Ran Prieur

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

- Terence McKenna

blog archives

essays etc.



links, quotes, recipes

Apocalypsopolis, book one

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


about me
favorite songs

search this site

Creative Commons License

November 11. Taking a break from politics for music. Tuesday night I slipped in a YouTube link, but now I want to link to it explictly, because this classic punk song from 1982 is exactly how America feels to me right now: Fear - Let's Have A War. Related article: Negative Emotions Are Key to Well-Being.

I've been having some email conversations about the occult nature of Trump's win. (It would take several books to explain what "occult" even means.) So it's stunning, but not surprising, that the next celebrity to die was Leonard Cohen, because there's some weird, dark stuff around him. If you have a couple hours, it's covered in this crazy two-part podcast from last year, The Liminalist 31.5: The Guerrilla in the Room. My favorite Leonard Cohen song is Teachers.

Believe it or not, my main project over the last week was putting together music playlists. I've been wanting to merge the songs of my favorite band, Big Blood, with songs by other artists, especially my second favorite band, Hawkwind. Yesterday I finished the core list, 13 songs over 72 minutes, starting with folk and getting increasingly heavy. It's at the top of my favorite songs page.

November 9. After sleeping on it and hearing some reactions, I have a new story: Trump's victory is the 9/11 of the American left. The Tarot card for both events is The Tower, a sudden shocking catastrophe in which something that appears secure is brought down. Also both events were centered around New York City, and both events had a much milder precedent: the 1993 bombing, and Bush's victory over Al Gore.

In both 2000 and 2016 (and 1980) Republicans nominated a gunslinger, a candidate with great political instincts who inspired the base and didn't care about his own flaws. In both of those years (and 2004) Democrats nominated an uptight, awkward moderate who tried to avoid the appearance of having any flaws, but the result was that smaller flaws got magnified, voters were apathetic, and the Republican won. And in 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012, when Republicans nominated a dignified moderate, they lost. The only reason Bush Sr won in 1988 was that Dukakis was even more of a dweeb.

Remember in 2004 when Howard Dean lost the Democratic primaries after making that weird scream? Compare that to the ten thousand worse things Donald Trump has done in front of a microphone. My point is not that Trump is bad but that this is what a winning attitude looks like. Dean was loose and impulsive and raw in a way that general election voters actually like -- but Democratic primary voters fear it.

The American left has been on its back foot since the 1980's, and I'm not sure why. My guess is that in the decades before 1980, they were so successful working within the system that they lost the skill and confidence to work outside the system. You need that confidence to not be afraid to lose, and you need to be fearless before you can nominate and stand behind a flawed candidate.

This is a dark night of the soul for a lot of Americans, but it's also an opportunity for us to organize in new ways and reinvent ourselves politically. Last night I mentioned disassociating from society, but that allows us to reassociate in ways we might not have imagined.

November 8, late. Shit just got real. A few notes...

If you're unhappy about this, just disassociate. You're not a part of this nation, this culture, this planet, just some kind of alien visiting to observe and have a good time. This attitude is both a cause and an effect of social collapse. A comment from earlier today: "I kind of hope this is the last election, however it turns out."

I do not trust voters to say why they really voted for Trump, or even to know why. I think there's a lot going on subconsciously (see below).

I think everyone who voted for Trump would have voted for him anyway, even if James Comey hadn't resurrected the email scandal at the last minute. But the FBI director was clearly angling to be a close ally of President Trump, and I expect him to be important over the next few years.

On the left, the big winner is Bernie Sanders, who would have won a lot of the votes that Hillary couldn't win. When will the Democratic party stop being afraid of popular excitement? Is it too late?

If Trump wants to prove he can cut through red tape and get shit done, while making even liberals happy, he should start by abolishing daylight savings time. Seriously, why is it so hard to make such a simple change that everyone agrees with? If we can't even do that, how can we hope to make bigger changes?

If Hillary had won, I was going to mention conspiracy theories that Trump's whole plan was to throw the election to the Dems, or that he wanted to remain an outsider populist without having to prove anything, or that his whole candidacy was a distraction. We can throw those away now, as well as the idea that the oligarchy controls the whole thing.

But I have a new grand conspiracy theory (thanks to marijuana, which won big in this election). Did you ever get in a totally baffling conflict, and years later you looked back and discovered a subconscious level on which it all made sense? So there's an example of one single link where the subconscious mind is in control and the conscious mind is just along for the ride. What if these links can form networks? What if they form a global subconscious civilization that is secretly running everything? Never mind the Reptilians -- the enemy is within.

November 8. Here's an updated Chance That Your Vote Will Decide the Election. In New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania your chance is at least as good as 1 in 2 million. [New update: it was zero.] And you might be surprised at your results on the ISideWith.com quiz. I just took it and got 99% Jill Stein, 78% Gary Johnson, 73% Hillary Clinton, and 22% Donald Trump.

November 4. Continuing on the election, maybe I've misunderstood the mass consciousness. I was thinking that Hillary is the most bland and safe candidate possible, while Trump is a ball of lightning, the most obviously flawed and scandalous candidate ever to lead a major party ticket. Why is he now within a polling error of being president? Ordinary Americans aren't going to bed hungry -- by medieval standards of material wealth, they're living like kings. But they're bored, depressed, starving for "meaning" (a word with hidden depths). People are voting for Trump because they feel suffocated by society and they want to fuck shit up.

This makes sense to me. When Trump promises to "turn Washington upside down," I can feel liberating excitement. But my head overrules my gut. I'm not going to be like that guy who is so afraid of being alone that he marries the first woman who hits on him. I'm not supporting Biff from Back To The Future 2, just because he's the first chaos candidate who happened to come along.

We're in the age of chaos now. I used to think collapse would happen for technical reasons, and those do play a role, but when I look around I see it happening for psychological reasons. Sarah Perry has a new post, A Bad Carver, that explains in detail how technology has made us miserable by breaking up our world into functions and components that no longer fit together. So we have enough food, but the process of feeding ourselves is no longer part of an integrated whole like it was for our ancestors.

Nobody knows how to fix this, but the popular urge to do something about it is only going to get stronger. So I'm thinking, let Hillary kick the can down the road another four years, and we'll have a whole new crop of chaos candidates, some of whom might be curious and competent and able to build consensus for smart radical changes.

But here's what I don't understand. People keep describing Hillary as "scary" and "dangerous". Are they projecting? Because from where I'm standing she's a boring status-quo candidate firmly allied to global interests that demand stability. I'd like to see a step-by-step, cause-and-effect argument, based on accepted facts, for how Hillary will create more danger than your average president.

The only thing I can see is that I'm being too optimistic about future chaos candidates, and if we wait another four years, we'll get someone worse. Trump is channeling the same kind of mass-consciousness uprising as Hitler, but Hitler was a serious utopian ideologue, while Trump just wants to party with Berlusconi and Putin. He might be too lazy and incompetent to do any catastrophic damage, and in the long term he'll serve stability by setting a bad example of what happens when voters go off script.

November 2. This election is getting bizarre. As scandals go, Hillary Clinton's email thing is chicken feed, and it does not begin to explain Trump's surge in the polls over the last week. It's like those people were going to vote for Trump all along and as the election gets closer they'll take a smaller and smaller excuse. And why has Trump fallen in the polls when he's been most in the public eye, right after the conventions and debates? He's like that thing you do that you hate and you always promise yourself you'll never do it again, but then as it fades in your memory it becomes more and more attractive.

I'm not endorsing Hillary. She's a political dinosaur, a predictable synthesis of 1970's liberalism and 1990's neoliberalism, and she's on the wrong side of my favorite issues: unconditional basic income, drug legalization, copyright reform, and retooling the economy for zero growth. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is a crazy hybrid of 1950's conservatism and a 2050 post-crash warlord, and he's on the wrong side of everything except metapolitics.

I see Trump as a correction, bringing together two things that have grown too far apart. On the one hand is how our civilization really works, a vast and inhuman network that is best managed by competent and dispassionate technocrats. On the other hand is the show, the public perception of how it works, that it's all about the personalities of human "leaders", like the tribal leaders of our ancestral memory, and if your life sucks then we just need someone strong and decisive to straighten those folks out.

I appreciate Trump as a performer, and I agree with his instinct that the political show has become a farce and deserves to be played like a farce. But if he actually becomes president, people will learn in the most painful way that their primal view of politics is bullshit, that you can't fix your computer by getting the most confident person to smack it with a hammer.

Trump is not even a good businessman -- he has less money than if he had just put his dad's money in an average investment fund. His positions and his personality are completely authoritarian, and I would expect him to make so many more things illegal that people I know would go to prison. He's an enemy of the poor and I would expect economic desperation to create more crime, which would be used to justify more brutal central control. Ironically his own supporters would be worst off, while blue state liberals could soften the federal trainwreck with adjustments at the state level.

Another irony: Hillary Clinton's most extreme position is her hostility to transparency, her belief that ordinary people shouldn't know how the government really works. If you live by keeping people stupid, you die by keeping people stupid.

October 31. Halloween links. From the subreddit, a comment on creepy clowns. These are my favorite bits edited together:

What particularly intrigues me is that the clowns increasingly tend to be spotted on the edge of the forest. The forest is traditionally the place where the supernatural exists. Our European folklore has magical people that live in the forest, who frighten young children. So in other words, the clowns hover on the border between the natural and the supernatural.

We live in a very stiff era, where we're looking for a trickster figure who can shake up the established order that's failing to work. The creepy clowns are quite literally possessed by Loki, or Anansi, or whatever name your culture has for this phenomenon. They are the collective manifestation of our subconsciousness that the supernatural takes in an era that has a strong yearning for an external source of disruption that allows it to shake off its pathological routines that it finds itself too handicapped to shake off in a conscious manner.

The SCP Foundation is a website where members can submit descriptions of... well, the site carefully keeps this undefined, but it's all weird scary stuff. You might want to start with top rated pages.

Leigh Ann and I have been watching smart horror films, and we really liked Ghostwatch, a fake TV paranormal investigation that caused a panic during its only broadcast in 1992, and inspired the less imaginative Blair Witch Project. The writer of Ghostwatch, Stephen Volk, also wrote a 2011 ghost movie called The Awakening. We watched that and The Orphanage, a 2007 Spanish film with a similar story. I thought The Orphanage was scarier and better directed but The Awakening was better written and more of a head trip.

October 28. A few more practical psychology links. A reader sends this 2010 article, Why Russians Don't Get Depressed. They spend a lot of time thinking about unpleasant memories, but they do it from a detached perspective, as if the events happened to another person.

Google's former happiness guru developed a three-second brain exercise for finding joy. Well, it's not something you do for three seconds but something you do all the time: be on the lookout for "thin slices of joy" and appreciate them. This fits with a general principle that keeps coming up for me: the frontier of self-improvement is at the micro scale, paying attention and doing the right thing in smaller and smaller intervals of time and space. It reminds me of the advice that Steve Largent gave Doug Baldwin about catching a football, that instead of keeping your eye on the whole ball, keep it at the tiniest leading edge.

Another link from a reader, a 40 minute video, Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned: The Myth of the Objective. It's by the guy who made Picbreeder, and he goes from there to a general theory of creativity: that it doesn't come from chasing particular goals, but from constantly seeking novelty, or "divergent treasure hunting."

Another example from sports. This year the Western New York Flash were expected to finish near the bottom of the National Women's Soccer League, and they won the championship. Partly this was through talent that hadn't been recognized yet, but it was also through a playing style of creating and exploiting chaos. Check out their goal in the 16th minute of the semifinal against the Portland Thorns, which was probably the best game of the year. It's an ugly goal that nobody saw coming, but the Flash get a lot of balls in the net through a general strategy of sending long throw-ins to bounce around in the box, and being able to work with them.

Watch their best player, Lynn Williams, make this penalty kick in the championship game. Penalty kicks happen so fast that usually neither player tries to improvise -- they just decide what they're going to do and hope they guess right. But I'm pretty sure, in that hundredth of a second between stepping forward and kicking the ball, Williams sees the goalie moving to one side and calmly puts the ball away on the other side. My point is, the Flash are the best team because they can improvise in the smallest time scales.

October 26. I liked all the feedback I got from Monday's subject, so I'll keep going with it. Leigh Ann is skeptical of my obsession with hacking happiness, and says it's pointless because you need unhappiness to make happiness meaningful. That makes sense logically, but it doesn't fit my experience. I've met people who are happy all the time, and other people who are unhappy all the time. They still have highs and lows, but their baselines are so far apart that the lows of happy people are still higher than the highs of unhappy people. So why the difference? Brain chemicals? Unexamined mental habits? How well your social context fits your deep personality? Probably some of all three.

Also, when good stuff happens, it's not like I feel worse when it's over. I feel better! Sometimes I can even pull this off with video games if I quit at just the right time. And a bad event can put me in a long-term slump. If there's a benefit from bad stuff happening, it's not that ordinary life looks better in comparison. It's that I get experience climbing out of the hole.

The more I think about this subject, the more complex it is. On the subreddit someone thinks I'll become a Buddhist monk, which is not going to happen, but I love the Buddhist distinction between pain and suffering. Pain is when you stub your toe, and suffering is when it bothers you that you stubbed your toe. I'm good at processing physical pain without suffering, and bad at other kinds of pain. (Maybe that's why teenagers cut themselves, to exchange hard-to-process emotional pain for easy-to-process physical pain.) And if we have feelings on multiple levels, then a happy person might feel better about their lowest lows than an unhappy person feels about their highest highs.

A conversation over email has given me a better understanding of compulsive programmers. I was thinking it was a micro-brain thing where they happen to find the details of programming more rewarding. Now I think it's a whole personality thing, where compulsives do not know how to take a step back and rebalance, how to shift their minds from narrow focus to wide focus.

That fits with a general line of my thinking lately, that a lot of life skills come down to something like a mental transmission, where if it's working right you can smoothly shift gears from one mental state to another. I think that's why I feel so much pain around doing small jobs to fix up the house, because that mental state is so far from the one I'm in normally.

Last night with the help of marijuana (which I doubt is in any monastic tradition) I came up with a promising idea: we negotiate mental adjustments through inner dialogues, and when I struggle with mental adjustments, it might be just because my inner dialogues are too serious, and I need to make them more playful. So instead of being hard on myself for slipping into an unhelpful mental state, I can just think "Heh, there you go again!"

October 24. This book excerpt, Science and the Compulsive Programmer (posted last week to the subreddit) has given me lots of stuff to think about.

It's about the differences between two kinds of programmers, one described as "professional", "hard-working", "careful", and "sensible", and the other described as "disheveled", "transfixed", "possessed", "frenzied", "grandiose", "incestuous", "aimless", "disembodied", and "monastic".

My first instinct is to read against the text: the book was published 40 years ago, and it's firmly in the mid-20th century industrial mindset where getting things done is intrinsically valuable and how we feel about it is secondary. As a 21st century reader, I see human psychology as the only hard problem, and the compulsive programmers have solved it in the most direct way: while responsible programmers are dutifully supporting a tech infrastructure that may or may not make anyone happy, compulsive programmers have simply found happiness. I envy them.

Look at wild animals, and I'm thinking of species you can watch in the city like grey squirrels and house sparrows. While doing what they need to do to survive, they seem to be permanently as happy and engaged as I've only been at my happiest moments, like when I leaned into that curve that wiped out my scooter, or when I bought that exciting thing that turned out to be a burden, or when I played video games until ordinary life seemed like a hellscape of unclear goals and unreliable rewards.

When I think about it that way, compulsive programmers are probably on a similar dead end, and not at all in the same mental state as squirrels or the best and luckiest humans who have found a well-balanced niche in the modern world. And it probably would not work, as a utopian goal, to have all the useful stuff done by machines, leaving us all free to have useless fun forever. Of course we should still try, but I'm becoming more and more suspicious of how hard it is, even with all this technology, to find any kind of hack or shortcut to feeling good. It's leading me away from philosophical materialism and toward something like theology.

October 21. Bunch o' links about technology, starting with lower tech that's better than higher tech.

You've probably heard that the makers of the EpiPen jacked up the price hundreds of dollars because the American medical system has no cost controls. Some folks have developed the epipencil, an autoinjector that you can make yourself for $30 in parts plus the cost of the epinephrine.

Old jobs is an image album of jobs that no longer exist. I can't help but notice that some of them look more fun than any job I've ever had. My larger point is that we could make a better world by putting more foresight into automation, like considering whether doing a job by hand is more enjoyable than maintaining the tech that repaces it.

The secret behind Italy's rarest pasta. It's not a secret, just a skill that takes years to learn. Only two people in the world can do it, and it will probably die with them because our culture no longer has room for that much patience.

The Dutch Reach: Clever Workaround to Keep Cyclists from Getting Doored. It's not some high-tech sensor. Drivers are just trained and tested in the habit of turning their shoulders, looking behind them, and opening the door with their opposite hand.

Now here's an awesome use of high tech: the best microscope pics of 2016. My favorite is the spider eyes.

I think human space colonies are silly, first because humans are totally unfit for space while robots are perfect, and second because there are more exciting frontiers toward the inside. But this article on Jeff Bezos's rocket mentions something cool that I didn't know: as a rocket gets bigger, it becomes easier to keep it balanced while taking off and landing vertically, for the same reason that you can balance an umbrella on your hand more easily than you can balance a pin.

Finally, some music. A question on the record store subreddit reminded me of a song I was obsessed with in the early 90's. Hammerbox was a Seattle band from the grunge era with a powerful singer named Carrie Akre. She later fronted the band Goodness, and made her last solo album in 2007. I'm going to look into her later stuff and see if she ever found any more great songs to match her voice, after this forgotten gem from 1991, Hammerbox - When 3 Is 2.

October 19. On a tangent from Monday's post, that comment about Trump's hypomania mentions a book called The Hypomanic Edge, in which the author "surveyed leaders in Silicon Valley and they almost universally agreed that the clinical description of hypomania matched what they thought was needed from the most successful startup CEOs."

I'm thinking, suppose we went back millions of years to our primate ancestors, or not so far back to the most brutal groups of humans. In that world, the largest and most aggressive males are the leaders. In our own world, being physically large and aggressive is increasingly useless. There are still lucrative roles in pro sports, but nobody thinks Ndamukong Suh has the right skillset to be a president or a CEO.

My point is, hypomanic people don't either. There is no correlation between hypomania and making good decisions. The correlation is with speed, having the sleepless drive to make a large number of decisions in a day.

This is only a factor because of our extremely fast-paced society. And it's a factor in other jobs too. Peter Higgs, "the British physicist who gave his name to the Higgs boson, believes no university would employ him in today's academic system because he would not be considered 'productive' enough." There are people out there who would make great leaders, scientists, house builders, chefs, you name it, but they can't hold those jobs because they're not fast enough.

I dream that this will change. If more speed-dependent jobs are automated, if an unconditional basic income moves more jobs into the realm of volunteer work, and if our culture slows down to match the end of economic growth, we might unlock the vast contributions of high quality slow workers.

October 13. I'll eventually write about deeper stuff, but next week it will probably be politics again, and today, TV show reviews. I used to think it was a real danger that high-tech superstimuli would devour human attention, but as I get older that no longer matches my personal experience. It's getting hard for me to find shows that I like better than daydreaming and listening to the rain.

Starting with the worst, The 100 has a good premise, teenagers from a space station exploring Earth after a nuclear war, but the writing and acting could not be any worse without being more interesting. One notch up, Zoo is more interesting by being more trashy, with a ridiculous plot about a mutation that makes animals attack humans worldwide.

I love 19th century gothic literature, so I wanted to like Penny Dreadful, but the writers have no idea how to tell a story. Episode after episode drags by without advancing the plot, and the whole thing becomes a tiresome showcase for the beautiful dark cinematography and Eva Green's acting. (Update: the key to enjoying the first season is to view every scene as a stand-alone short film and pretend you don't speak English, or to skip episodes 4-7.)

You've probably heard about Stranger Things. It's sort of like Close Encounters or E.T., except that instead of advanced and benevolent space aliens, it's a brutal and horrific parallel world. The whole thing is really well done except that sometimes there are overacted arguments for no good reason. My favorite thing is that the people who seem completely crazy are the ones who best understand what's going on.

A while back I mentioned Dark Matter, the trope-heavy Canadian show about a space ship crew. It's no Firefly, but it continues to get better, and it's one of two shows we're currently watching where I look forward to the next episode.

The other is Scream Queens. The story is a parade of horror cliches, I can't relate to any of the characters, and most of the conversations are annoying macho posturing, but on the micro scale every element is bursting with creativity, and everyone involved seems to be having fun.

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 - April 2016
May - July 2016
July 2016 - ?