Ran Prieur

"The bigger you build the bonfire, the more darkness is revealed."

- Terence McKenna

blog archives

essays etc.

landblog

techjudge

misc.
links, quotes, recipes

novel
Apocalypsopolis, book one

zines
Civilization Will Eat Itself, Superweed 1-4, best of

communities

about me
favorite songs

search this site


Creative Commons License

April 15. (Posting at 1am because I'll be busy tomorrow.) Two articles about the same guy, An Experimental Autism Treatment Cost Me My Marriage and What It's Like to Wake Up From Autism After Magnetic Stimulation. The second is longer and goes into more detail about how difficult this guy's whole life has been, often for reasons other than autism. But the broadly interesting thing is that he gained the ability to sense the emotions of others, and it turned out they were mostly bad emotions. I've noticed something similar in my much slower process of becoming more aware of subtext in communication. I used to think communication was 90% on the surface, and now I think it's 90% under the surface, but damn, it's like a snake pit down there.

New subject, a fun reddit thread for doomers, What catastrophe is waiting to happen? The big one at the top is a direct hit from an x-class solar flare.

And some music. This month I've gotten heavily into a 1970 album called Here In the Land of Victory by Rex Holman. Holman was an actor who played lots of small roles in Hollywood westerns, and he made only that one album at the age of 42. His voice is an acquired taste, but the more I listen, the more his music seems deeply and courageously weird, intensely psychedelic in a subtle way. Nobody will agree with me when I say that Rex Holman makes Gordon Lightfoot sound like elevator music and Nick Drake sound like a whiny kid. The link above goes to the whole album, which is not all great, but the best songs are Come On Down and Red Is The Apple.


April 13. Going back already to Siderea, a couple weeks ago she had a major three-part post on The Two Moral Modes. That's Part 1, and here are Part 2 and Part 3.

It starts with Donald Trump, and the idea that he's merely an opportunist, who has noticed a massive unmet demand and is giving people what they want. So even if Trump goes away, that energy is still there waiting for the next leader to channel it.

Siderea thinks that Trump is channeling a moral standard that she calls Mode 2. In Mode 1 we have the same moral standard for all humans, while in Mode 2 there's an in-group and an out-group, and the out-group are not exactly people, more like a resource to be exploited. Here's a good explanation from Part 3:

It probably has never occurred to you, personally, to go someplace far away, where the laws of your country which frown on such things don't extend, and kidnap someone, or several someones, for your personal use: to sell, to exploit for free labor, to torment for kicks and giggles... If you're operating in Mode 1, it's so beyond the horizon of anything your moral sensibilities suggest is even remotely acceptable in interpersonal conduct, that it simply has never come up to be considered, much less rejected.

But people did this. Actual human beings actually did this, in great numbers. And people continue to do this, and various variations on it. It behooves us to ask What were they thinking, that they thought this was an okay thing to do?

Liberals are wrong to say these people are motivated by hate. From Part 2:

Lions don't hate gazelles. In fact, if you could ask them, I think lions would tell you they love gazelles -- they find them delicious... What the cheering throngs at Trump's rallies are feeling is joy. They're delighted by the uplift of being told, both implicitly and explicitly by Trump, that their Mode 2 morality is good, worthy, and valid... They're thrilled by the prospect of an overturn of the Mode 1 hegemony in American culture, and the possibility of making Mode 2 the dominant norm of the land.

This reminds me of a general process in political revolution: if there's something people believe strongly, but they're not allowed to say it publicly, they still think it privately, and it simmers under the surface until all at once it becomes acceptable to say it publicly, and then all the people who believe it can organize to overthrow the old system.

But I'm wondering how many Trump supporters really want to openly subjugate others, and how many just want to feel like they're participating in a political system that has been blocking them from participating -- and for superficial cultural reasons they like Trump better than Sanders.

Here's a fascinating analysis from fivethirtyeight, The GOP's Wacky Delegate Rules Are Helping Trump. The Republican rule-makers decided to award delegates based on the total population of each district, not the Republican population. So Republicans in heavily Democratic districts have way more influence, per person, than Republicans in heavily Republican districts. These supervoters love Trump, and I think it's not because they want to own slaves -- it's because they feel beseiged by an alien culture. (Although maybe, because they're in Mode 2, they assume that being a cultural minority means being a slave.)

I'm guessing that only 10-20% of Americans are in full-on Mode 2 morality, but I wonder how many others would switch over if it became socially acceptable, like it did in Nazi Germany. A deeper question is whether we're making moral progress. In ten thousand years will we still be flipping between the two modes, or will we be permanently and universally in Mode 1? And if we get there, where will we go next?


April 11. I've just discovered a great internet thinker, Siderea, whose blog is called Sibylla Bostoniensis. So, mixed in with the other stuff I write about, I'll be gradually going through her history and summarizing my favorite bits here. Today, a post from January on Class in America. This stuff is all completely obvious when I think about it, but hardly anyone thinks about it, so it seems fresh and important.

The big idea is that social class and economic class are different things. Economic class is how much money you make, and social class is actually culture. It's forbidden in America to talk about social class, so people talk around it (badly) by talking about economic class:

This rhetorical substitution of economic class for social class has a particular virtue for people in more privileged social classes: it allows them to discuss the lack of privileges of the lower classes in a way that holds them blameless of bigotry. So it is okay -- preferred, even -- to discuss the difficulty of the poor to become non-poor due to lack of resources: how terrible it is that the poor are thwarted in their efforts to improve their employment by not having the money for interview clothing, for transit to better jobs, for qualifying education or training. Real problems all -- but also handy substitutes for discussing the much, much more uncomfortable topics of discrimination against job applicants and promotion candidates for having an accent, a hair-do, a sense of style, an address on one's resume that is lower-class.

Siderea goes on to cover several angles of the subject of moving from one social class to another, and this makes me think of a whole other subject:

People really hate changing their culture, and lots of political issues come down to cultural standoffs, where two cultures are incompatible and neither side wants to change, like when immigrants don't want to assimilate, or when old people don't want to adopt the values of young people. It's not always clear who's right, and sometimes the disagreements are over silly things like how to pronounce words.

But it gets interesting when political and technological changes favor certain cultures. The internet helps cultures that value transparency, and undermines cultures that value secrecy. Birth control helps cultures that value sexual freedom, and undermines cultures that want to harness sex to family obligations. I can even put my support for an unconditional basic income in cultural terms: it would undermine a culture of striving for conventional success, and feed a culture of learning to navigate free time.


April 8. Some stray links where I have little or nothing to add. The sugar conspiracy is a long article about how nutrition scientists got it backwards for 40 years, telling us that fat was worse than sugar, despite never having good evidence. The deeper message is that science doesn't work as well as it thinks. Eventually the evidence wins out, but in the short term scientific truth is more a function of politics, culture, and ego. A good book on this subject is Science in Action by Bruno Latour.

Two more negative links, both by Bruce Levine: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill, and Living in America will drive you insane -- literally.

An argument for an unconditional basic income that I haven't seen before, A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage:

By guaranteeing basic survival, a government provides a service as necessary as, say, policing the streets or fighting off foreign enemies. At the same time, once this service is provided, the government can get out of trying to regulate the labor market: Its goal of keeping people fed and clothed is already achieved.

Something fun, Every Meal In Wuthering Heights Ranked In Order Of Sadness. In college I was obsessed with Wuthering Heights and took four different classes that covered it. People think it's about romantic love when really it's about how modern society is a prison for the soul -- and apparently also about crappy food.

Finally, one of my favorite reddit threads ever, with hundreds of creative answers to a good question: You just died. God escorts you to a door, telling you that this is your own personal heaven. What's behind your door?


April 6. I've got some good stuff in my link bin, but first I have one more thought on motivation: that it only becomes a problem in a special case, which is historically rare but really common right now. We have social pressure to do certain things, but no social support.

Imagine you're stocking shelves at Walmart. Everyone knows the job sucks, so the managers take care of motivation: they give you a clearly defined task and if you do it you get money and if you don't you get fired. I would call this vertical external support, and it gets the job done, but the better system is horizontal external support: you're working with your friends toward a clear goal, and the motivation is that you don't want to let them down, and also they're right next to you helping you through rough spots.

At the other extreme, I think the only purely internal motivation is obsession: your whole being is engaged with a task, and other people are not just unnecessary -- they get in the way. Even on a project that other people don't know about, your beliefs about how they will receive it can get in the way. That's why I've been failing to write fiction, because I've been thinking about it backwards, more in terms of its public reception than what I enjoy writing moment by moment. And that's why George RR Martin can't finish the Game of Thrones books, because at first he was creating his own universe for fun, and now he's carrying the burden of the expectations of millions of people, who are giving him no help with the actual writing.

My point is, the whole world is more and more like this, and it happened accidentally through good intentions. You're no longer stuck doing the same job your parents did, but now that you're free, you're still burdened by social pressures: if people ask "what do you do?" you're supposed to say "I work at a nonprofit indigenous something something and build artisan furniture in my spare time," not "I work at a convenience store and write Harry Potter erotica." And you're supposed to carve out this almost impossible perfect life completely on your own. At best your parents will keep you from living on the streets and you'll get predictable advice from strangers on the internet.

I see two ways out of this. I mean, the thousand year solution is to build a complex society with a wide perspective and a high standard of living, where every task that holds society together is done voluntarily by healthy social groups. But right now I see two ways people are responding to this difficult world. Young people crave social collapse: life becomes mentally easier because you're driven by survival and (ideally) surrounded by friends, but it's physically harder. Now that I'm an old person, physically weaker but mentally stronger, my solution is to not care what people think. Give me an unconditional basic income and let me follow my unfashionable obsessions.


April 4. Continuing from last week, yet another stray thought on motivation. I was watching an interview with UFC champion Miesha Tate, and she was talking about how she got obsessed with wrestling in high school. Her school didn't have a girls wrestling team, so she would wrestle the boys and always lose. How was this motivating? Because every time she lost she learned stuff, which she applied to her next match to lose by a smaller margin. She established a rhythm -- fight, learn, adjust, fight -- with positive feedback in two places: the reward of learning and the reward of coming closer to winning.

(I do the same thing when I write about music: listen, notice stuff, put it into words, and use those words to guide my next round of listening, approaching but never reaching full understanding.)

How often does life work like this? Almost never. In social behavior, when you make a mistake, you rarely find out exactly what you did wrong, and you usually don't get another chance with that same person -- unless they're a family member, and then you're just learning to match their particular dysfunction, which will not work when you're out in the world getting one chance each with people who have completely different dysfunctions. It's a miracle that anyone ever becomes socially competent.

In school, when you take a test or turn in a project, they tell you what you did wrong, but you don't get another chance -- you're stuck with that low grade for life, and then you move on to badly learning something new (that you'll probably never use).

You do get good feedback and multiple chances when you're being trained for a job -- but only if your trainers are good, and pretty soon you reach a plateau where you're no longer learning, just going through a routine for a paycheck.

I've just spent all afternoon writing and deleting drafts, trying and failing to go somewhere interesting with this idea. All I can say is that we need to set up society so that we spend our lives enjoying getting better at skills that make life better for everyone, and this is going to take a really long time.


April 1. Another stray thought on motivation. Last week I wrote that nothing I've done in real life matches games for rewarding moment-to-moment action (but writing can be close) and someone asked me, what about the stuff I did on the land? This illustrates a principle that you can only really understand with life experience: what makes a project seem rewarding from a distance is completely different from what makes it feel rewarding as you're doing it, and it's normal to have one without the other.

Building a cabin sounds wonderful, but it's such a massively complex and alien project that I just felt overwhelmed; and how-to books, with thousands of things that have to be done in just the right difficult and expensive way, only made it worse. Growing fruit trees is something I can wrap my head around, but it's not something where you can get in the flow, and there's little connection between effort and reward: I put countless hours into trees that died, while the most successful thing I planted was a blue elder that I probably spent ten minutes on.

One thing I did up there that felt rewarding was throwing logging debris into piles. It has clear benefits, making the land more beautiful and walkable, and making habitat for critters, and every little action is clearly visible permanent progress. Cutting lower branches off trees to open up the woods and reduce fire danger was similar. In hindsight, by writing the landblog, I was carrying readers on my shoulders so they could enjoy stuff I wasn't enjoying enough myself, and if I had it to do over again, I would do a lot more stuff that's fun to do and boring to tell other people about. This is good life advice in general.


March 30. I've been kicking around some stray thoughts about motivation. Last week, going off on a tangent while answering an email, I figured out what I mean when I accuse people of puritanism, and my metaphor is diet. Your diet is your body's business, and maybe your head can help by reading about nutritional studies, but some people have dietary restrictions that are nothing about their bodies and all about their heads: I won't eat that thing that contradicts some story my head tells itself to make life feel meaningful.

In the same way, you have a motivational body, or a motivational metabolism, like an engine inside you that needs to keep going, and if it stalls you get depressed. Your engine doesn't care if your head thinks that some activity is a waste of time or something done by uncool people -- it just needs to stay in the flow of doing one fun thing after another. Obviously you should avoid anything that has a record of destroying lives, like recreational opiates. But I've found that when I'm spending time playing video games or watching sports or listening to music on cannabis, it does not reduce my overall productivity, and it might even increase it by keeping my wheels spinning when I'm not doing something "useful".

And you should never say no to content creation, no matter how worthless it seems. Over the last year I've spent a massive amount of time, maybe more than blogging, on a very personal project in a category where nothing important has ever been written. But it continues to stretch me as a writer, and the most important thing is that I'm keeping the creative fire burning.

Two quotes from Ecclesiastes: Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might... In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thine hand: for thou knowest not whether shall prosper, either this or that.


March 28. I've been meaning to post some original thoughts, but with the traveling I haven't been smart enough to put them together. Instead, something that doesn't require any thinking: presidential politics! This reddit comment explains in detail why Trump is nothing like Sanders on the issues. I took the ISideWith.com 2016 presidential quiz and got 98% Jill Stein, 97% Bernie Sanders, 90% Hillary Clinton, 81% Gary Johnson, 23% Donald Trump, and 13% Ted Cruz.

Despite The Math, Bernie Sanders Has Already Won. It explains briefly why Sanders' success is changing the focus of the Democratic party, and explains in detail all the states he has to win, and by how much, to get the nomination.

And something funny, a Who should I vote for flowchart image. I was like, what's the deal with the Bureau of Land Management? But of course it's Black Lives Matter.


March 23. Anne has a great new post, A Naked Lunch in Brussels, about that Bruce Sterling talk that I linked Monday, with more details about Sterling's thoughts on failed surveillance states, plus some new thoughts about GMO's as a technology of control, heroin as capitalism, and how radical groups, mass shooters, and Donald Trump all get their power from the emptiness of the big systems. You might also want to read this transcript of Sterling's Reboot 11 speech from 2009. The ending is weak but I love his idea that "progress" is no longer objective -- instead of getting better in a way that we all agree on, the world is just chasing preferences now.

Over on reddit there are lots of comments on yesterday's post, including this thoughtful comment about the value of creating vs merely consuming. I suppose I was exaggerating how little "my moment-to-moment actions to feel meaningful and rewarding" without games, because I do get some of that from writing, which is why I keep doing it, but it's nothing like what I get from a really compelling game. That must be why some creative people create so damn much, because they really do get the same feeling from the creative process that I get from a good tower defense game, while other people destroy their lives because they get that feeling from stuff that's actively bad for them. There are deep questions here that I'm not getting into yet.


March 22. Well, that's what happens when I say I'm not going to post. I just wrote an 844 word reply to this subreddit post, where I tried to explain what's wrong with society, the path to make it better, and the value of imaginary worlds and altered states of consciousness.


March 21. I'm officially out of ideas and relying on links from readers -- most of which I still don't feel like writing about, but today Anne sends a recent hour long Bruce Sterling talk. I just listened to the whole thing while playing Windows Freecell, and if you want a fun challenge try solving #569 using only one of the four cells.

Anyway, Sterling is very smart and has lots of fun and cynical comments about technology and government. His basic theme is that all the control systems are ineffective and out of touch. He argues that the very rich aren't actually that powerful, and that surveillance doesn't work for social control: "Is there anyone with a drone over their head who is actually doing what guys with drones want?" I like his idea that Bitcoin is insecure for social reasons while enthusiasts are blinded by its mathematical perfection.

Sterling is already assuming that Trump will be president, and his surprising and realistic prediction is that Trump will be like Berlusconi in Italy, just using the job to have fun and ignoring his serious duties while the whole system freezes.

I'm taking the Greyhound to Seattle on Wednesday and will probably post again only one more time this week. If you're in Seattle and interested in going out for Ethiopian food this weekend, drop me an email.


March 18. Bunch o' links. Continuing Wednesday's subject, The Trip Treatment is a long Michael Pollan article about the miraculous benefits of psilocybin. I'm wondering how psilocybin relates to computer-generated artificial worlds: in 50 years if everyone is tripping, will it make us totally uninterested in that kind of thing, or just more discriminating?

Robots will take your job is about the growing power of artificial intelligence and why it will force us into an unconditional basic income. While I basically agree, I think the article is too optimistic about the power of data crunching. Computers as we know them are great at finding correlation, but they don't understand causality, so if they make adjustments in complex systems they're likely to make mistakes.

Short video, Marcus du Sautoy explains the fractal nature of Pollock's paintings. The good part starts at 2:15, where they show how you can zoom in or out on a Jackson Pollock painting and it looks basically the same.

I really like this artist, Roman Avseenko. He's bad at drawing people, but he's good with color, and his subjects are a great blend of fantasy, sci-fi, gothic, and ruins.

Fun reddit thread, What's something you're pretty sure has only happened to you? My favorite is the one about the pumpkin.

Also from reddit, this comment, from a thread asking people what changed their mind about suicide, is one of the most poetic things I've ever read:

What "changed" me? A sunny spring day, and the rain clouds were moving in. I went past a daycare where a little girl was dancing around, away from all the kids, by herself. "You just never know." I thought to myself. What if I had killed myself, all that long time ago.


March 16. I seem to be running out of stuff to write about, which might be related to what I'm writing about today: Magic Mushrooms May Permanently Alter Personality. Specifically they increase openness, which normally slowly decreases for adults. Here's a reddit comment thread with lots of reports of good changes from psilocybin mushrooms, and a few reports of bad changes. From another thread, this comment speculates that mushrooms can be harmful if they open up repressed anxiety faster than people can integrate it. I would recommend trying cannabis first, which does the same thing but more mildly.

I debated on whether to post my own report here or post it anonymously somewhere, and I think it's worth the risk to reach more readers, especially since mushrooms affect me in a way that I haven't read about anywhere else. I recently took a medium-high dose that would make most people trip, and my expectation and intention was to have an intense and fun mental experience. Instead I had an intense and not fun body experience. It was like being drunk and having the flu: I felt stupid, dizzy, nauseated, feeble, itchy, and had an overwhelming urge to curl up in total silence and darkness. There I drifted at the edge of sleep the same way I might do if I was sick. On this long list of cognitive and visual effects, the only thing I got at the time was mindfulness: an inability to focus my attention anywhere but inward. Other than the nausea this wasn't unpleasant (and I've since read that you might avoid nausea by making tea out of the mushrooms, or eating some ginger with them). After an hour or two I was able to get up and walk around, and enjoyed a nice body buzz and foggy thinking like I might get from marijuana.

The next day I was tired and irritable, and the next two nights I had high energy and slept only briefly and deeply. I was motivated to start some projects I'd been putting off, like doing more pullups and replacing the lights on my old stereo receiver, and I noticed that I had lost interest in some silly things, like the showerthoughts subreddit and certain ways of thinking about politics and society. I still feel like I'm putting my intuitive value system back together. This was not a one-time anomaly because something similar happened, but not as strong, when I tried a smaller dose last summer.

tl;dr: Psychedelic mushrooms reboot my brain without tripping. Aiming for recreational value, I get only therapeutic value. I think I'll wait a while before trying again.


March 14. A few comments on politics. I'm assuming that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee, because Bernie Sanders is so far behind in delegates that he could win every remaining non-southern state by 20 points and still lose. While I support Bernie's policies, America is not ready for them, and won't be until the giant blocks of money have a little more time to ruin the world and be correctly blamed for it.

A month ago Scott Adams made this post, Scalia and the Pillow, about a conspiracy theory that the Clintons killed Scalia. I agree with Adams: they didn't do it, but the way his death benefits them is fascinating. Millions of left-of-center voters despise the Democratic party for its interventionist foreign policy and pro-big-money economic policy, but they hold their nose and vote for the Democratic candidate because of the Supreme Court. Scalia's death puts this issue even more in the public eye, and Hillary will get more "I'm just doing it for the Supreme Court" votes than any candidate ever. The crazy thing is that the Republican congress could wipe this advantage away if they "kill the hostage" and let Obama appoint someone. Their choice is to concede the Supreme Court and probably win the presidency, or dig their heels on the court and probably lose the presidency and then also the court.

That's not the only way Republicans are failing to think strategically. If they want to stop Trump, they can still do it by narrowing the non-Trump field to a single candidate, because Trump's ceiling is about 42%. The coming primaries are mostly winner-take-all, so Trump gets all the delegates against two opponents and no delegates against one. They're not going to do this, and if Trump wins Florida tomorrow it's going to be hard for even a unified opposition to catch him.

My dream scenario: Trump doesn't get quite enough delegates for the nomination, the convention is a giant spectacle where the other candidates unite against Trump and nominate Cruz or Rubio, the Republican party tears itself apart, Hillary wins, the scandals catch up to her, the economy collapses, both parties get taken over by outsiders, and I live to see an unconditional basic income, a financial transaction tax, single payer health care, copyright reform, and a zero-growth economy with demurrage currency.





I don't do an RSS feed, but Patrick has written a script that creates a feed based on the way I format my entries. It's at http://ranprieur.com/feed.php. You might also try Page2RSS.

Posts will stay on this page about a month, and then mostly drop off the edge. A reader has set up an independent archive that saves the page every day or so, and I save my own favorite bits in these archives:

January - May 2005
June - August 2005
September - October 2005
November - December 2005
January - February 2006
March - April 2006
May - July 2006
August - September 2006
October - November 2006
December 2006 - January 2007
February - March 2007
April - May 2007
June - August 2007
September - October 2007
November - December 2007
January - February 2008
March - April 2008
May - June 2008
July - August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November - December 2008
January - February 2009
March - April 2009
May - June 2009
July - August 2009
September - November 2009
December 2009 - January 2010
February - March 2010
April - May 2010
June - October 2010
November - December 2010
January - March 2011
April - June 2011
July - September 2011
October - November 2011
December 2011 - February 2012
March - April 2012
May - July 2012
August - October 2012
November 2012 - February 2013
March - June 2013
July - December 2013
January - March 2014
April - September 2014
October 2014 - February 2015
March - July 2015
August - October 2015
November 2015 - January 2016
Feburary 2016 - ?