Archive for the ‘Reason’ Category

Hormones Rule Reason

January 30, 2017

Is reason free as a bird? Well, first birds are not that free, and reason springs from brain organization, something that biochemistry built.

Old wisdom: there is reason, and then there is its opposite, its enemy, irrationality. New wisdom: reason is context dependent and context is hormonally determined.

In turn, hormones are dependent upon cognitive environment…

(Nietzsche already wrote people thought with their stomach:”a spirit is more similar to a stomach”. A general mood already found in Napoleon’s writings:”an army marches on its stomach”.)

Indeed, there are the hormones everybody has heard of, but less noticed are neurohormones, more recently discovered. Neurohormones double as neurotransmitters. Dependent upon hormonal, and neurohormonal activity, part of the brain gets active (at least that’s my hypothesis). So what? So, mental inertia. Reason does not remain a question of logic as found in logic text books, but also a question of chemical logic, and vast inertia, as sub-organs within the brain gets active, or asleep: a sub-organ will develop according to activity (say posterior pituitary gland, versus its anterior part: they secrete different neurohormones!)

There Are 50 Neurohormones Known. Moreover, There Are More Ephemeral "Neurohumors"... These Chemical Universe Means Bias & Inertia

There Are 50 Neurohormones Known. Moreover, There Are More Ephemeral “Neurohumors”… These Chemical Universe Means Bias & Inertia

Tied up with that concept of chemical machines as the factories of reason within the brain, is psycho-rigidity, also called by me “mental inertia”.

A practical example: many anti-Trumpists revel in hatred at this point. Differently from other activists such as Islamists, anti-abortionists, neoconservatives, etc., they are unfamiliar with hatred, they are accustomed to it, and they really love it. After a few months of this, they may find it addictive, and pursue it by sheer mental inertia.

Reason is not just about building neuronal connections, it’s about building chemical factories within the brain. Factories are infrastructure: they don’t go up, or down, easily.

So, if one wants to become a superior mind, not cannot just cultivate one’s logic and facts carefully, and hope for the best. To reach the highest and best reason, one also has to manage which experiences, emotions, or types of emotions one engages in, and one has engaged in, carefully: emotions and experiences build up the brain, one just cognitively, logically, but in its very chemical infrastructure, and what one has the propensity to engage in, like, love, or detest. Mental imprinting, even apparently distant imprinting, even apparently distant imprinting of one’s feelings, impacts one’s subsequent capability to generate superior reason.

So one cannot just think about a subject, roll-out the Socratic method, and get it right. One has first to be in the appropriate mood. Socrates did not know this, and that’s why he ended up drinking hemlock, after 501 members of the jury found “he had corrupted the youth” (Socrates’ students and lovers imposed dictatorship and various lethal mishaps upon Athens, and it was widely considered that Socrates taught his students, many more than 40 years younger than him, in a way which was not appropriate; Athens lost her empire, and half her population in the war…)

Speaking of Socrates, indeed, the philosopher was widely viewed, at the time, as “anti-demos”. Still, Socrates is always, apparently always very logical. So how could Socrates be both very logical, and very wrong? Simple. Socrates was chemically disposed against the total democracy instituted by Pericles (and his top philosopher friends and lovers) which made Athens a lasting jewel for civilization. Thus he rolled out plenty of very logical logic against democracy.

The brouhaha against the Trump order against immigrants from seven countries gave several examples of a similar type. Obama’s spokesman said“With regard to comparisons to President Obama’s foreign policy decisions, as we’ve heard before, the President fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion,”

Motivated by a mood of cheap vengeance, (but I can understand the motivation of jumping in at the first occasion,) and with the advantage of getting in the interventionist mindset (which I advocated). Also wrong in several ways: first Trump said it was not “anti-Muslim” (there too, the occasion was too good to show everybody who the boss was… while rushing US Army tanks to the Baltics, to help sober up Putin in advance of NATO deployment in Spring).

Second, and more importantly, we DO discriminate against faiths or religions: more than 99.9% of historical faiths and religions are outlawed in Republics such as the USA or France (and their many parrots around). Did you try a human sacrifice, Gallic, Punic, or Aztec style recently? Or eat someone, Polynesian style, as happened when the esteemed Captain Cook got cooked in Hawai’i? No. Not really: it’s not our taste anymore. A question of stomach, in more way than one.

This means that we do discriminate against individuals who would insist on bringing back those faiths or religions. And why? Because such faith and individuals promoting them are incompatible with Republican law.

That is exactly the case of those faiths and individuals promoting “Sharia”, the so-called “Muslim law”, which is incompatible with Republican law. If we get in a mood of compromise, there, we will hurt, fatally in the long run, the Republic. With Sharia, the proper mood for the Republic is not tolerance, but abrogation and retribution against its unlawful promoters.

I will give another example soon of chemistry ruling reason: Sartre, De Beauvoir and other “existentialists” being all too existential, namely ruled by a mood all too sympathetic too pleasing to those who have the biggest stick around, and above. Those had a mood of submission (as Obama did), a brain chemically made for submission, not rebellion (whereas Camus did, and so did most real resistance fighters).

Any logic, logical textbooks will reveal, is bounded by the universe in which it is applied. Alternative facts will call on a different universe, thus a different logic. And those universes are chemically dependent.

I don’t believe in the multiverse as a foundation for physics. However, the multiverse is a fact, for reason itself. And those various universes are made from alternative facts and chemistry.

How we feel, how we felt, implies how we think, and will think. I think, therefore, I am in some universe, somewhere. Reason is not the end-all, be-all. And one of the reasons for the lack of reason, beyond emotion, is that logic itself is not one: consider the Incompleteness Theorems in metamathematics. Beyond those, modern logic has been demonstrated to be pretty much anything we want. And we want what feels good.

Reason has its reason that only the heart knows.

Patrice Ayme’

A Black Problem, Indeed

January 13, 2017

Defining people by the color of their skin, and, even worse, by the color that their skin does not have, is racism. Period. Take that one, and swallow it, it’s good medicine. “Niger” is Latin for “black”. For racist reasons, the word has been controversial. Yet, the situation is complex.

Consider Greek tragedy, during the greatest age of Athens, from space. What is tragedy about? Primarily, reason. Secondarily, the fate reason, or lack thereof, irresistibly brings forth. In turn, fate imprisons human beings in its icy grip. The solution is to educate the Furies, those “Ancient Children”.

Reason can, and should, be applied, not just to instruct children, but to words and the concepts attached to them.

I was brought, raised and educated, as a child, mostly in Africa, among Africans. Let me tell you something I knew, so extremely well, when I was six years old, that I never deviated from, be it only once, for decades thereafter. This ancient piece of wisdom was taught to me by my mom. She uttered it just once, as a warning, she did not have to do it twice:

Calling someone “black” in Africa, is perceived, rightly, as a RACIST insult: never do it. Call Africans, “Africans”. 

A Touareg Couple. The Blue People of the Desert. Don’t Call Them Black: They Would Think You Are A Lunatic, Ignorant, Offensive, Vicious Aggressor. And they are not Arabs, either... Touareg alphabet is more than twice older than Arabic alphabet...

A Touareg Couple. The Blue People of the Desert. Don’t Call Them Black: They Would Think You Are A Lunatic, Ignorant, Offensive, Vicious Aggressor. And they are not Arabs, either… Touareg alphabet is more than twice older than Arabic alphabet…

[The French called Touaregs “Les Hommes Bleus”, the blue men, as they protected themselves from the harsh desert heat, light, wind and sand with layers of blue cloth. They live in the middle of the world’s largest desert, the Sahara. They have been denied a country, so far. The desert was crisscrossed by traders, war parties and raiders, for millennia. And many came for slaves in Black Africa. However empires, such as the Almoravids, were also born there, ruling over 3,000 kilometers, all the way from Mali to Europe’s Al Andalus.]

Most Africans, indeed, are NOT “black”, but of various shades. Thus, if I were, say, beige, why would you call me “black”? I am so little to you that you don’t even look at me? Is calling me according to a color I don’t even have part of the general distortion of me you enjoy inflicting on me, and having me answer to?

Am I so insignificant to you, that you do not bother to find a proper qualifier for me, deeper than skin-deep? Or, worse of all, as many “blacks” are from the deepest forest, or are well-known to be viewed as such, are you trying to insinuate that, I too, are not from a culture worth mentioning?  

In a reply, Facebook DuJuan Ross observed that: “Malcolm X himself popularized the descriptive as a deliberate militating against White Supremacists resorting to it as a pejorative.”

Malcolm X had an interesting trajectory (including among various variants of Islam, one of which got him assassinated). His reddish hair inherited from his Scottish maternal grandfather brought him the nickname “Red”. Malcolm said: “I have more respect for a man who lets me know where he stands, even if he’s wrong. Than the one who comes up like an angel and is nothing but a devil.”

Malcolm X made his little reasoning that calling people of part African ancestry “black” and “negroes” . He was himself following Aimé Césaire and Leopold Sedar Senghor, world-famous writers and activists who made the same reasoning a generation prior. (My father was a friend of Senghor, a great writer, French MP and co-author of the French constitution and first president of Senegal.) The martiniquais poet and politician Aimé Césaire forged the word « négritude » Cesaire and Senghor used outright “negre”. “negritude” (negre being the French deformation of “niger”, namely black in Latin). Fine, I am all for it.

There is something correct about this, when addressing the culture and art of populations which are as black as black can be (say in parts of West Africa not long penetrated by Peuls). Indeed the art, there is delightfully obsessed by ultimate blackness. A painting where the dominant “color” is black can be eerily beautiful, and street artists in… Black Africa are experts at it. I am very attached to this art, tied to my childhood, and which have seen nowhere else. So one can use “black” where it is appropriate. What I am decrying is systematic, deliberate distortions of reality.

Aimé Césaire was from the Caribbean, not Africa. So it is only natural that he did not know that, in Africa, qualifying people by the color of their skin is frowned upon, and viewed, rightly, as racism. North Africans, Peuls, many East Africans, Ethiopians, Christian or not, and most enemies of the Zulus and other Bantus in South Africa, turn livid when one calls them black.

I find much of the work of Malcolm X deep and judicious. However, calling someone such as Obama, who is not any more “black” than 50 members of my own American family (I have seen them together) is not just ridiculous, it’s dishonest. Obama himself knows this very well, so why the double language? What are we selling, which require lies to be bought?

Let me repeat slowly: calling people by the color of their skin, and even more so when said color is imagined (as when someone beige is called “black”) is giving maximum importance to maximum superficiality. It’s not just racism, but an attack against reason.

But of course, it’s no accident. There is a meta-reason for it. When one celebrates attacks against reason in one area, one is then in the mood to make more attacks against in other areas. Thus one ends, deprived of reasons, nude and without defense when exploiters come to issue their orders. Hence the sorry state of affairs.

Ironically, the Obama presidency was a victim of the black problem. Having called Obama “the black president”, and viewing this superficial absurdity as a great success, most of Obama “supporters” did not support him at all, when and where he needed support and encouragement.

The failure of the Obama presidency is greatly entangled with the black problem of brandishing the black label as the end-all, be-all. Let’s stay away from all this obsession with skin color.

Reason is about finding out why people do what they do. There are always reasons. The Universe does not play with dice. Yes, I know Quantum Physics, in its present most accepted formulation, says the opposite. But that was in the last few decades, and evolution has been all about reason, in the last 600 million years, ever since there are brains, and they think.

So please learn to call black what’s black, and leave it at that. Obama was first an Hawaiian (who spent 4 years in Indonesia), brought and educated by white people, at Hawai’i most exclusive private school. Nothing black about any of that, and as any real African would tell you. 
Patrice Ayme’

Can A Religion Be Abject?

November 27, 2015

Are there abject religions? Yes, of course. Their annihilation, or domestication, describe the progress of civilization. 99% of the known religion were rejected, or outlawed, because, precisely, they were abject. Is there an objective criterion to find out if a religion is abject? Of course. The Romans, who launched our civilization, or, at least, our legal system, taught us that a religion is abject, and should be made unlawful, when it practices human sacrifices. Let’s outlaw religions clamoring for human sacrifices! Our ancestors did, let’s heed their example!

Rome, invaded and occupied by a Gallic tribe, or others, sacrificed of a couple or two. The Romans, though, were ashamed by what they had done. Human sacrifice was formally outlawed by senatorial decree in 97 BCE under the consulship of P. Licinius Crassus.

The Romans accused Carthage of killing children. Thus Romans acquired moral superiority on Carthage which created a mood conducive to the annihilation of that civilization. (Whether Carthage sacrificed children is still researched; archeological evidence points to the correctness of the Roman descriptions.)

Aztecs’ Description Of Paris, November 13, 2015: Jihadist Sacrificing Gourmet

Aztecs’ Description Of Paris, November 13, 2015: Jihadist Sacrificing Gourmet

[Codex Laud, folio 8.]

The Romans prohibited human sacrifices by the peoples they conquered (and used human sacrifices as a justification to conquer them). Romans advertised human sacrifices  as barbaric.

Outlawing them distinguished civilization from barbarity, said Rome. Rome was also critical of Greek mythology for celebrating human sacrifices in disguise, and that refined intellectual critique helped promote the switch to Christianism…

The same mood, of revulsion to human sacrifices, presided over the annihilation of the Aztecs.

The mood of being horrified by human sacrifices originated in Rome. However, human sacrifices were practiced in disguise for centuries (by gladiators’ deaths and the occasional sacrificed Vestal as happened once under emperor Domitian, as the chief Vestal having had sex).

Our civilization is Rome Renovated (as the Franks proclaimed in 800 CE). And the next question is: is there any religion today which practices human sacrifices?

Some have tried to deny that any religion practiced human sacrifices. Maybe because of the natural question:

Does Islam Practices Human Sacrifices In Disguise?

When a religion organizes human sacrifices, it orders to kill some particular individuals, under some circumstances. As Wikipedia says: Human sacrifice is the act of killing one or more human beings, usually as an offering to a deity, as part of a religious ritual. Human sacrifice has been practiced in various cultures throughout history.”

Is there, today, a religion which orders to kill other people and claims that those who kill other people go to paradise? Of course there is.

A religion which orders to kill “apostates”, “unbelievers”, “pagans”, “idolaters” of food, music and the good life in general, consists in practicing human sacrifices in disguise. Or, actually, come to think of it, not in disguise at all, but full view. The emperor wear no clothes, He is just drenched in blood. Islam also punishes homosexuals by stoning, to death (on the ground that this is the punishment in the Bible), “Adulterous” women get the same treatment: stoning by a crowd practicing human sacrifice.

LOL, Muslims, why don’t you call all your stoning, stoning, crucifixion, and whipping to death, human sacrifices?

So why is it lawful? Maybe I should ask the question in reverse: is (Literal, Salafist, Wahhabist) Islam lawful because it was not pointed out that all its most troubling practices amount to human sacrifices? Let’s point out, that’s what thinking is all about. And a last question: are those who promote Islam, thus the Qur’an, as Obama had done, promoting what is inside the Qur’an, namely the orders from God detailing when and when the believers are to engage in human sacrifices? And if not, why not?

Tip for anti-terrorism: stop calling them monsters “suicide bombers” or “Jihadists”. Call them what they are: human sacrificers.

But then, of course, one will have to overcome first the mood that simply describing the Qur’an in its own words is racism, as the Common (Plutocratic, Democracy-Destroying) Mood has it. Can reality be racist? This whiff of realism could well end up with the wealthiest paying 93% tax, as they did under Republican president Eisenhower, lest the realistic mood takes over, and various superstitions squirm back to the unspeakable shadows they should have never left.

Patrice Ayme’

Transgender, Transreal, & How Pluto Profits

October 24, 2015

I am very transgender in mentality. In both directions, of course. Whatever that exactly means. I also know that gender is a matter of an hormonal landscape, in which chromosome identity (XX, XY, XXY, etc.) is only one factor. However, that does not mean I throw reality out of the window.

Humanity is steering the planet, towards oblivion. The obvious cause is that we are led by greedy, clownish “leaders” who masquerade as “elected”. In truth, they are not leading, they are just middle-men who hope to make a good “career” by pleasing the masters, like the butlers they are.

Yet the situation is worse than it looks. Consider the middle Middle Ages. The European Middle Ages, but I could adjust the same discourse to the Indian, Chinese, or Japanese Middle Ages. Europe is a clearer, better known case. It was a time of princesses, princes, and devotion to the Christian god. As Sade, Nietzsche, and various mafiosi observed, it was just the opposite: the European aristocracy was barely more than the largest organized crime operation in the world, and the wars it organized, a way to physically and mentally divided the people they subjugated into minced meat (when truly necessary).

Agnes Sorel Forced Charles VII To Make War, Or She Would Bed The English King Instead, As Eleanor Did.

Agnes Sorel Forced Charles VII To Make War, Or She Would Bed The English King Instead, As Eleanor Did.

Wedding the English king after divorcing the French king is what Eleanor, Duchesse d’Aquitaine had done earlier, and had many children. All subsequent English and French monarchs were her descendants for generations.

What was wrong with the Middle Ages?

The mood. This veneration of people such as Eleanor.

The “Christian” mood of the populace, the fake-Christian, hysterical mood of the leaders. The mood, superstitious and full of tribal anger (consider the pogroms against Jews, Cathars, Waldenses/Protestants, “witches”; and the crisscrossing of Europe by war parties and related “grandes companies” and other armies of brigands).

The superstitious mood is entangled by the celebrity mood, and both are adverse to the triumph of wisdom. The celebrity mood made people look up to princes and princesses (the word, originally used when the Roman Republic was dying, comes from “princeps”, first, and Augustus loved it).

Germaine Greer once at the edge of feminism, is now condemned as somebody so bad by a tribe so well-organized, a university she was supposed to talk at, implied that she should not be allowed to speak in public (as they will not insure her safety). The loudly “transgender” pseudo-tribe has condemned Greer. And, as usual, there is the public discourse, and the real one I suspect (below).

In Reality Greer Attacked The Celebrities Paid To Attack Reality, The Kadarshians

In Reality Greer Attacked The Celebrities Paid To Attack Reality, The Kadarshians

[In the USA, everything is bigger, compare with the “Dame de Beaute'”, the Fifteenth Century Agnes Sorel, above. And Kim Kadarshian is the specialist of reality, or so you will find, Rollingstone asserts, once you enter her real world…]

Tribalism is the way out of metaphysical loneliness. One advantage of “careers” is that they manufacture tribalism. An advantage of hostility strongly shared, let alone mass hatred, is that it creates a fake world solved by tribalism, and the tribal cement to go with.

Witness what is going on in Israel/Palestine. The best solution there is a global secular republic (or union) containing two states therein (a bit like the European Union model).

Chris Snuggs: ““philosophy” means “love of knowledge”, which has actually little to do with what philosophers do. What today is “science” was once “philosophy”. What today’s philosophy is is basically “speculation about the nonscientific” or ” speculative musing about the meaning of life and the processes of thought and its expression through language.”

Patrice: “Linguistic” philosophy has grown malignant indeed. Yet, philosophy, the philosophical method, is more needed than ever, and that is exactly why it is more dead than ever in the plutocratic system, and its universities. There, what passes for philosophy is all too often just garbage.

Watch what I said about the importance of moods. I am applying the philosophical method: telling the truth, sticking to reality. Mood calculus includes, crucially, the unsaid, and unexpressed.

The deepest questions at the edge of science, from Lamarckism to what it means when galaxies recess faster than light, or whether high energy physicists know what they are talking about, involve state of the art philosophy.

However, indeed, Chris, what’s often taught in philosophy departments is abysmal, indeed. This has to do with the fact that it takes (say) a decade to study all of science at high enough a level beyond high school, to have a fair idea of the scientific landscape.

Society, let alone universities, do not view this sort of global knowledge as valuable. Plato required the equivalent of a graduate level knowledge of mathematics. Nearly all “philosophers” now don’t know anymore calculus than Trudeau, Cameron, Hollande, Putin, Xi, Roussef, or Obama.

But of the degeneracy of philosophy has to do with the rise of “analytic philosophy” in Anglo-Saxon countries. Russell, its founder found it had become thoroughly unworthy. On the continent, the derangement was due to the rise of fascism (Soviet or Mussolini style).

What did the veteran feminist, Ms Greer say, which supposedly infuriated some transgender fanatics?

“I just don’t think that surgery turns a man into a woman. A perfectly permissable view. I mean, an un-man is not necessarily a woman. We don’t really know what women are and I think that a lot of women are female impersonators, because our notion of who we are is not authentic, and so I am not surprised men are better at impersonating women than women are. Not a surprise, but it’s not something I welcome.”

Surgery, as practiced today, is little different from what the best prehistoric doctors did successfully: amputation. OK, in the future, we will grow organs. It is studied. It is the future. But not yet a fact.

Kim Kadarshian seems to believe that reality, or rather, learning how to rape reality, is her business model. Said she, talking about her transgender, surgery challenged step-father, now a pseudo-woman:

“He lives his life the way he wants, a really authentic life, and he was like, ‘If you can’t be authentic and you can’t live your life, what do you have?’”

You want authenticity? Ask the Kadarshians, they know all about it. They accept plastic, any day.

Germaine Greer has accused TV star Caitlyn Jenner of emulating the limelight of other (female) members of the Kadarshians family.

The Australian-born feminist courted controversy by asserting that “misogyny played a big part” in the rumors that Glamour magazine would give Jenner its woman of the year award.

Jenner, who was born Bruce, and got many Olympic medals as a male, was married to Kris Jenner, Kim Kardashian’s mother, until they filed for divorce early last year, and cannot get enough of his celebrity status, apparently.

Greer says that so-called transgender women, who, admittedly, began life as males, before undergoing surgery and hormone treatments to “become women”, are “not women”. Greer says that they do not “look like, sound like or behave like women”. Instead they behave as males who want to steal everything from women, including femininity. So they trample not just on reality, but on justice too.

Clearly those transgender creatures, not to say creations, are not females (that requires XX chromosomes). But to pretend that they are females, because some people just said so, is the effect the owners of the Main Stream Media, all very rich men, are after: namely destroy any common sense, and make a religion out of that destruction.

Not to say that attack against reality are only the work of transgender crazies. Giving the Nobel Prize to drone crazy Obama was not just funny, but unreal. And not that this was started yesterday. Among the pious, ever since Viceroy Lord Mountbatten said so, Gandhi has been viewed as a paragon of pacifism. Never mind that pacifist Gandhi, praying like an Hindu, helped to bring colossal, multi-generational, religious strife, 15 million refugees, & millions dead. (No wonder he got depressed.)

Christianism to is a religion of peace and love, especially regarding Cathars (exterminated), Jews (pogromized), Muslims (roasting their children a must when hungry, see the First Crusade), or any sort of intellectuals or printers (burned alive). And Joan of Arc, the one of the same king as Agnes Sorel, of course saved France, or so pseudo-French fanatics, by re-igniting a war with London which lasted another four centuries with real guns, and which France is still busy losing, to this day…

Reality is a hard mistress, and the one which always wins. Yet, we control it, to a great extent now, because we are the nonlinear species, ready, even mandated, for immortality. Not that we have a choice.  Humanity is the “why” species. Also the “no” species. Yes, no and why, for the God(s), incarnated, for real. And the problem the gods have is whether they want to aspire to grab Kim’s fake reality, or stick to exercising our reality muscles.

Patrice Ayme’

Why Insist On The DARK Side?

May 23, 2015

The First Thing That Studying The Dark Side Reveals, Is That:

Individuals, Operate According To Different Neurological “LAWS”, So, Instead Of being One, As One Naively Expects, The INDIVIDUAL IS MANY. Ex Uno Plures.

We have met the Multiverse, and it’s us…

So why to study the Dark Side, besides generating confusion? Well, precisely because it is dark. And when we throw a light on it, we see all what our simplified lives have hidden. Instead, if one wants to understand what we are capable of, we have to bring the Dark Side to the light. How does one do that? One tries to understand one’s own reasons and motivations.

Some will sneer that this insight is not knew. Some will point out at Socrates’ “Know Thyself”. However, Socrates picked up what was the Delphi Oracle’s motto. Delphi was an interesting consortium managed by women. Nor was Delphi first. The Greeks apparently traded silk with China as early as the Sixth Century BCE. And they certainly traded philosophical and mathematical ideas with India. They may have heard of Lao Tzu. As traditionally related, custom officials prevented Lao Tzu to leave China, heading West, before he wrote down some of his ideas. Many of those were strikingly modern:

Lao Tze 600 BCE, Deep. But We Don't Want To Eliminate Ourselves. Sympathy For The Devil

Lao Tze 600 BCE, Deep. But We Don’t Want To Eliminate Ourselves. Sympathy For The Devil

Dark and negative? Sometimes circumstances call for dark negativism. When Sparta marched an army into Athens to eject tyrants who had succeeded to the enlightened democracy shepherded by Solon, it was dark, and negative, but necessary. From that promptly rose Athens’ Direct Democracy, a beacon to this day. World War Two was another famous example of diabolical negativism unleashed for the best reasons.

Is man rational? Some say yes, some say no. Pascal uttered that there were two sorts of reasons: one of them from “the heart, which has its reasons which reason does not have”.

So what’s reason? Generally that question is interpreted as: is man logical? The Logos, one of three deities or avatar of the deity, of Christianism (!) is about simple “logical” rules. Say:

(A-> B & B->C) -> (A->C). More generally, the old fashion logos can be generalized as diagram chasing as in Category Theory.

Logic, as traditionally envisioned, and Category Theory are all describable point to point and digitally. As both Quantum Mechanics and Non-DNA genetics point out, this is not how the world works, in full.

(Digitally is how the Abacus, and our Twentieth Century computers work; but that’s not saying much: that’s precisely their shortcoming; the Quantum Computers use Quantum mechanics, hence the continuously differentiable nature of the world.)

So it’s not surprising our brains act continuous differential. Just the opposite of neurons’ most spectacular antics. That consist in firing long range electric potential impulses down axons.

Continuously differential brainy means the EMOTIONAL, NEUROHORMONAL system.

How do we control that?

Well, that’s straining a bit out of the traditional approach to wisdom. Kama Sutra (truly a good life and family manual) and Tantric Texts come to mind (digging in the Tantra reveals a lot of analogy with what I preach, or what De Sade observed, namely that embracing nature is often the best teaching).

But one is better off observing how famous leaders of humanity, those who imparted momentum to civilization, lived. Well, they lived, mostly dangerously, and more strikingly, in various behavioral modes. Most monarchs were hard lovers and warriors, while appreciating the arts, and even science (contemplate the Duke of Normandy and Conqueror of England, asking pointed question about the state of motion of the Earth, of Ptolemy, the Marshall of Alexander (“the Great”) establishing Alexandria as a capital of knowledge, or Francois I, Louis XIV, and Napoleon pushing the sciences; contemplate Muhammad, warrior and philosopher).

And don’t forget Socrates’ military exploits, including, among other things killing four hoplites in hand to hand combat, and helping a wounded comrade survive in an harrowing retreat after a heavy defeat of the Athenian army.

What is going on here? What has hunting all day long, and skirt chasing to do with governance? Just as Catherine The Great, after she got her husband killed, and took as lovers many of the alpha males she detected. As Vlad The Putin would point out, that manly, adventurous attitude got her army a few miles from Berlin, and all over Ukraine.

What is going on is that varied behaviors lead to varied neurohormonal regimes, various moods, thus varied sets of mental laws. In the same “individual”.

This, in turn, leads to operating the brain under different “LAWS”. I borrowed the expression from Airbus, an airline company based in Toulouse, France. Airbus and its ancestors invented Fly By Wire (FBW), inaugurated with Concorde, (adopted for the Space Shutle,) and exclusively used in the Airbus 320 (now all serious aircraft makers have followed). When a plane flies normally it is in “normal law”. When things get abnormal, the computerized brain of the plane change “laws”, with the idea to put the pilots in charge. (The system has worked very well, for decades, up to two weeks ago when a brand new A400 M transport plane crashed because of a computer bug.)

The situation with human brains is that neurohormonal regimes put brains in different laws, that is, in different logics. This cannot be denied. It was intuitively understood, for a long time: hence the avice to not get angry, and that anger, or fear, are bad advisers, etc.

Well, maybe that’s the wrong approach. Maybe anger, fear, love, instead of being eschewed, have to be embraced, to explore the world under a different law.

Let’s go back to the aeronautical analogy. That A400M which crash was flown in a TEST, as a TEST aircraft (it was its first flight), by TEST pilots and engineers. As it turned out that was also the TEST of a new software to enable some specific military operations (acting on fuel and what is called “trimming”, a displacement of center of mass related to fuel, inaugurated on Concorde, nearly fifty years ago).

Well, the tests ended catastrophically: three engines cut-off, and the plane, badly trimmed, banked abnormally, and crashed.

It would have been better to run the whole thing as a thought, rather than test experiment. But for aircraft, there is no choice. Just as, for the Earth, there is no choice: we cannot run the Earth as a TEST SPACESHIP, doing whatever, and see what happens.

Because, whereas one crashed plane can be replaced, the Earth cannot.

So we have to make the most thorough thought experiments, much more thorough than we ever did before.


Because we want to understand our minds, or, more exactly, the minds of the oligarchy of a few thousands, dominated by Xi, Putin, Obama, Merkel, Hollande, and a few hundreds associated top plutocrats of, fully equipped with herds of minions, all the way down to academic critters producing the requested logic (plutocratic law).

Look back down at history. Consider FDR, a president of the USA at a time when, to avoid a holocaust, he had to make a united front with the French Republic. Instead, FDR did the opposite, pronouncing, ten years later, when they holocaust had been already unleashed, and millions were already dead, that the USA was the “Arsenal of Democracy”.

What motivated FDR in weakening and opposing France, while arguing with Hitler, when at the same time replacing his ambassador (Dodd) precisely because he was antagonistic to the Nazis, and tolerating a massive policy of investment with the Nazis that violated neutrality, and so on? One has to go to psychoanalysis.

My explanation? FDR was actually a plutocrat. His family had a (self-created) coat of arms (mine too, but it’s the fault of the king of Aragon, 12 centuries ago).

However, a half paralyzed Roosevelt had to impose an anti-plutocratic policy as candidate and president. And then FDR got the French government in his face, telling him he was all wrong. Indeed, then wrong FDR did, by being all too friendly to Hitler, and refusing Jewish refugees. In the end, FDR lived in denial.

The ultimate was when, although from an institutionally racist USA, FDR had to fight to death the racist-in-chief, Adolf Hitler, and make in a sense its bed for the Liberty-Equality-Fraternity Republic (never mind that France was not really that; FDR was furious he was pulled in the wrong direction; indeed, soon, under the pressure of the war, the U.S. army pushed for desegregation.

Notice that then one has to interpret emotions, such as FDR’s rage against the French, or his de facto friendliness to enemies of France such as Stalin. Texts, the digital thing, are insufficient.

To get to know ourselves, we have to know, not just our logic (roll over Socrates), or what we know (as a library of facts and demonstrations). We also have to know our emotions, and where they came from. More than that, we have to know what they are, or could be, capable of.

Thus we have not just to cultivate our garden (Voltaire), but also cultivate our emotional system, and especially its potential character. Don’t just imagine the Light. Imagine also the Dark.

Patrice Ayme’