Tagged: love
Reading Log 6.9.2025




Heart of Darkness was a spur of the moment addition to what I had lined up. I stepped out of my car in my sister’s neighborhood and the neighbor whose yard I was parking in front of, and of whom I inquired if the parking spot was okay, became chatty and mentioned he’d read the book 10 times. He mentioned many other things about it too. I hadn’t read it in years (there’s a review on here from a decade or so ago). So I figured I’d give it a re-read. It is scary. Definitely not for kids. And yet it is a must read. Also, the film adaptation Apocalypse Now is probably the best adaptation of any book/story ever.
****
Freud is someone I kinda disdain with all my heart. What a waste.
So everyone is living on the planet, all hunky-dory, and then one man says, “You know that feeling in your belly, the one you get when you haven’t filled your belly in a while? Well, we get hungry and have needs in our minds too, don’t ya know? Oh, and this means we invented religion.”
I enjoy reading people who I disagree with—I like trying to imagine arguing with them. So there’s that. But Freud is someone whose influence I could live without. I will say this, though. Rather, I’ll let him say it.

Freud went on to declare that Marxism and its “suffer now, be rewarded later” propaganda was, to him, no different than religion—and needs to go, too. So with that I say, Freud, ol’ buddy ol’ pal, pull up a chair. Let’s get you another round.
****
I had been reading that Eddington for far too long. I am happy to be finished with it. He is exactly my style and we see the same world. The main takeaway that an honest man like Sir Eddington gives is the truth about the speed of light. He very clearly explains that the speed of light is, in fact, not unsurpassable. Instead, what the physicists mean is the speed of light is universal. His analogy is that it is the “wood grain” of the (wood)universe. Even while he was alive they had experimentally collided electrons or whatever together and gone “faster” than the speed of light. But that doesn’t affect the fact that nothing is faster than the speed of light. This is because the speed of light is the separation of time from space. So if you were to go “faster”, you’d be combining time and space, which is clearly unimaginable.
****
I picked up this book on AI for obvious reasons. And guess what? My instincts were right again. There is nothing to fear. AI does not learn. It does not read. It does not understand.
In short, the computer nerds learned from the brain nerds that between 1. a conscious decision to move the body, and 3. the brain-activity that moves the body are 2. many other brain-activities whose purpose is unknown. So the computer nerds built (2.-like) delays between “do this” commands and “do this NOW” action. And then, the computer nerds programmed the “do this NOW” action to respond to “you failed” responses with (actual jargon alert) back-propagation. It is this back-propagation that is “mysterious” and where the nerds say the AI is “learning”. But again, the AI is not learning, it is following commands and making exceedingly subtle adjustments. The trouble for the nerds is the time it would take to map out all the exceedingly subtle adjustments of back propagation is considerable—and even if they took the time, they’d simply have a ton of data points and not really any necessary reason to draw one conclusion from another as to why the program executed either 1. that many actions or 2. those actions in particular in order to not “fail” again.
Talk about navel-gazing.
Regarding handling and “seeing” images, the computer nerds, this time, learned from the eyeball-nerds. In short, the eyeball nerds have learned that there is a distinct method to how we see, which essentially goes from big to small. Like, outside, blue sky, green earth, forest, tree, tree branch, tree leaf, leaf veins etc.
So on an image, the computer nerds tell a program to find edges first, and then go from there. Again, AI does not see anything. It just is really good at the game of “memory” (unless humans screw with images in certain, invisible to naked eye, ways.)
One final comment of recommendation for this book. (You really should admit ignorance and read it.) The author describes the phrases “AI Spring” and “AI Winter”. And she proceeds to use them throughout her description of AI’s history. In short, AI “astounds” someone (Computer beats Chess Champion), and money shows up in large amounts. The computer nerds take the money and promise everlasting life. This is AI Spring. Then the computer nerds fail to deliver. The money dries up. This is AI Winter. The cycle repeats. ICYMI, we are currently in AI Spring, more like AI Monsoon. But winter is coming. It always does and always will. Withstand the hype! You can do it!
The Idea: Keep My Kids Out of War
How best to accomplish this?
My method is simple. I will teach them of the utter madness of most wars. If I am successful, then my kids will be so distrustful of the concept of destruction-based-improvement, that they’ll only engage in it when it is absolutely the best decision.
Why this post? Because I am not certain my simple method will work.
What say you?
Filling Space
George Carlin joked about how people acquire space—then we fill it up. Something like, “Look! There’s some space! Let me put something there!” (It’s Saturday. I know. I’ll help if you’re not yet bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. Think of our closets, rooms, trunks of cars, open land etc.)
Isn’t the same thing true for mental space? I’m thinking specifically about “misinformation” “delusions” “lies” and the like. What is our problem? We just can’t keep mental space empty? We can’t admit “I don’t know” and wait to fill it until we do? Does there have to be a filler for every single topic that enters our mind?
Is that healthy? Does it even accomplish anything? We all just walk around spouting lies as if no one can tell, even though we also, on some level, know we “don’t know” everything?
Is it really so hard to keep a clean mental house? Is it really so hard and inhumane to tell your conversant, “Now, you know that’s not true”?
What is it? Is it that we need people in proximity to us so desperately that we’d rather put up with their incessant, void-preventing bullshyat than call them to try harder to keep their integrity?
I don’t get it.
Parental Bliss
Your 4 year old is eating a watermelon wedge.
She loves it.
And you love watching her bite diligently closer and closer to the rind.
You turn away to talk to your spouse.
You turn back and there is no more watermelon. No red part. No rind.
Behind the empty plate on the table is nothing but your little girl wearing the satisfied expression that only comes from a job well done.
That is bliss.
On The Highly Placed Women Of Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning
The only criticism I dared mention to my group after the movie (it was midnight and we were tired) was, “I think they went a bit overboard on the ‘women as leaders’ part. I mean the President, the aircraft carrier boss, the president’s close friend/cabinet member, both Osprey pilots, and even a Navy SEAL with the biceps of a 15 year old boy. It was a bit much.”
For this blog, forget the twin aspects of whether women should be in those roles and whether women ever would be in all those roles together. Instead, consider the following.
Before AI, Hollywood didn’t make movies with that many women in leadership roles.
In other words, the rise of Hollywood’s portrayal and seeming belief that it is important and necessary to portray women in leadership roles if we want women to actually be accepted as leaders across the board, but especially in areas that are traditionally male dominated, has come about at precisely the same time that AI is “taking over”.
Coincidence?
Irrelevant?
Boring to consider?
Or maybe there is fruit in the consideration of just how this pairing happened and its meaning—especially if men invented AI.
Just thoughts.
No More LifeGuard Babes
I don’t know if you saw, but the other day a nerd-bomber with a drone just spontaneously and brilliantly saved a person from drowning by flying out a rescue device. (Took two tries actually.)
For those of you who can read facts but struggle to draw conclusions correctly, allow me to help. This simple, lifesaving effort just removed all hope of me ever receiving CPR from a Baywatch-style lifeguard, a la Sandlot scheming.
Until this event, I have to say that I didn’t believe any single person’s actions could be more disastrous to life on earth than the first man to work through the siesta.
The future is bleak. And apparently limitlessly so.
Reading Log 5.18.25





****
Ben Franklin is a remarkable man. Plenty of little nuggets throughout, but the overall sense is probably no one was adapted to his time better than BF.
****
Too much of my life has included the cultural icons, “The X-Men”. So it only made sense to get their original comics. They do not disappoint. The main, concrete benefit is the movies are more enjoyable. Coming in close second—the first comics can be rough around the edges and highly “experimental” or very “willing to take chances and then adjust”. So besides the inherent story that resonates so well with coming-of-age, we find an example of how to pursue your passion.
****
Locke and Hume are worth reading, but I can confess that their ideas are so foundational for our society that they only pack a punch if you have the uncommon ability to imagine what life was like before them.
****
Jordan Peterson loves Brothers Karamazov. Ooh. So sexy sounding, no? It’s one of those “tells you more about him than the book” claims. I mention it because I read this book years ago precisely because it was one of the greats. So don’t take this as a bash of JP. Instead, take it as a DUH! THE BOOK IS GREAT! YOU NEED TO READ IT! shameless promotion.
My Fellow Americans, Do You Know Who You Are?
Here’s a passage from James Fenimore Cooper’s Afloat and Ashore, circa 1840s. (We would call it a YA adventure novel.)
“So I will concede that money is the great end of American life—that there is little else to live for in the great model republic. Politics have fallen into such hands, that office will not even give social station… (Italics mine).”
This is from a speech made by the main character, a 17 yr old.
My point is this: Do you honestly think MAGA or AOC is capable of increasing your opinion of politicians? There is at least 180yrs of evidence to support the idea that you’re a fool if you do.
The disdain you feel for politicians is in your blood no different than your blood is in your body.
Just Have To Smile
When you work at an airport and shortly after arriving see and hear a brightly colored colored biplane suddenly appear from behind your hangar on what, by altitude and position, must be its base turn, looking like it is the one that needs saving from the opening scene of Disney’s The Rocketeer, you just have to smile.
Education Cannot Result In Less Education
I have two HS Freshman and two more kids that will soon be entering kindergarten in sequence (this fall and fall 2027). Faithful readers already knew as much. Likewise, you know that I read, for pleasure, as much as any human. The substance of what I read, with only limited deviations—mostly enacted to prove I am not AI—includes great books, great essays, and great articles.
Consequently, education is always on my mind—whether my own education, my kids’ education, or your education.
Education.
What is education?
One of the great articles I recently read was from, “Reporting Vietnam: Part One”. It was written by Susan Sheehan, and entitled, “A Viet Cong: A Defector Tells His Story 1965”.
This defector, this poor soul, this (Victor) Charlie was recruited and had to sit through, and later lead other Charlies in, “political studies”.
I doubt any of us would consider what the VC were doing was “education”.
If you read any current news on the subject of education, you’ll come upon articles and propaganda about school choice. How long has it been? Since GW Bush, right? Maybe earlier.
The anti-school-choice folks run an argument that insists that because available money will be directed to White Christian Nationalist Schools (my understanding of their latent fear), the already poor blacks will receive a worse education.
But this simply is not true. I know, because I am educated. And education cannot lead to less education anymore than there is only one everlasting total of wealth to be divided among Earth’s occupants. Less education is possible. But it is never the result of education.
People who are educated, to a man, know that the poor blacks find themselves in one of the most fortunate positions fate has ever given humans. It is theirs to either exploit or abuse.
The available money that these anti-school-choice folks seem to believe will be siphoned to the White Christian Nationalist Schools in some manner of a deviously rich-get-richer, power helps power, or even plain ol’, unpunished theft, believe it either A. will be spent on indoctrination or “political studies” (NOT education) or B. will be spent on education in its true sense. (The truth, of course, is even in the best educational institution, it will be some mix, as purity is hard won.)
If A., then the fight isn’t about money, but about the definition of education. If B., then the folks arguing against school choice aren’t making an argument. Instead, they are manifesting envy in their wish to sabotage the education of others—an immature, “I can’t have a good life, so you don’t get one either” attitude.
I know this to be true because I believe education cannot result in less education.
So, to my anti-school-choice readers: if what you fear is White Christian Nationalist Schools are not conducting education, then say so. But be ready to be asked to explain just what exactly you wish to do with the poor blacks if you had enough political clout to direct the available money to them.
As for me, I say that the most natural thing in the world is to deregulate education. It should be completely pay-to-play, every parent for themselves. Public schools must be abolished. The educated rich will more than happily subsidize earnest poor black families who agree to attending institutions which conduct education. (Yes, I am suggesting written plans/agreements, which could be broken/dissolved, that include formal declaration of what the education will include and how the student and their family will perform.)
How do I know? Because education cannot result in less education. There are many ways to be confident that education is occurring. For today, I’ll simply say that one certain, though incomplete, way to discern that the so-called “educational” experience is not education is that accountability is never agreed upon or assessed.
Public schools must be abolished. Always supporting “school choice” seems the most natural first step. On the other hand, supporting “public schools”, or what is the same, supporting “the perfectly even or fair expenditure of money per student”, seems the most natural expression of “doing the same thing and expecting different results”.
No matter how you frame it, education cannot result in less education.