it's knowing that others care enough to cry at your loss that you feel that you might be able to handle another day.

Maybe people don't want to talk about suicide because they can empathize with those that have contemplated it and also with those that have attempted it or I suppose succeeded in it but can you sympathize with a dead person? I think you can if you know anything about them. Knowing something about a person can help you create a story around the person. One that you can identify with and allows you to place them in your worldview. This also allows you to make value judgments on the person, whether accurate or not. Maybe empathizing too much makes you think about killing yourself, which is disturbing and therefore you do not want to entertain the idea of suicide.

(Can you sympathize with random unknown people that you know nothing about? Maybe you can empathize with them as what they have done is modeled in the mind and mirror neurons mimic the perceived emotional and physiological state of the person, but I'm not sure if that is sympathy.)

Maybe people don't talk about suicide because most people have had only a small amount of suicidal thoughts and it is only a small proportion of people who have severe enough thoughts to actually do it. This might cause people to dismiss the issue as not significant. There are plenty of other things to talk about than suicide, which is mostly unpleasant to contemplate anyway. Why talk about unpleasant topics?

If we all accepted that a great deal of the population has varying levels of suicidal thoughts then maybe we could be more open about our personal thoughts about suicide and then maybe we could talk about suicide enough that it becomes less taboo and easier to talk about in general. By lessening the stigma it might become easier to ask for help.

Maybe people think if we don't talk about it it will go away.

Maybe people think that if someone they know commits suicide it might be their fault? Maybe they think that the way they treated that person could have been better or they were cruel to that person and so talking about suicide means admitting their own feelings of guilt. Maybe people secretly wish for the suicide of someone else and they feel guilty about it. Or they secretly feel comradery with the suicidal person but condemn it outwardly in order to hide their shame. 

Maybe people are afraid to talk about suicide because they are simply afraid of death in general. To these people maybe any contemplation of death is too hard to cope with and suicide adds a layer of horror. The fear of death is certainly pervasive but it is such an unknown that I would rather concentrate on life, even when life is hard to handle. 

I remember when I found out that Robin Williams committed suicide and my first thought was not one of sadness or scorn but instead I imagined a man that finally took control over his life and made a decision that was his to make. I appreciate Robin Williams very much as an entertainer and I look up to him as a role model for comedic self-expression but I didn't know him personally and my projection onto his suicide was just a reaction. It didn't involve much thought about what his suicide would do to his family and how much the world would miss out on without him around to entertain us. It was only later that I cried thinking about how sad he must have been to commit suicide and how much I loved his presence in my life. 

It is selfish to commit suicide but it is also selfish to keep someone from doing it for the sake of your own desire to enjoy their company or not feel sad. Ultimately people are responsible for their own bodies and life and it is up to them to decide what they do with it. It is also up to those around you to choose to help when you are feeling terrible. You can't always convince someone they are loved and you can't always convince yourself that others love you. Depression is a very powerful psychological state that can not always be turned around with love and drugs.

Suicide is something that I have contemplated in my life and I have had people around me that have attempted it. To live in a world where suicide exists can seem confusing and cruel but it is not a new phenomenon and it is not going away anytime soon. If someone wants to kill themself they can. It isn't that hard. Humans are squishy meat sacks full of blood that are constantly on the precipice of death. Every time you get into a car or step into the shower you risk the wrath of entropy and the chaos of uncertainty and ultimately death finds you. You already face death every day so why should suicide be so scary or so obscure? 

Maybe if we talk about it enough we'll find it's not that interesting?

 

Forgotten Decisions

Go to joesnotesblog.com!

There's no reason to think that people are able to remember everything they think about. We are constantly going through internal ruminations, whether we are paying attention to them or not. I don't think that the internal monologue is something that we turn on and off at will or consciously. I'm not sure if the stream of consciousness that is verbal is always running but when it is running our focus on it fluctuates. Sometimes one can really focus on observing the random thoughts that happen inside the mind. Sometimes one can direct the stream and try to focus where it goes. Sometimes one is completely unable to grasp the internal messages. 

Have you ever felt that when you forget whether or not you locked the door it's because you're not sure if you remember locking it just now or the 50 other times you locked it before? Habitual behaviors become automatic. You don't know you're doing them. This might be the same about thoughts in that some thoughts you have so often that you forget that you had them. For example, when you drive toward your old house because you have gone that way so many times your subconscious, which directs your actions, now just goes there unless consciously directed otherwise. Before you realize it you're already there. This habituation only occurs after one has deliberately directed consciousness repeatedly. One can create these habituations consciously but once it becomes a habit one can forget their role in its creation. 

Maybe one becomes distracted from their internal monologue long enough to forget it exists. It's still somewhere softly analyzing and contemplating in the background. Maybe one is imagining how the next day will develop while watching a TV show. Their mind is only taking in stimulus but every so often their stream of consciousness breaks through and one is interrupted by an already occurring mental conversation. You pick up a few things about going to your favorite restaurant but then you get distracted again and it's such a mundane thought you disregard it. Then, the next day, when internally debating where to eat you decide to go to your favorite restaurant. The decision was actually decided by yourself long before you realize it. Or at least it was primed. Like when someone tells you the wrong lyric and when you hear the song you can't hear anything other than the wrong word that sounds correct now. 

Can one take credit for the forgotten conscious influences one inflicts on one's self? The forgotten fleeting thoughts that are like dreams. Whispy like fog. Like when the right word is on the tip of your tongue. In the back of your mind. Consciousness is like a river in that it is always changing and one day it will not be in the same place. Is it still the same river? Are you responsible for the changes?

Am I a product of only deterministic scientific happenstance? Causes and effects that are completely out of my control? If it is possible to willfully create habituation then it would provide a mechanism for free will to manifest itself in reality and not just in concept. If this mechanism is real then that would mean that it exists within the nervous system and is theoretically identifiable. If free will is a physical reality then determinism has a flaw. This would introduce some amount of unpredictability when it comes to assuming that the future is a series of determined, and predictable causes and effects. 

But what about the thoughts that cause the habituation; how can these thoughts be justified if they just erupt out of nowhere? How can free will be proven if the proposed mechanism relies on thoughts that emerge due to the prior causes that are determined by physics? If thoughts are not purely a reaction to the current environment then maybe thoughts arise as a direct result of a free will mechanism that is not verbal, or has become subconscious prior to being verbal? 

Maybe the first few years of childhood is a period where a system starts to develop that allows for self-observation and mental manipulation. As the system for self-directed behavior matures the person is consciously learning how to learn, how to speak, how to listen to themself, how the world works, how to imagine multiple outcomes, and how to choose different directions. This system of different sectors of the brain networking together to create something new allows for the development of consciousness and the potential for free will. 

As time passes the act of willful self-determination becomes almost entirely habitual and because humans do not develop the concept of consciousness until later in life the subjective perspective that includes both the verbal and nonverbal streams of consciousnesses we collectively call consciousness is almost indescribable. The brain is both emotional and intellectual and yet its functions are elusive to the observer. The system becomes habitual enough at an early enough age that the experience of directing our bodies is forgotten. It goes underground but still provides a mechanism for free will.

As language develops a child begins to incorporate verbal communication into the preexisting paradigm. Self-expression begins to become codified, constrained, and efficiently communicable. As one interacts with reality and develops a language to communicate with others one begins to see the world in a different way.  In a way that is constrained by language. When one is aware of one's own attempts to direct one's own path via the verbal route then consciousness becomes possible to communicate about but is not the sole arbiter of free action. 

In order to understand this concept of a mechanism, rooted in consciousness, that allows for free will one has to overcome the habituation process and redirect the flow of verbal consciousness, knowing that it isn't the only controlling factor. Learning to control one's emotions becomes another skill in strengthening the potential for free will. Another skill that is needed is the ability to examine past failings and plan to correct them with repetitive thoughts and actions. 

If one finds that every time they encounter a certain emotionally distressing situation they act in a way that is dysfunctional then they can make a plan to change how they think about this situation, how they act before, during, and after the situation occurs, and try to understand the underlying emotional states that the situation produces. The more one is self-aware the more they can alter the way they react to situations or attempt to avoid them altogether. This kind of self-awareness is not entirely concerned with internal states but also takes into account the environment that they exist within. The ability to engage in free will is tempered by a person's understanding of everything that can and will affect them. 

The concept of responsibility is not the same as the concept of free will. People are responsible for their actions, generally speaking, regardless of the perception that they are in control of their actions. A drunk person is responsible for the consequences of their actions just as a psychotic person is responsible for the consequences of their actions. They may not have any insight into the conscious thoughts that existed prior to or during the act but from the perspective of others, they are the ones to blame. They are the ones to set apart and deal with. Attempting to accept all actions as a matter of fate is a recipe for chaos and discounts the ability of people to control themselves, even without a well developed moral system or strengthened free will. 

In conclusion, in regard to thoughts, we are mostly unaware. When we are aware we have an opportunity to self-direct and with enough repetition, we can create new automatic or partially automatic habits. We can consciously control unconscious behaviors through this process. I postulate that before language this ability may have been more open to us and over time our subconscious takes more and more control. Our relationship to consciousness changes as we acquire language. Or maybe it is only after we acquire sophisticated language and maturity that we start to be able to review our thoughts and bring them into some kind of control. It is difficult to halt the momentum of cause and effect that propels us forward but if one can reflect on and redirect their thoughts they just might be able to make lasting change in how they think, how they act, and who they are. 

Death is the Second

Before life, nothing mattered. There was no meaning. No value. No emotion. No thought. Noone to observe. No one to name things. No one to care. Just rock and water.

Life is the 1 from zero. Life allows for logic, math, concepts, representations, language, technology, emotions, meaning, and all the rest that we fight for.

Life without death is boundless like the universe.

If life is the first thing that mattered, then death is the second.

Without death, life would not know loss.

Death creates competition, speed, and endurance.

Knowledge of death creates urgency, planning, and consideration.

Death forces procreation and adaptation.

Without death, there would be only very old single-celled bacteria. Maybe not? Maybe, there are other reasons to reproduce? 

Pretend I'm Your Friend

 

On Relationships

Most people have two or more "personas". They adapt to their environments by filtering their speech. At work, I have one filter and when I'm at home I have another. Sometimes I omit certain words because they are crass in one environment but perfectly acceptable in another.

My friends and I play a game sometimes. The goal is to shock the other person or people in the group by saying the most offensive, gruesome, or blasphemous thing possible. The more heinous the better. But it also has to be clever and in an attempt at humor. If someone says something stupid they are ridiculed by the others so the horrible things uttered have to be something the others will understand and appreciate as purposely horrible. The idea is to make fun of the easily offended, ourselves, and to challenge and understand each other's perspectives.

I would say that the quality of a friendship is marked by the level of freedom you have to communicate and be honest. The lower the filter the better the friend. This is why some siblings are not friends. Why some husbands and wives are not each other's best friends. People play roles in relationships and being honest can break the role and challenge their place. If someone does challenge their role in the relationship and the relationship can not adapt to this change then it will suffer.

Your best friend is oftentimes the person you can talk about you're family and spouse about in a way you might not be able to with anyone else. This is why high-quality friendships are so valuable. It gives a person a refuge to experiment with their thoughts as we don't always know what we think about something until we verbalize it and doing this with someone who can listen and offer constructive analysis will allow someone to understand their thinking better than just blurting out something in a moment of emotional distress toward someone they usually use a filter for.

Honest communication is about trust because our secrets are only secrets because of the perceived judgment of others. We hold back and filter our thoughts to hedge our bets about how others will respond. We don't use taboo language around people we don't know very well because we know that words can start fights. So we slowly test the "waters" using language. We throw in a lesser curse word like "ass" or "butthole" in an effort to gauge the other's reaction. If we are safe we might throw out a "shit" or "fuck" or a somewhat controversial idea to see what happens. Good communication is a dance with each person reading the others' moves and attempting to engage in a harmonious way. A bad conversation is the opposite, where both try to lead or one isn't paying attention or one is trying to antagonize the other.

As the dance continues the two will start to feel freer as they have created boundaries around what language works. The content of the conversation is only part of the equation of communication. Each person is doing at least two things. One is attempting to understand what the other person is saying. This can take focus and conscious effort. Listening is a skill. Although at times it can take less focus and comprehension can be effortless if the words are familiar and the topics mundane.

The second thing that a speaker is doing, other than listening is watching and reading the other person's body language and tone. Facial expressions, eye gaze, stance, and other factors are all being subconsciously attended to and studied in an effort to discern friend from foe. To see a potential attack coming or to find signs that make it safe to loosen up the filters and become more friendly. Although this instinctual process is far from perfect and we are often lead astray evolution has honed these instincts in the direction of survival so they are more often accurate.

When a person pushes the bounds of common etiquette with harsher words than would normally come out of a stranger people can often be perturbed. The normal behavior of strangers is to tread lightly until rapport is established. By being polite and respectful with their words and physical space they are saying to others that they know how to play the game. When someone treads too hard against these social mores they are testing the boundaries of others. If someone pushes too hard they can be met with any amount of disdain. From a look of contempt to a shot to the head, people don't take kindly to being tested or perceived disrespect.

Friends, on the other hand, can look past the words used and look for the spirit in which they were said. People infer meaning and intent when communicating. Sometimes people do this so much that they try to finish each other's sentences. This is rude in that it breaks up the flow of the speaker's thoughts and can derail a thread of thought. The person who is being interrupted has not established boundaries with the person who keeps interrupting them. This can often be because the speaker is also prone to interrupting and so allows it in others. Hypocritical people who interrupt others often don't like it when you interrupt them. This is due to a lack of self-awareness or some kind of narcissism where rules apply to others and not to the self.

Friends will typically give the benefit of the doubt when someone says something that is either uncharacteristically or surprisingly rude, harsh or offensive. 

People also know how to pretend to be friends. This is oftentimes what is happening between two new coworkers. They have the pressure of filtering themselves correctly in the workplace environment, which is actually at least three environments. The first environment is the one that involves clients. The second is the one that involves peers. The third is the one that involves hierarchies and bosses. And there are more I'm sure. The new coworkers also have the added pressure of trying to get to know their coworkers. They have to be able to pretend to be a stranger's friend. This is usually awkward as real friendship is gained over time and with experience and so the awkwardness that is felt is due to the inauthenticity.

A stranger is not a friend and so pretending someone is a friend in the workplace is a kind of guise. A ruse that if played wrong can be disastrous. Navigating this type of scenario is probably best done by not caring about making friends but instead caring about being a good team member. By volunteering to do jobs and help others one creates the best kind of coworker relationship, one that takes the job seriously. If one never tried to be besties with others they remain neutral and honest. They should have a plan in mind as to why they are working there and part of that plan should be to cooperate with others.

A friend applies their morality to their friends and a friend should be honest about their moral philosophies and stand by them enough to disavow a friend that strikes too hard at the values they uphold. This does not mean that a friend shouldn't be open to new ideas or be challenged but it does mean that there is a certain point at which a person should make a stand. A moral pushover or weakling can not be respected by people being honest.

Pretend I'm Your Friend

When looking at the intellectual work of others it is nearly impossible to not immediately judge the words through a filter of judgment based on current biases. This is an impediment to understanding the content from the perspective of the person communicating it. This means that the meaning and purpose of the content will probably be misinterpreted. In order to learn from others, we must lower our subjective judgemental filter and attempt to ingest the content from a more objective perspective. A great way to do this is to pretend that the other person is already your friend.

This means that you take the stance that the other person most likely thinks of themself as smart enough to have an opinion and morally righteous enough to offer advice. If it were a friend you would at least start from a place of respect and attempt to hear the spirit in which the content is being communicated. Is the person trying to help? Is the person uniquely qualified to know something about the subject? Is the person just hungry or upset or drunk? Suppressing your own instinct to react immediately, especially in a defensive way, can allow the person to express their idea fully. If you allow someone to express their idea fully then you can expect to express your rebuttal or thoughts fully as well. If you interrupt them then you can expect to be interrupted back. Or in reading something contentious or from someone you disagree with, you can better see where the person is coming from by pretending the person is not an evil person but instead just a type of friend. Maybe not your best friend but at least someone you can listen to.

When I hear something or read something that seems on its face to be completely ridiculous and wrong I try to remind myself to pretend that the other person is a friend and see what happens. Sometimes this doesn't change the outcome of the experience but it at least allows me to not immediately create a villain in which to fight. This helps with controlling the emotions that I experience that get in the way of understanding. Many times the result is as dismissive as it would have been but it doesn't take over my mind and allows me to move onto something else without so much energy wasted. Sometimes doing this actually allows me to understand the other person in a way that gives me a glimpse of their perspective, leading me to empathize or relate to them in a way that leads toward a paradigm shift. Even if just a small one. The best-case scenario is you make a new friend. I worst-case scenario is that you understand your enemy better.  

Fuck Ego.

Ego is when you put the mask on that you create that you think makes you look like the person you wish you were. It's you confusing yourself for an illusion. Ego is pretending you don't make mistakes. Ego is thinking that you did it the best you could when you could have done more.

Ego is hiding behind excuses, blaming others, and screaming to get your way. Ego is resenting those around you that have accomplished things you value. Ego is thinking others are thinking about you all the time. Ego thinking that if you work on your appearance you don't need to work on your character.  

Ego isn't always bad but even when it's right it's too seductive. When you're confident enough your ego helps reward you and as you congratulate yourself your ego swells and soon the mask returns and you go about the world assuming people care about the facade. Those that celebrate your facade only do so in an effort to support their own egotistical delusions. Those that care about you challenge your facade and seek to understand the entire you. They acknowledge your flaws as a part of you and wish for the development of positive change or at least an acceptance of the truth. 

If you focus on the present moment and forget to control your image your ego fades away. Certain activities force you to focus on what you are doing. For example, exercise, sports, music, and reading can take over your cognitive resources leaving no room for ego. Meditation and honest conversation can also help shed the facade.

Instead of ego work on discipline, balance, and growth. This is easier said than done and distracting oneself from these nobler pursuits is often a challenge. One can never be perfect and it is in the pursuit of perfectionism that one also attempts to legitimize ego. Striking a balance between healthy confidence and honest criticism seems to be a winning strategy for living a good life that doesn't hold the self as something it is not but also doesn't demean the self for the things it lacks. Honesty is key and the ego is rarely honest.  

NOT Conscious

The hardest thing to do is convince someone you're not conscious. People see consciousness everywhere. They apply it to wind and rain. Mountains and rodents. We can personify anything including the universe and god and gods and vegetables. We tell stories of eggs that fall off of castles and bunnies that have tea parties. Everything is a metaphor for ourselves and we are everyone.

This is partly because humans aren't the only things that are conscious. That being said I also do not believe that rocks are conscious. The jury is out on plants and fungi which are mysteriously intelligent. I believe that consciousness exists on a spectrum but only after a few criteria are met. In order to be conscious one must be living. There has to be something more than mere mineral.

Maybe being in nature is soothing because it allows you to change the state of the consciousness that you are in. You can go to the desert to be truly alone. Alone with your thoughts. Alone but not alone in your environment. Out there somewhere there are creatures.

You can go to the forest and surround yourself with ancient trees and listen to the wind. I'd believe trees are conscious before I believed the wind is conscious.

I am not sure where the absolute line is for myself in regards to consciousness. I am not sure there needs to be a clear demarcation when it comes to consciousness. I do not think that people require a clearly formed understanding of consciousness to have empathy for other things, including plants and animals, and even inanimate things such as wind or mountains. Personifying things around us is very natural. When we are born it is very important that a child starts creating mental models of the people around them. By creating models the baby can start to predict what their parents might do and try to understand how to communicate with them. By modeling the environment and generating the concept of agency a baby can start to predict the interactions between agents and objects. A baby immediately starts to differentiate between the significant agents around them and the relatively predictable objects such as tables and binkys.

Agents are party identified by their ability to create change either in their physical location or by changing the physical location of something else. When a person picks up a glass of water they are changing the physical location of the glass and the water and now can be identified as an agent. A mover of things. An actor. Agents act upon other things and cause change to occur.  The day that the glass picks up the person then we might call the glass an agent and suspect that it is conscious.

A trait that should be looked for when determining if an entity is conscious or not is to ask, "is the entity capable of agency?". Can it make alterations to its environment? Nearly all animals are agents in that they act upon the world and cause change. The wind does this so then why wouldn't a gust of wind be considered an agent?

Maybe agency is not enough to call something conscious? Maybe it is and maybe by a very loose definition, the wind could be considered an agent in a non-personified way. Maybe the only concepts we have about agency come from a personal and human perspective. If so then the only model we have of agency is of humans, first by observing parents and then by observing the self. We then apply this concept to other things even if it doesn't apply or is only slightly accurate.

Maybe the wind isn't an agent and it is certainly not conscious because my concept of consciousness is rooted in the belief that consciousness emerges from organized biological material such as neurons, muscles, blood, and hormones. Maybe neurons are the most important element in the formation of consciousness but I'm not sure that that is the case.

Maybe each cell is conscious and with complex networks of communication among cells, consciousness is at the apex of that increase in complexity. As an organism evolves toward more complex forms of assembly and more specialization and diversification of cell types along with the bilingual nature that must occur when cells communicate with necessary bacteria and other microbiomes.

In fact, there are more bacterial cells in your body than human cells. There are roughly 40 trillion bacterial cells in your body and only 30 trillion human cells."
-https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/gut-microbiome-and-health

Maybe the communication network of biological structures is necessary for consciousness. It is the unintended output of trillions of cells and trillions of bacteria trying to communicate with each other. In order to maintain the megastructure that is the human body creates.

Maybe the difference in humans is that the cells and bacteria in humans have a far more efficient way of communicating than other creatures. Encoded in our DNA and in the DNA of the bacteria there exists a unique instruction or schematic that fundamentally alters the megastructure and allows for an ultra-efficient communication system. One that is so efficient that it produces more than required to survive. Maybe the extra energy that is conserved from this efficiency can be utilized to improve the structure. It can be diverted to the brain and to creating systems that lead to successful gene transfer and multiplication.

Is it the cell's job to multiply? Is the whole system a mechanism of experimentation? Is resource allocation something that can be applied to the body? Or is it just a metaphor taken from the financial world?

Are bacteria small enough that they perceive cells and other microscopic biological structures in an unrelatable way?

Or is consciousness just an epiphenomenon? Just a ghost in the machine? An inert, neutral, unaffecting, wisp of entropy? The waste product of an overactive mind.

Of course, it is another example of the personification of entities that I relate the biological structures to the architectural and electrical systems I see in my life. The macro-environment that I occupy is a system that I have an elaborate model that is generalizable to other systems. I have a more or less organized set of beliefs about what a social system looks like so I can apply those interactions to the complex interactions occurring inside of the body. The idea that it is social is one of personification. Another act of projecting my own perspective onto something else.

While cells are molecular machines and do use molecules to communicate there is no evidence that they communicate in a similar way to what humans do. Proteins do not have mouths, lungs, or lips to make sounds and they do not have legs or arms to gesticulate their thoughts.

The cause and effects chains are highly complex in biological structures.

But what about plants?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvBlSFVmoaw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpwW9Lw2Ku4

Plants have very similar cellular structures to humans. The structures of plants are also complex and even if there are no neurons in plants there are definitely communication systems.

Is consciousness a form of communication? If it is then it isn't necessary to have neurons to communicate and therefore it isn't necessary for consciousness. But is it sufficient to have consciousness?

Is all communication a form of consciousness?

What is communication? Communication is the output of information that is then interpreted and comprehended by an input location. Things that communicate are required to be able to take in information and to output information.

If consciousness requires communication then that would mean that the wind is not conscious because any message interpreted by a human would never be falsifiable. There is no way to prove that the output information was comprehended accurately. This is why God does not exist as anyone claiming to be in communication with God can not be falsified. It may be true but by that standard, anything may be true. If the goal is to arrive at the truth then one must be able to rule out impossibilities.

So...

How would a person convince another person they were not conscious? Other than passing out.

Two men enter a room and sit down opposite to each other. The room is well lit but not too bright. There is a table in between the men and there is a small spread of cheese snacks. Each man has their own water bottle and one man's job is to convince the other man that they are not conscious.

The second the other man starts to talk the first man will automatically assume they are conscious. The second the other man reaches for food the first man will assume he is conscious. He will assume that the similarity in physical appearance would necessitate a similarity in mental capacities. As they are both human the first man will project his humanity onto the second man who is not doing a good job of convincing the first man that he is not conscious.

I suppose the second man could never communicate with the first man. Even if the first man yells at him. By never acknowledging them and not moving at all then the person would have little to base their assumptions about the man. At some point, a real human would become fatigued with time and at some point would falter which would give away information to the first man who would start to assume the second man is in fact a person.

This dumb scenario illustrates how agency is connected to consciousness. Out notion that consciousness exists is linked to the ability to act.

If this is true then a brain in a vat can not be conscious. I am not sure this is true. Is a brain in a vat able to make changes to its own brain? Can thoughts cause a change in neural structures? If so then a brain is capable of engaging in the only actions it can. Thought. If it can think about its own existence in an accurate enough way then maybe it can adapt to its surroundings. If a scientist were to measure the brain every day and track its changes and determine that the changes were not random but were in some way positively adaptative then the scientist could say that the brain in the vat is potentially conscious. Because it cannot communicate to the outside world it can not be fully determined whether it was conscious or not.

I think that for there to be certainty regarding the assignment of consciousness to an entity the entity has to be able to communicate with the outside world. This may be false but I'm not sure how else one would ascribe consciousness to something else.

One of the primary ways that consciousness is accepted is by the simple declaration of its existence from an individual. People say they are conscious but is that evidence? I am not sure it is. If just exclaiming things was proof then the justice system would be very easy to administrate.

How would I prove that you were conscious? How would you prove you were conscious?

Do we know of consciousness only by appealing to the similarities in descriptions of subjective experiences? As in it is only through communicating concepts that are comprehended by others does one identify the nature of consciousness. Therefore consciousness only exists with some form of communication. Whether it is internal communication or external communication there has to be some form of information transfer in order to assign consciousness.

This means that the brain in the vat may be conscious as it is possible to be internally communicative and not externally but it isn't possible to communicate your own internal experiences without externally communicating. The brain in the vat needs to come up with a way to project thoughts outward.

What about the role of intention in consciousness? Do we assume we are conscious because we have intentions that we work toward making happen? Maybe we misattribute success to our intentions when it is actually a coincidence and we are not in control of ourselves at all and any success is just a necessary outcome of determined pre-causes.

I would imagine that most people do not go around contemplating the nature of consciousness and this article would be of no value to them. Its value is not important anyway as this article is an exercise in thinking about a topic.

Brief Thoughts on the Ontological Argument

Click here to get more!

The ontological argument...

Anselm defined God as "a being that which no greater can be conceived", and argued that this being must exist in the mind, even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality because if it exists only in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible—one which exists both in the mind and in reality. Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality. 

---- From Wikipedia

The first issue I have with this argument is the use of the word "being". Is a being a conscious creature? Is a being a sentient thing? Is a being a type of person? Is a being an alien? Anyway...

The use of the term "greater" is an issue as well. The term greater makes no sense by itself. Greater than what? Greater just means bigger or better or more, which all require context. There has to be a standard to refer to. Maybe Anselm created this context in his works and defined a standard "being" in which to compare his notion of a greater being and then went so far as to infinitely extend the idea until he just ended with the word God. As in the same God that is the vague term used to describe any unknown or unknowable thing personified as an agent. 

Essentially the argument is...

If I can think about something it can exist outside the mind if I  just ad the word "better" to it. With the word better I can argue that it is better to exist outside the mind and therefore if a thing I think about is the best of its category (for example a "being") then it must exist because it would be better to have that thing in existence outside the mind than limited to just inside the mind. 

This argument is shit. It allows for existence to arise from thoughts alone and for anything thought of to exist in reality. 

Example: If I can think of the best guitar and it exists in my brain then the best guitar must exist in reality because the best guitar is only made the best by existing outside the brain. Because it is better to exist then to simply be imagined. But the concept of better and the concept of existence have little to do with each other. 

Something can exist without being better than anything else. Being better only occurs when comparing two things and not all things require comparison to understand. It can simply have a purpose or a relationship with other things or it might be something that simply exists with no discernable interaction with anything you understand. Maybe you see a cloud a few miles away. It makes no difference to you in any practical way but you see it and it exists. It is not better or worse than anything. It's just a noteworthy cloud. 

Any argument that puts human consciousness as the basis for reality seems needlessly vain. The idea that nothing would exist without humans is ridiculously presumptuous because it presumes that before humans existed there was nothing. This is stupid. Before you existed plenty of things existed. Unless you don't believe that things exist outside of your mind. If you think that the only existence that exists is the existence of thoughts and that you have a singular existential experience and that is what matters seems too insular. The history of life is the history of interaction. From when single cells began to combine with each other all biology has been an interconnected network of communication, metabolism, and other ecological concepts. To distill all of existence to what exists in human minds seems limited. 

Humans attempt to describe reality based on their sensory and communicative capabilities. Because humans observe reality and have the ability to see themselves as a part of that reality they can describe themselves in the same way they describe other things. Just because you exist and your brain exists doesn't mean that something you thought of exists outside your synapses. I would imagine that it would be easier to think of things that don't exist rather than think of things that do exist. Even if you had a complete list of things that actually exist in the universe you could still think of combinations or exaggerations of those things that would exponentially increase the things you can think about. Most of those things would not exist. 

For example: If I know of all the animals that exist I can imagine each of those animals with a chair growing out of their back and I just doubled the amount of bullshit in my head but that doesn't mean that each animal exists with a chair growing out of its back in reality. It makes no sense. Being able to think about something or imagine something has almost no relation to what actually exists in the world. 

It seems like ontological arguments are actually just arguments designed to satisfy an already-held view. It puts too much value on cognitive capacities and conjures up reality out of thin air which is not scientific or rational. If one wants to justify their irrational beliefs one can use the ontological argument.

I'm reminded of the argument, "I think, therefore I am." The problem with this is that in isolation you can't really determine that you exist scientifically. There is nothing to test against. You need others to verify a hypothesis and engaging in experiments. I think that if others think you exist and you can interact with external objects then you probably exist. Or at least exist in some context.

The concept of God exists but that doesn't mean that there is a perfect "being" running around doing things.  

Philosophical Zombies? (On Consciousness and Concepts)

Click here to get more!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsYUWtLQBS0

Zombies aren't real so any reference to them as a legitimate metaphor for a being that acts like a human but has no internal conscious experience is nonsensical. The reason this metaphor is confusing and mostly useless is two-fold.

The first issue is the use of the term "zombie". Zombies are not real and appealing to them as a way to create clarity is a contradiction. It's like trying to understand horses by appealing to unicorns. Unicorns do not have a consistent definition and any definition must contain some amount of supernatural or unreal elements. Because unicorns are not real one can ascribe any characteristic they would like. This makes the concept of "unicorn" open-ended and in no way analogous to anything real, like a real horse. Using something fake to understand something real seems counterproductive.

The concept of "zombie" is similarly vague and inconsistent as the term "unicorn". Some definitions have zombies being able to do different things in different ways. Some zombies can run and some can solve simple problems. Sometimes there are zombie animals. All zombies represent the animal instinct of feeding and violence. All zombies represent something to be feared and one is always justified in destroying them. Zombies tend to represent the evil lurking inside of humanity and in my estimation, they do not offer a useful analogy to anything resembling the average person and offer nothing in relation to understanding consciousness.

The Second thing:

Now, when someone like David Chalmers uses the term "philosophical zombies" they are attempting to offer a juxtaposition between the human that has subjective experiences and the human that does not have subjective experiences. This type of "zombie" is not evil, necessarily, or violent or stupid but is, on its face, indistinguishable to a normal person. If you interact with one of these "zombies" you would say that they were conscious and they would say that they had thoughts and feelings but they would be lying or simply saying things that they think you want to hear. A robot seems like a more obvious metaphor in that we understand that a robot can do things just based on response algorithms as opposed to interacting with its own internal decision-making process, where they debate against themself the options and consequences of actions like people seem to do.

I think that it is actually impossible to imagine and understand something that has all of the same properties and characteristics as a human except this one aspect, subjective experience. It is similar to having a substantive understanding of the concept of nothing or infinity. While we can use these terms to express specific concepts in math or as metaphors for a lack of understanding it is impossible to have a realistic representation in your mind of these terms. When you think about what the term "nothing" means you might think of blackness or the vacuum of space of the number zero or the stillness that comes from meditation or ultimate quietness but none of those things you are thinking about are actually nothing. "Nothing" does not contain any concepts, words, thoughts, analogies, substances or thoughts. Actual nothingness is not a concept that contains anything and we lack the capability of understanding it fully. It is the same with the term infinity and in the concept of the philosophical zombie.

Any contemplation of an entity that acts exactly like a person but somehow isn't a person is a contradiction of how we identify people. We only need the term "subjective experience" because we communicate with others. If a person were never to interact with others then the concept of subjective experience would not have any use and the person would never need to contemplate the concept. The person might have consciousness but the identification of these things would be useless and could never be proven. If the person looked inward and was able to communicate to themself that they were conscious they would have no way to test this theory. Also, the idea that a person would spontaneously come up with language or abstract theories without interaction with others is nonsensical. Some thought experiments are so unrealistic they are actually a waste of time.

On consciousness:

If consciousness is derived from physical processes then there is no reason to hold it as a human-only phenomenon. If consciousness is somehow separate from physical processes then one can say anything they want about it and it would never be provable or disprovable. If something can not be scientifically examined then there is no reason to apply scientific standards. If consciousness is emergent from physical networks or is fundamental within physics then there is no reason to think that robots or zombies couldn't be conscious. Just because we don't have a direct physical explanation of consciousness at the moment doesn't mean that consciousness is something metaphysically special.


So what would it be like to be a zombie or a philosophical zombie? This is similar to contemplating what it is like to be a bat or anything other than a human. Just because we can come up with the sentence doesn't mean it is meaningful. Thinking that it is "like" something to be some other entity puts a lot of value in the human imagination. Human creativity and imagination is an amazing tool but it is not an all-knowing power and is rarely accurate scientifically. It is certainly fun and can help to push past certain obstacles of understanding but it isn't a form of divinity that supersede or replace scientific rigor and logic. Just because we can imagine something doesn't mean anything important. The human mind can combine and exaggerate concepts to no end but none of these imaginings should be used as doctrine. Just because I have a dream about something doesn't mean I should act on that imagining.

I'm not sure it "is like" something to be me. My experience of myself is not reducible to a likeness or analogy. If someone were to ask me "what is it like to be you," I could try to answer in many ways. I could say, "well it is the same as anyone else. I wake up. I eat. I sleep. I have thoughts and feelings. I get anxious and experience happiness at times," but is this what it's "like" to be myself or is it just some language that I think the other person might relate to so that I don't seem like a robot or psycho to them? Any attempt to reduce the human experience to what it is "like" to be them is necessarily lacking in detail. Also, all this is "likeness" talk is dependant on language and language may not be capable of describing an accurate model of experience and so there will always be a lack of understanding as we try to map non-linguistic information (feelings) onto language.

This is not to say that language is not useful or helpful it just isn't the entire story when it comes to human experience and consciousness. Consciousness and language are inexorably linked in our communication of consciousness. Our ability to communicate allows for concepts in general and the concept of consciousness seems to be limited by our ability to use communication tools. Language is just one way to communicate so maybe what it is like to be something is better communicated by some other artform. Maybe what it is like to be someone would be communicated better by creating a multimedia artwork that involves all the senses including emotional senses induced by drugs. Maybe what it's like to a bat is closer to what it's like to be on cocaine all the time. I'm not sure how to test this theory.



Also, I'm not sure if consciousness is the only germane factor in ethical considerations. A person in a coma still retains some ethical considerations even if they may never get out of their coma. Using the desire to understand consciousness as justification for ethics doesn't seem to be a sufficient reason. Justice isn't an entirely logical endeavor and relies on emotional intuitions many times. Our sense of justice is often invoked by feelings.



Top-down versus bottom-up.

 I like bottom-up explanations so, to me, looking at consciousness as a top-down phenomenon is difficult to understand. You have to take consciousness as given and I don't know why one would do that. We think that consciousness is a certainty but if the history of science shows us anything it is that skepticism is more useful than certainty. Taking consciousness as a given allows one to move past the problem of what creates it and allows one to think of what the effects of consciousness are. This is useful to solve other problems but taking consciousness for granted is not a way to understand what consciousness is on a fundamental level. It is the same as quantum physics. Taking quantum physics for granted allows people to understand its consequences but it doesn't lead any to understand what underlies its existence.

Legitimacy Through Fame?

Click here to get more!

I have a deep fear that I will die and there will be nothing left of me to live on. Something that might impact and affect future humans in a way that validates some of the things I've accomplished.

I can imagine a world where I am known and well regarded. A world where my personal impression lives on after I die, like the many famous people that I know and continue to learn about after their deaths. Ideally, I would die having made an impact on the world and in so doing give myself a modicum of infamy. 

I am just realizing that this ideation is most likely the result of a lifetime among televisions. There have always been famous people. Aristocrats, actors, musicians, royals, politicians, clergymen, military heroes, and the like have always existed in large enough agricultural societies. Even without agriculture, tribal peoples would tell stories of heroes and gods and spirits that one would look up to. 

While all these people represent some kind of transcendence from the poor, infirm or otherwise lowly existence that the majority inhabit, these roles were not typically within the reach of the masses. Children in the 17th century were not hopeful that they would become anything other than something close to what their father did. They might have wondered at stories of heroes and gods but were not subjected to the mundane infamy of the modern world.

Today, the world's opinions are on display for the world. Experts and novices teaching beside each other and with no oversight. Crazies and geniuses and everyone in between showing us "what they've got!" "Cash me outside," has left its mark on the world and it is hard not to feel that if someone as low as those that are featured on Jerry Springer or Maury Povich are making their marks in some small ways. If we consider anyone who is online socially as capable of generating fame then fame itself is a measure of potential infamy. Extended fame is really the goal of online expression because if your mark lasts then it is assumed that your mark is meaningful.

The future of education had better include how to use the internet to your advantage or else people will be swallowed up in its web of influence and exploitation. It can also be a comforting couch of convenience and decadence. Everything at your hand and your whole life stuck in the world as a set of profiles and visual media.

But what about the futility of fame? In time all information is degraded and eventually lost then why is it so appealing? I think it is related to the initial need for procreation. Fame's appeal is the same appeal that comes to the deep desire to have our genes live on in our progeny. More specifically it is intertwined with the need to stand out and ascend in a hierarchy where the higher the status the more likely the individual will successfully mate and see their offspring live on. So, it all comes down to sex, like so many behaviors.

For one that prides themself on their ability to express themself, it seems like a failure to not do so publicly. To show one's self to the world is a badge of honor and to show up in a trending list means the eyes of the world are upon you. For good or bad you have been seen. Like in Avatar, we just want to be seen. I just want to be seen. To be seen and appreciated. To be validated by the world. For the world to look at you and give you an uplifting nod. 

The need for attention comes from at least two areas, cultural influences and a lack of bonding with parents. I do not want to blame all parents as for some the need for attention can never be satiated, not even by those with well adjusted and affectionate parents. I do not believe myself to be within that camp but I do not care to blame anyone for my self diagnosed issues in a perhaps failed attempt at self psychoanalysis. My need for attention might just be due to my lack of identifying a mainstream vocation that I find satisfying and therefore must look to other means for purpose, namely expressing myself and hoping that someone finds it valuable or at the least interesting.

I do think that the greater one's desire for fame the greater their need for validation. This may be due to a lack of acceptance and validation from childhood or it could be due to a predisposition toward narcissism or any number of things. 

Living in a culture where thousands and thousands of people make a living expressing their opinions on the internet makes it seem like if your not making a living expressing yourself you're working too hard and are just another "cog" in the wheel. 

I have no children. I have no real money. 

The only reason to feel bad about these facts is that I have a desire for these things. I am not sure which one I want more but I do know that some parts of me feel that children and money are a necessary part of seeing myself as an actualized person. I have manufactured a typical American fantasy despite the fact that my parents failed to represent but somehow has been engrained as a norm. Although they both do have a decent amount of money. At least they do now.

My father never made much money on his own and I know that a great deal of my desire for money has to do with my desire to not be like my father but he did marry two women who have been able to acquire quite a lot of money respectively. In fact his current wife, not my mother, probably makes more money than his second wife, meaning that he traded up in a completely lame and unplanned way. Hopefully unplanned. 

If you haven't done something notable enough to make some local media feature or participated in a viral video or gained enough subscribers to exist as an independent contractor then you aren't that interesting. If you aren't interesting then what's the point?

Maybe these are the worries of someone whose life is too easy to warrant any real discomfort or discipline. Maybe this is a cultural impression that I am simply orienting myself to. Maybe it is simply pride and narcissism that I engage in and should work toward feeling contentment in the simple act of existence and stop seeking fame for the sake of superficial attention. Maybe the monk that seeks enlightenment from a lack of desire is on the road toward enlightenment. I doubt it. I think the real answer is acceptance and balance.

In the creation of expressive art, one should start with themselves and the personal expression and then see what happens when they share such things. If it is meaningful to the self then it might resonate and find value in others. The real key is not putting the cart before the horse, putting the desire for validation before the expression. The idea that fame creates legitimacy is erroneous and simplistic. No one is legitimate or illegitimate. Value is subjective which means that it depends on the evaluator. Maybe a happy life is living based on one's internally generated values instead of trying to adapt to everyone else's idea of

This doesn't mean that one shouldn't cater to others for the sake of money or some other end. There are plenty of people who do not seek fame or validation through social interaction. People who exist with no desire to express themselves to the world and feel no malaise when the world doesn't care about them. Family, friends, work, and hobbies do not require an extended interaction with the outside world and hold deep meaning for those content with such activities. Maybe those that seek attention should remember not to neglect the simple satisfactions that accrue when one attends to those around them.

There is also a kind of dual outcome to fame which is when the endeavors that result in fame are originally intended to help others. This might be in the realms of education, innovation and personal expression of all sorts. The idea that one's public expressions are put out into the world for the sake of others. This is both selfish and selfless. Someone has to have some sense of self-worth and confidence to think that they have something to offer others and this desire, while seemingly noble, has the added bonus of attracting attention and potential fame. It is the most righteous fame because it hides behind the selfless deed and makes one a kind of saint but it should not be forgotten that those that seek to help others often know that the result may be that of acclaim.

This is not a bad thing in that if there were no positive results from helping other people would have little incentive to do so and therefor those that help others should be given public acclaim. This is really only useful if the public knows the difference between what provides actual help and what acts are designed to give the impression of selflessness. The real challenge to audiences, in a world of infinite choices, is to not waste attention on worthless or deceitful people or to call them out. Now, this requires a certain amount of intelligence and control and ultimately up to the individual based on their subjective values and knowledge.

Maturing is more a matter of accepting yourself instead of fighting self-imposed and needless idealism. Instead of constantly judging myself against the achievements of others I should simply continue working on doing what makes me feel fulfilled, meaningful and happy. 

Security and Fence: A Retail Perspective

Click here to get more!

At a high-risk retail location such as the one I have been working at these past three years there comes a time when you are asked to be both a security guard for the products you sell and fence for the thieves that steal them.

All-day long you are on the lookout for those that might be trying to shoplift. It's usually pretty obvious and the company expects us to thwart these no-goodnicks by simply offering them amazing customer service which is actually just direct, unwavering observation, assistance, and silent harassment. While you are attempting to thwart injustice you get called away to help a real customer and without constant observation, the thief strikes and soon, you watch them walk out and half the time they set off the buzzers at the front of the store. It's too late and they've struck again and everyone looks at each other as if we've lost another one. We have failed in our half-assed attempts to thwart the criminal from stealing the master's property. 

Secretly, but not that secretly, the masters don't really expect you stop most of the attempts. They expect the store to reach a certain amount of predictable loss (shrink) and it's more important to sell something and make money than to worry about petty theft. Even not-so-petty theft is acceptable as long as it isn't perpetrated by the employees. 

It gets so that when a man walks out with $400 worth of electronics or an entire $1000 laptop it's just the cost of doing business. The police may or may not be notified. I just hope they never pull a gun and go for the cash. Sometimes there is a ton of cash. But they know that it's a major crime to rob someone and they also know that shoplifting is such a minor offense that most folks won't try to stop them. And if you try to stop them with force you can get fired so you just have to watch them walk out with someone else's property. You think that it's your job to stop them and to protect your own job security and to protect the companies interest and if you care about the store you work in, the other people that you work with and adhere to general community ethics then you feel like it is the same as stealing from you. It could easily be you anyway.

Then, just after watching one leave another one enters. This one you haven't seen before but they certainly look the part. They look shady as fuck and walk straight to the return line and hand the cashier a bunch of random shit that was obviously stolen. Sometimes they come up with some excuse like their grandma bought the products a few weeks ago and now she just doesn't need $250 worth of Epson ink that just happens to be sitting on the shelf nearby unprotected. Your grandma spent over $200 dollars on ink she didn't need? Or the one with ten random day-planners that no one has ever purchased in those numbers before and happens to be the most expensive options when they don't look like they've spent more than $10 on their clothing, backpack, oversized coat, and two huge handbags. 

There is a rule that managers can refuse a return but managers aren't the ones at the registers most of the time. The ones at the register are typically younger, less experienced and barely trained. They don't understand the policy and since they are intimidated by both customers and managers they can't make complicated decisions about which policies to hold more strictly and which ones to break completely. They don't know how to professionally refuse the obviously douchey person trying to get money from nothing and some management teams might say to just do the return and some might say to use their best judgment.

The return policy also requires a receipt for a return except that telling someone that legitimately bought $100 purse just a day earlier that you won't give them a refund because they don't have a receipt is near suicide as they will either tell a higher-up that you were rude or they will just continue to argue with you until you just give up or they will say your racist or sexist or some other crazy shit. Dealing with an angry customer is no fun and to be avoided at all costs, for the most part. Having enough experience to understand when a customer crosses the line and demanding that they leave or you'll call the cops takes time to develop and the brand new cashier will just take the abuse most of the time until a manager steps in. 

Ultimately the policies should be straightforward. They should be easy for the customer and for the cashier. It shouldn't be a guessing game or a complicated algorithm of whether or not the customer deserves a break this time either because they are super nice or obnoxiously demanding. Managers should be able to make decisions about who is not a real customer and security should either be a priority or not. It feels like a priority but it really isn't. 

The contradiction occurs when someone thinks that the company wants to enforce laws. Companies, especially the largest companies, would rather the government never gets involved. Only when the problem becomes too costly do they resort to the police. This is due to two factors, as I see it. One is that companies and governments don't always mix well. Government's tax companies and inflict regulations that can make it difficult to do what the company wants and challenge what might make them more money. 

The second reason is that people know that the government and especially the street cops are not going to stop petty crime. They probably won't even show up. They don't have time and the cost is not worth it. It is technically a crime but so is loitering, littering and public indecency. The "man" doesn't have the men to enforce all the laws. Companies have security systems but those are not usually reactive and some companies have a security guard and if it is really important they will have more guards and real guns but balancing the cost a human guard and the liability involved is complicated. It isn't usually worth the fight when it comes to petty theft. 

When you work in an area that has extreme poverty and crime is rampant, especially petty crimes you see the stark difference between those vagrants and the majority of folks that are decent enough not to steal from you or show up too drunk and don't do hard drugs in the bathroom. These are the people to give great customer service and should be the real focus of the team but it is very distracting to have to judge all that come into the store in an effort to work as a deterrent to the baddies.  

It is demoralizing and confusing to be expected to be both the security guard and the fence. To watch people walk out with product just to have them or someone that looks like them bring it back and put it on the counter and lie to you makes you feel the opposite of empowered. They say that they bought the product but you know they didn't and you were always taught that lying and stealing are bad and that heroes stop criminals and the right thing to do is to expose liars. Well, too bad. Just ask them for their ID and don't cause a ruckus and the corporate masters will deal with it in their way. Just go back to selling and signing people up for harassment emails and giving people undeserved discounts because they say the word "coupon" in some configuration that passes as a sentence and trying to explain how shit works to people who don't give a shit about how it works, they just want it to work.

Working with the general public can be a frustrating mess and most people do not understand the hardships that the lowly floor staff deal with on a daily basis. The main goal of a business is to make a profit and in that pursuit, they need to maintain a positive reputation. This means erring on the side of the customer and not doing things that lead to negative press or legal action. This means that associates take on the complicated task of representing a companies interest even if the ones who make the rules never know who those associates are.