-a dispatch from the grief process
Addenda to my last post Somatic Experience of Grief:
The body isn’t a thing, it’s a situation; it’s our grasp on the world and our sketch of our project.
—Simone de Beauvoir.
Just ran into this quote today. Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about.
This is a post of diverse fragments written over the past few days. Next posts will be a little more coherent perhaps.
Thinking today about future histories (and other really abstract sorts of things).
When we have plans with someone and they die, our future dies with them in a way.
This is qualitatively different than with those with whom we have a long past, like grandparents or parents. With them we have a past history.
The situations are weighted differently. The present is the fulcrum and in envisioning linear time that fulcrum moves and the weights change. Sometimes it goes off balance when the weights shift suddenly. Grief is in part trying to shift things around so some equilibrium is re-established. Til the next time. Hence we have terms in our language like “burden of grief”
Of course these pasts and futures are projections from the present. They are irreducibly entangled with the past, present and future of everyone else. There’s an awful lot of variables there. Incalculable.
We live a life of probability. What do you place your bets on?
We make calculations on a continual basis as to what shows promise as being relatively stable. We discuss things with others so as to align our trajectories and construct a plausible future plan. We base that on knowledge that we have gained through experience, our own or that of others we trust. Trust is an issue in this as well.
In the paper Formalizing Negotiations Using Logic Programming–that’s a PDF–the authors outline ways to address some issues in negotiations using methods from logic. They cover two examples, one regarding disinformation and the other regarding bullshit—they actually call it bullshit too. [See my afterward on this post regarding what bullshit is.] It’s a very advanced paper and I don’t understand a lot of it right now. But some things are fairly clear. There are a lot of variables involved as I mentioned. We can figure these out right from the start. There are also a lot we can’t. As the authors note:
..a negotiation between real-life agents involves reasoning with incomplete information, preferences, goal changes, multiple issues and dishonesty.
These are kind of nebulous or fuzzy variables that we can’t really predict or rely on in any kind of definitive way. Most of life involves these kinds of things. We can never have ALL of the information we need to make a decision. We can’t know everyone’s preferences for everything all the time. We can’t control people changing their minds about what they want to do. We also can’t tell all the time if a person is dealing in good faith or not, or if they may even be fooling themselves about some things.
Beyond that we can’t account for the influence of outside or unknown factors or even know what they might be most of the time. No one expects to have heart failure in their sleep or to get struck by lightning or get a disease or suddenly lose their job to downsizing or conversely, to win a lottery or meet someone they will love or solve some great mystery that has plagued humanity or similar things. You can’t plan for any of that.
This probability stuff is way more complicated than we often realize.
Consider a fairly innocuous example. We see a concert advertised and decide we’d like to attend. The time between seeing this advertisement and actually attending the concert is a fairly complex one full of decisions and actions all based on probabilities.
Let me outline it in something like an algorithmic format but I don’t want to make a flow chart right now so you’ll have to settle for the construction I’m making—but it could be flowcharted.
Notes first: I’ll just use a simple if-then kind of construction. (there are also timing factors here-some primary conditions have to be accomplished before others can be processed) (there are also sub conditions that have to be met before the primary conditions listed can be met—I’ve put those in <> brackets behind rather than make a giant bunch of nested statements)
If <I want to attend the concert>
- check that time of concert does not conflict with other engagements or obligations <further conditions #1> <further conditions #1 include: calendar is available, all appointments have been recorded fully and correctly, etc.>
- a willing companion who <further conditions #2> <further conditions #2 include: is friendly, is available, can afford it, isn’t ill at the time, wants to attend, etc>
- tickets for self and companion <further conditions #3> <further conditions #3 include: availability of tickets, money to buy them, means of transportation to pick them up, etc>
- etc. [I didn’t feel like breaking down the whole thing and it would probably be more boring for anyone reading this if I did]
These are all interdependent conditions. That’s what I mean by probability.
It’s a nice day to start again.
There is nothin’ fair in this world
There is nothin’ safe in this world
And there’s nothin’ sure in this world
And there’s nothin’ pure in this world
Look for something left in this world
~Billy Idol, White Wedding
-a philosophical fragment
While I was writing this post I stopped for a bit and stumbled upon an interesting article. It’s not all that relevant to the post but this part has some terms I find interesting. You don’t need to know who Norbert Weiner, Sadie Plant or Nick Land are, but if you do then you’ll get the <scholarship bonus! FTW!>
The term “cyberpositive” was a twist on Norbert Wierner’s ideas of “negative feedback” (homeostasis), and “positive feedback” (runaway tendencies, vicious circles). Where the conservative Wiener valorized “negative feedback”, Plant/Land re-positivized positive feedback–specifically,: the tendency of market forces to generate disorder and destabilise control structures.
~from RENEGADE ACADEMIA: THE Cybernetic Culture Research Unit, director’s cut of unpublished feature for Lingua Franca, 1999; short remix appeared in Springerin, 2000 by Simon Reynolds
OK I don’t really have the energy to deal with this right now (getting some negative feedback in Weiner’s cybernetic sense of the word). I’ll just keep it in here for future reference so I can come back to it in another post. In short though, Nick Land is an “accelerationist” guy. I don’t care for his philosophy. Accelerationism is an awful lot like the popular “lean in” notions that are going around presently. If you read Ranciere you know about dromology and it’s relationship to militarism and fascism. Accelerationism, even from the radical left point of view, (I don’t really know how that’s possible anyways except by misreading or distorting Trotsky or Lenin), is not good news IMO. But that’s a very long discussion.
I’ve decided I want to learn more about how formal logic and logic notation works. (but I don’t want to hang out with the “Less Wrong” people (if you know who they are then good for you) as their slavering over all things Bayesian is a little hard to take. I’ve wanted to delve a little deeper into logic for some time but was busy with other things. Now? What the fuck else do I have to do?
I’m going to start with this. From here.
[Also recommended H. G. Frankfurt. 2005. On Bullshit. Princeton Univ. Press. -there’s PDFs of it available in the usual places.]
Here’s some things about logical notation that I’ve found upon a very cursory search:
I think it helps to already understand Boolean logic etc (probably you do too even if you don’t know what it’s called. It’s when you use things like OR, AND or NOT when you are querying a database for example.) Here’s things about that. How Boolean Logic Works, Boolean algebra Also if you’ve ever made a Venn diagram (the kind with the overlapping circles) that is a Boolean sort of representation.
It would certainly make my blog posts, including this one, shorter. I may have to make a key at the top if I ever use this in a blog post. It would be kind of fun. Like that time I did those e-prime posts [here and here]. I also wonder if some of the Buddhist propositions could be written like this. I see it as a system that interconnects as a unified whole and I think that could be expressed, the internal logic of it anyways. (I suspect a certain amount of tautology would be involved—not the bad kind of tautology but the better kind.lol.) Kind of an advanced project for sure but it would be interesting to map it out.
Also all the notation symbols for the logic stuff are available in Unicode which means one doesn’t have to hunt for special symbol fonts or insert images or some other ridiculous workaround.
Maybe I’ll look for a MOOC on introductions to this subject. Or maybe Khan Academy has something. You’d think so.
[Here’s a weird thing. I wrote the above, then on Twitter about 2 hours later this was posted. Logic: Language and Information 1. It’s on Coursera. Not exactly what I was looking for but a start. Clearly it will be some time before Principia Mathematica makes any sense to me tho. lol.]
Relationships geography examined in tweets.
I did not know how to reach him,
where to catch up with him.
It is such a secret place,
the land of tears.
~ Antoine de Saint- Exupéry