Posts Tagged ‘Neurohormones’

INVICTUS We Should BE: Free Will, Determinism, Classical & Quantum Mechanics, Neurohormonal States

April 2, 2018

Conventional Wisdom sits back and whines: ’With Quantum Mechanics, we lost determinism. Is Free Will in truth just Quantum chaos?’

Advanced Wisdom replies: ’Not so, just the opposite. Absolute determinacy from classical mechanics never existed, because it depended upon infinitely precise initial conditions. These couldn’t be. Now, given that small initial discrepancy, after an arbitrarily long time, one will get an arbitrarily large discrepancy. Exit your sacrosanct “classical determinacy”, which will always churn out arbitrarily large errors, given enough time.

Conventional Wisdom:’In any case our brains are ruled by Quantum Mechanics, and that’s nondeterministic’.

Advanced Wisdom:’The Quantum is not truly “nondeterministic“. The Quantum attributes probabilities to outcomes, the so-called “Quanta”, but the latter outcomes don’t change ever more with time… whereas wilder and wilder outcomes is what happens in Classical Mechanics, as time goes by!

Classical Wisdom sees Classical Mechanics as deterministic, whereas Quantum Mechanics is not. However, Quantum outcomes are determined at the outset (so-called “Quanta”), whereas all and any classical mechanical evolutions diverge indefinitely ever more… SO CM predicts whatever, in the long run, whereas QM is more regimented…

Conventional Wisdom:’Quantum Mechanics more deterministic than Classical Mechanics? The world is upside down with you! Whatever, you confuse me. Forget these abstractions, forget Quantum Mechanics, for the sake of the argument at hand, I don’t believe in Free Will. Let me tell you why. View the brain as a machine with programs. Given some circumstances, the brain will make just one computation, with just one solution. Presto, no more Free Will! We are just Turing machines! Nothing you can do, you will always get the same result.’

Advanced Wisdom:’I embrace BRAIN BUILDING, not just body building! I have a little experiment for you. Sit in a chair, think about a given Problem, call it P. Then go run half an hour on a mountain trail, an exercise of the muscles, the heart, and the brain processing thousands of data points per second. See what happens to what you thought P was. By the way, I stupidly miscomputed today the firmness of the snow while running, I should have recognized the tint of that particular patch of snow, crashed forward after by right leg went deep through the treacherous white substance, skidded on my left knee, careened off the snow bank, crash landing in stones on the side, making a small bloody gash in my left hand, it sure impacted my mindset a bit… But I digress… The point is this: try then to think of Problem P, while running for quite a while, brain concentrated on potential trajectories’ dangers. You will think of P, but it will turn out in a different context, with different details, different motivations (typically more macroscopic, bigger picture style), in a different mood, in other words, in a different neurohormonal and oxygen set-up. The computational paths offered inside the brain to solve P will be different than those which were apparent while sitting on that chair. Hence if one had a set C of solutions from the chair, one now has a set R, from running: the set of solutions is not C, but C + R!’

In other words, if you want to get out of Plato’s Cave, go running! Running, physical activity, or different neurohormonal set-up, will change your mind. Learn to change minds as if it were clothes. It beats just putting someone’s else shoes.

CW:’What does that have to do with Free Will?’

AW: ‘Classical Free Will is a choice between a number of solutions, hypotheses, emphases, etc. Call that set of choices and outcomes N. Conventional Wisdom assumes that N just is, like the Moon, a well-determined object, like in a category (category is here in the mathematical sense). However, I just demonstrated that N, the set of choices and outcomes presented to Free Will is, itself, a function of neurohormonal states. Changing the neurohormones changes the categories which make up that set N (something Aristotle didn’t think of when he invented categories in the non-math sense). Moreover the latter neurohormonal states can be controlled and chosen from, or selected… At will. When Socrates and his golden youth friends and lovers decided to go get drunk and party all night, chewing the fat, they decided to change their neurohormonal states from normal to wacko. That’s the whole idea of Dionysus, bringing a fresh re-think, and re-emote of the whole mindset. Nietzsche correctly deduced that was one of the causes of the Greeks’ superiority. Similarly, religions prohibiting nuttiness, foolishness, jokes and feasts, as Catholicism and Islamism, fabricate dull minds. So thinking can be controlled with meta controls upon the environments in which the thinking, and the feeling, are conducted, and produced. That’s why people read books and go the theater, among other fantasies.

Conventional Wisdom: ‘Are you getting meta on me, once again?’

AW: ‘Yes, Free Will is not free of neurohormonal or other mental states, thus we are free to control Free Will by selecting for oneself one’s environmentsA form of meta control. For example, when the wrongfully revered philosopher Heidegger decided to become a Seminarist, or a Nazi, he made meta choices which impacted his freedom of thought or, of will, looking forward. Same when doctor Asperger decided to help support the Nazis’ first extermination program, a context which led him to invent the pseudo-disease named after him (and which was used as a reason to assassinate thousands of German children).’    

While in captivity, Nelson Mandela recited that poem by William Henley to fellow prisoners, and they felt empowered. The myth of “Sol Invictus” was imposed by Roman Emperor Aurelian, around 250 CE, it was a first run of the fascist Catholicism Constantine would impose in 325 CE, 75 years later…

CW:’Are you saying that I can act to steer my own Free Will, by controlling my mental context?’

AW:’Yes. And you are deeper than you think: the notion of “steering” was introduced by Schrodinger, in connection with Quantum Entanglement. Steering of mental state and Free Will is closely related. Indeed, changing context is pretty much how Quantum Steering shows up! Hence the Schrodinger cat conundrum…

CW:’Enough, my head is exploding in cats!’

AW:’Take hold of yourself, remember the honor of the human spirit! When talking about Free Will remember that, as in Quantum Mechanics, you can’t control the solutions, but you can control the spaces which make them appear!

CW: ‘Can we get practical here?

AW: ‘It’s very practical! I just said there was Free Will, and how to create more of it!”

CW: ‘You want to create Free Will by acting on the mental contexts, by making it so that they will offer, or create, more solutions?

AW: ‘Exactly! The idea is not exactly new. Forcefully changing neurohormonal states is why Socrates and his ilk got drunk, and Indian Swamis, and countless Shamans around the world experimented with mind altering drugs! Or why we dream, for that matter!’

CW:’Do you do drugs?’

AW:’No need, I just plug-in my brain, it’s foolish and creative enough on its own, no need to reduce performance with junk, no alcohol, nicotine, pot, or hallucinogens for me, I hallucinate in a controlled fashion, so to speak. Indeed, I do mind altering activities like mountain running in snow, hence yesterday’s amusing crash.’  

Conventional Wisdom: Alright, you, you and you. Kudos to you, oh great youyou. What is the point of Free Will anyway? Why should we worry about it?

AW: Because if we don’t we don’t do anything about it, we just wait for nuclear war, and the rising of oceans by 70 meters, whatever comes first.

CW:’You worry about big stuff. What’s in it for small people with small preoccupations?’

AW: ‘Very simple. If one doesn’t believe in Free Will, one is a slave to destiny. However, human beings aren’t made to be slave to destiny. Human beings, as they evolved, over millions of years, could check, every day, that they were actors of change. Profitable change, life saving change. Thus, lack of belief in Free Will is fundamentally inhuman. Lack of belief in Free Will corresponds to not behaving according to the owner’s manual. And it has to be discouraged, thought evolution. Therefore, lack of belief in Free Will makes individuals lugubrious, sinister, unhappy, and a danger to their human environment. Let alone the entire biosphere. Amen.

CW: Being happy is a moral duty?

AW: Being happy and willful is a moral duty, in the sense of the morality evolution itself created us with. We were evolutionary made to be Lords, not slaves! Embracing such an attitude, embracing happiness and wilfulness, has practical consequences, such as an unwillingness to confer our decisional powers to representatives whose powers corrupt them absolutely!

CW: What is the overall metaprinciple, to use your semantics, at work here?

AW: The honor of the human spirit is the ultimate principle. What evolution created us into, it did, because it enhanced our mental performances. We are naturally evolved artificial intelligence. It’s our mental superiority which drove us, as a species. Insinuating that we are not free to be happy, free to become captains, and even architects, and engineers, of our own souls, is to undermine the human spirit, our core principle, it is to subscribe to the principle of slavery.

Patrice Aymé

Advertisements

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’

Mentality Trumps Logic

November 30, 2016

Mental States Trump (Local Linear) Logic

TRUMP MADNESS MENTALLY ENLIGHTENING, thank you, all of you, clueless fanatics, for providing us with not just entertainment, but insights on how insects think.

How do people think? When thinking about thinking, intellectuals tend to go back to Plato describing the mythical Socrates ponderously going from a) to c) because a) implied b) and b) implied c). Well, this is NOT how the brain works. The brain has basically two systems: Local Linear Logic, and Topological Logic (TL = emotion, so we will call it ES, the Emotional System). LLL and ES are entangled. For example, ES, the Emotion System, shuts off, and opens, various sub-systems in the brain. Moreover the ES directs consciousness into these subsystems. Each of these systems comes with its own logic. So there is no such a thing as “logic” per se. 

Actually modern axiomatics in logic considers that any Logic L comes with its own Universe U (in which it sits, so to speak). Varying U varies L. Thus a Logic L in the brain, sitting in subsystem S1 will be different from one sitting in subsystem S2, because they constitute different universes U. (An aspect of that was long known, as thinkers argued that various drugs, from alcohol to THC enabled them to reach various stages of consciousness…)

Thus what Plato talked about is basically irrelevant to foster wisdom. What is relevant is mental subsystems selection, how, and why. And even subsystem management. Instead, Plato explores logic, LLL. And recent events have been enlightening: LLL is mostly secondary for directing people’s behavior. 

I think, Therefore I sting. At Least, Sometimes, I Feel That Way.

I Think, Therefore I Sting. At Least, Sometimes, I Feel That Way.

By “Trump Madness” I do not mean Trump is mad, far from it: after all, he is the next president, and already causing more change than Obama did in 8 years (see Europe dumping “austerity” within 30 hours of Trump’s election). Clearly, there was a very smart method to Trump’s madness, and it was highly successful for him, as he obtained the loftiest job in the world (at least as far as conventional wisdom has it; in truth the loftiest job is mine, but never mind…). Thus “Trump madness” was anything except madness, on the part of Trump… Or his supporters (who also got what they wanted).

The real madness has been the flow of insults and indiscriminate violence on the part of “Clinton” supporters. Innocent thinkers were called “unscholarly, uncouth, anti-semitic, racist, xenophobic, judged to have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder,  and compulsive liars”. This was just a sampler of the most polite insults directed at me… by “friends”… and I am NOT a Trump supporter. Just thought to be so, because I rolled out all sorts of graphs depicting demoncracy (from inequality, to incarceration, rate, to life expectancy, to government investment, etc.).

Never mind that this was all for positions I held sometimes for decades, they are all extremely progressive, and I am just culprit of having Trump embracing them.

Insults directed at Trump were often obviously more insane than grievous. Trump was called “xenophobic” (the evidence is, the exact opposite, that is, Trump is an extreme xenoPHILE). Trump was called “anti-semitic” (his beloved and trusted son-in-law is an observant Jew). Trump was called a business failure (he grew his “organization”, now in 60 countries, from 17 million dollar to somewhere around ten billion…)

How come Clinton supporters became so abusive? OK, they were surprised. Not just because people were scared to reveal in the polls that they would vote for Trump, skewing polls (pollster Nate Silver discovered this a week or two before the vote, so he “unskewed” the polls, and revealed the chances of Trump were significant; I knew for months, just talking to people, that people were hiding their Trump preferences).

Clinton supporters did not turn abusive and insulting just because what they worry about turns out not to be what most of the country worries about. But, mostly, they hated, because it turned out that they had become strangers to themselves, and the world. Part of them rose in fury, and took over their persona, because they wanted to lash out, so great was the pain that uncomprehension caused..

The Clinton supporters had no idea how neurohormonally entangled with (their idea of) their candidate. Precisely because they were deliberately ignored the (left, leftist, liberal, progressive) case I have made for more than eight years (with all those graphs), they had turned into fanatics, Jihadists, because they had rejected (the unsavory) reality.

The mental order in the brains of these self-described progressives, supposed to address politics, had become hopelessly disconnected from reality. For example, in judging Obama, they judged his brown skin, but not the fact Obama was led by the nose by Lawrence Summers, the Harvard-Goldman Sachs surrogate who had dismantled, under Bill Clinton, the Banking Act of 1933 (“G-S”). And this, seven months before Obama reigned. And they ignored hundreds of other indicators which were flashing way more right, and corporate fascism, than any other president before.

Thus the mental subsystems Clinton supporters activated over the years made them not just unreal, but incapable of activating anything else. One of my prefered game these days is to question Clinton-Obama fanatics about Quantitative Easing. I generally draw a blank. The self-perceived) most clever ones tell me it was a good thing. So here you have so-called progressives saying that giving more than ten trillion dollars to the world richest, most corrupt people and institutions was… a good thing.

Guess what, you dummies? It was a good thing only for plutocracy, also known as demoncracy. The only person who could understand what I was talking about, and agreed with me, before meeting me, is Senior VP in a major bank.

People think first with their neurohormones. Tell me their neurohormones most active, and I can tell you where their Local Linear Logic delves. Obsessions leads and localizes reflection.

Is there experimental evidence for the preceding? Yes, there is, from… insects. The theory of consciousness is starting to rise. It involves making flies play videogames, or seeing if, like American students, they can get scared. Flies can be put in a state of “scariness” and wanting to get to a “safe space”.

Insects have a rudimentary ego, though very different from Narcissus or classical literature would have it. Insect ego appears as the ability to act and mentally concentrate on certain environmental cues thus ignoring others. “They don’t pay attention to all sensory input equally,” cognitive scientist Andrew Barron of Australia’s Macquarie University declared.

When you and I are hungry, we don’t just move towards food, as bacteria do. Our hunger creates a particular feeling (an emotion) which, in turn rearrange which subsystems are activated in our brain. Such a state is called a “subjective experience” in traditional philosophy. Do insects have the same? Obviously they do (I can say from anecdotes, and thus as a philosopher; scientists will verify and make sure).

Insects can be led into mental states which do not fit reality. So can humans (humans even do this deliberately, when they play or make jokes). Once in such a state, a particular logic, the universe of which is that precise mental state, flows. That Local Linear Logic is particular, yet it leaves (neural) connections behind. If suddenly precipitated, for real, in a situation calling for that mental state, the LLL is ready to kick in. That’s why humans play, and make jokes.

This election was a joke. So were the mental states most citizens put themselves, or let themselves been put, in the last few decades. Time to wake up.

And time to wake up to the reality that it is moods which create logic, even more than it is logic which creates moods.

Patrice Ayme’

Good Is Absolute

October 2, 2015

Long Story short: Not everything is relative. Good, goodness are not relative, but absolute. Absolute thanks to what? Neurohormonal activity. The fact is, and it’s a truism, people are happy enough to keep on living.

The Gods are relative. Biology is absolute.

So how come much of human thinking and values became all too relative in the Twentieth Century?

In the early Twentieth Century, the genius mathematician, physicist and philosopher, Henri Poincaré, announced what he called the “Theory of Relativity” (1904). The theory achieved great fame. Especially as “Relativity” slowed down time (as observed since zillions of times). (Relativity was attributed to a German scientist, so it was viewed as very serious; never mind that Einstein had neither discovered, nor demonstrated ANY of the basic equations or ideas of said theory; it was the interesting case of a strictly non-German theory attributed to a German.)

In any case, it was thereupon decreed by the vastly mentally unprepared masses, and not quite a few intellectuals, that everything was relative, including good and evil. A relative mood set on the land. Einstein himself played it to the hilt:

Many Philosophies (Such As Buddhism), Adopt The Mood That Suffering Is More Important Than Happiness. Neurobiology Contradicts Them

Many Philosophies (Such As Buddhism), Adopt The Mood That Suffering Is More Important Than Happiness. Neurobiology Contradicts Them

Relativity of morality is not all wrong. My pet thinker, Nietzsche, contributed to exhibit moral relativity, by pointing out that aristocracy and the rabble it ruled over, had, thank to the “slave religion” of Christianism, completely different moralities. The mathematician, physicist and philosopher Pascal himself had pointed out that truth itself depended upon which side of a mountain range one considered (“Vérité en deçà des Pyrénées, erreur au delà. Ce qui est une vérité pour un peuple, une personne, peut être une erreur pour d’autres. Ce qui est valable pour l’un ne l’est pas forcément pour l’autre.”). In truth Pascal parroted Montaigne’s use of the mountains. More generally Montaigne said: is called barbaric what is not usual (“Quelle vérité que ces montagnes bornent, qui est mensonge au monde qui se tient au-delà…. Chacun appelle barbare ce qui n’est pas de son usage”.)

In truth, the “Theory of Relativity” is all about some types of space and time measurements being relative to some types of motion. It’s not about everything being relative. Modern logic admits that any logic is relative to the universe it lives in.

Does the latter mean all morality is relative? As the Nazis claimed? No. Morality, in the end, is a biological concept. But not an obvious one. Contrarily to the pathetic naivety of Nazi theories, biology can give us a ground to stand on, which is otherwise subtle than the “selection of the fittest“. We are biological systems, and much of us is inherited. Yes. However, what about good and evil? Is that inherited, and can we go beyond what’s inherited?

John Zande wrote a book “The Owner Of All Infernal Names”. I commented: Mr. Zande seems to embrace the ancient Cathar theory that the creator of the world is obviously evil. The problem with this, is that love is even more important to human beings than evil (that’s easy to demonstrate: babies would not exist, but for love). So, if one believes the occurrence of evil is absolute proof of an evil creator, the even more prominent occurrence of love is absolute proof of an even more prominent benevolent creator, by the same metalogic. (The Good Lord is good, because He makes more good than bad.)

Yet, there is no God but Evolution, and Evil is the Master’s stroke.

Mr. Zande kindly replied:

“Insightful comment, and the logic is sound. The thesis presented in TOOAIN addresses the so-named Problem of Good. To paraphrase, good is a necessity. It spurs on growth. Ultimately, though, there is no good. What appears good is in fact little more than the means to greater and more efficient suffering. Love is also encouraged. In the book I cite this poem by Naomi Shihad, Kindness:

>>Before you know what kindness really is

you must lose things,

feel the future dissolve in a moment

like salt in a weakened broth.

What you held in your hand,

what you counted and carefully saved,

all this must go so you know

how desolate the landscape can be

between the regions of kindness<<

The premise is, love-lost is stronger and more potent than the fleeting curiosity of love-found. Complicated grief is a terrible ailment and serves to exemplify this. To love is to opening oneself up to tremendous physical and emotional pain, and to the Creator, this is pure cream.

I also present a number of examples to demonstrate this point that there is no true ‘good,” including medicine in general, writing:

Consider then the truth: More bodies doing more things over a longer time can only be scored as a breathtaking augmentation of resources.

A general population dying at 35 cannot, by and large, produce the same quantity or quality of suffering generated through the extended life of a general population dying at age 80 or 90. Here man has added 30 years—an entire generation—to the duration of his potential suffering, which in the eyes of a debased being is to be applauded as not only a marvel of market optimisation, but an almost miraculous, self-inflicted diversification in the greater portfolio of potential pain.

By permitting the development and maturation of innovative methods and practices which abet bodily longevity the Omnimalevolent Creator has positioned Himself to reap 20, 30, or even 40 years more pleasure from His game; drinking in the pang of creeping irrelevance, the pain of crippling arthritis, the emotional distress of immobility, mental degradation, senility, the anguish of seeing friends and loved ones die early, the anxiety of financial and perhaps political insecurity, and the hopelessness of a life bookmarked by death and conscious annihilation. In no uncertain terms, ruinous ageing is an abhorrent stain on even the most spectacular of lives lived, often robbing an individual of their most prized possession, their dignity, and this gradual drip of irreversible decay and the misery born of it can only be seen as a boon for a being who thrives on tapping into increasingly complex veins of suffering.

Now, let me just say, the book is a parody of 19th Century natural theology works… and it was, at times, desperately hard to write the words. I couldn’t bring myself, for example, to detail all but three examples of animal cruelty.”

The first step out of the dilemma of pain is to realize that it’s evolution which created us, not some moral person up there (the so-called “God”). So there is no game. Normal life is, most of the time pleasant enough to feel better than the alternative(s). This is what evolution expects. And has selected us for. Cocktails of neurohormones in our brains and gut make sure of that we experience enough good to keep on going. So, integrated all over, weighted with time, life is, overall, pleasant. Abject pain and unfathomable terror, occasionally, do not make much of a dent on this (although, as John Zande points out, the problem of ageing has become, viewed as a sum, much more considerable, since we have made enough progress to extend ageing rather than extending health, indeed).

However, when pain and suffering get to be too much, one can take action: euthanasia, revolution, and even war, are solutions.

You want peace and happiness? Then kill pain and suffering, in a timely manner. Otherwise, your brain will do it for you. And slavery may ensue.

Patrice Ayme’

Transgender Good, Yet Silly Lying Not Welcome

April 29, 2015

 

Mr. Bruce Jenner won the gold medal for the decathlon at the 1976 Olympics in Montreal. The decathlon is a men-only event at the Olympic Games. Now Mr. Jenner, took his pony tail out, let his/her hair flow. Apparently, encouraged by talking head Diane Sawyer, making his/her hair flow brought him to say that “for all intents and purposes, I am a woman”. Funny what hair can do. He/She confirmed he/she is going through the process of gender reassignment.

Well, sorry Bruce, but that statement sounds insulting to me for the feminine condition, and for truth. I will explain why.

Star Trek Into Darkness actress Alice Eve wrote in reaction: “Until women are paid the same as men, then playing at being a ‘woman’ while retaining the benefits of being a man is unfair”.

Jenner and Sawyer then made a big deal about wearing dresses. Charlemagne, a super male if there ever was one, not just wore a dress, but criticized various skirts (we have it on the record). I would not have advised to smirk.

Nothing Wrong Going Back & Forth, All Over, Wherever Safe

Nothing Wrong Going Back & Forth, All Over, Wherever Safe

In reaction, Ms. Eve wrote, “If you were a woman no one would have ever heard of you because women can’t compete in the decathlon” on Instagram.

“Do you have a vagina? Are you paid less than men? Then, my friend, you are a woman,” Eve, who studied English at Oxford University, wrote.

Excoriated for “TRANSPHOBIA”, Ms. Eve deleted her posts about Bruce Jenner on Instagram.

Eve suffered from a fear of the usual “Political Correctness”. I approve of “Political Correctness” as long as it does not get in the way of “Philosophical Correctness” or Truth.

Saying that a man can change into a women, with existing technology is, just, well, a lie.

How is one going to change from XY chromosomes to XX chromosomes? Answer: one can’t.

OK, but then the chromosomes, one could argue, only give a gender signal. The presence of XX versus XY brings forth hormones which feminize, or masculinize the brain. There are two main periods: one in utero, one at puberty. The changes imparted are on a spectrum. However, clearly some are irreversible. I don’t need to make you a drawing.

It’s all right that people want to play transgender and hormones. I think it’s a bit silly (because of the limitation I alluded to above). However, philosophical transgender is not just OK, but highly recommended.

Arguably, a gender equalitarian society is intrinsically transgender. However, one has to realize that’s an aim, but it cannot be effected by just using a knife, a needle and a spoon.

To believe that a man can turn into a woman with just a knife, a needle and a spoon is insulting to women. And actually insulting to the entire notion of the opposite gender, thus, to transgender itself.

I do firmly believe that brains under different hormonal, and neurohormonal regimes think differently.

When I am angry I think very differently than when I am apathetic. When I am running long distance in the mountains, a few trekking days from a road, I am certainly thinking differently than when I am sitting at a desk. I actually believe most people enjoy sports because, they, literally, change their minds.

Sports, all strong emotions, and drugs allow minds to travel to another universe. (Fear me, as the only drug I use is caffeine, as part of my spiritual breathing between activity and meditation. Caffeine changes blood flow in the brain, but also even the activity of simple cells.)

Artificial transgender does not replace spiritual transgender (see Mick Jagger above).

Artificial transgender is useful, as it encourages tolerance towards making transhumans in general.

Why? What’s the social and philosophical interest of transhumanism?

Many short-termist human, social, religions and traditional attitudes find their roots in the fact that human life is intrinsically ephemeral.

Extend life, and wisdom will have to extend. And life will become even more precious.

In other words, to improve intelligence, we have to fix the species.

This is not really new. The latest archeological discovery is that of tools or weapons of stone, 3.3 million years old. Yes, that’s even before Homo Habilis.

Thus, as I have always held the technological-scientific race has not just characterized, but CREATED humanity.

So, when Neanderthals cooked with spices and herbs, it was technological, and artificial. But artificial are us.

Cooking our own hormones, and our body, and mind changing recipes, is the way we have always done it.

However, no lies, please.

PM Abe of japan just expressed his “eternal condolences” for all the American killed in World War Two [because of Japan’s action]. Now to go to China, and Korea, to say the same.

Japan and Germany started World War Two (although technically Britain and France declared war first and formally, Japan and Germany were already at war). That’s the truth. And it’s also true one cannot change a true man into a true woman, nor a true woman into a true man. Nor can’t either be changed into true hermaphrodites, either.

Transcending truth is sometimes not just smart, useful, but even moral. (Say when helping out someone with terminal disease, and it could just be sadness). However, violating truth for no good reason, just because one can, ought never to be an option.

Patrice Ayme’

NEW WISDOM, NEW TURMOIL

August 11, 2014

NEUROGENESIS IS NEVER CALM

Abstract: Wisdom requires turmoil. Too much calm brings neuronal, intellectual, and even moral disaster. A case in point is the devil-may-care attitude of the USA in the 1930s, lauded by those who celebrate calm and peace, yet condemned by common decency.

Wisdom is about embracing turmoil, and then, dominating it. It requires heavy construction inside the brain, and the greater the new wisdom, the greater the new effort. Prometheus did not just discover fire, but a multiverse of expanding possibilities.

This is why the biologically given philosophy of Homo crushes that of theocrats and other superstitious, ravenous plutocrats. Men are all about overcoming themselves. At least those men who think hard enough so as not to finish as the main course.

Learning > Neurogenesis > Effort, Pain, Struggle

Learning > Neurogenesis > Effort, Pain, Struggle

[Neurogenesis in the Hippocampus.]

Careful meditation is often helpful to establish new wisdom. Yet, turmoil is always necessary, to foster higher wisdom, in individuals as in societies. It’s important to know this, because promoting too much calm comes at the expense of wisdom. Let me explain.

Whenever we try to define a mental state, nowadays, we have to remember that there is more than 100 neurohormones known. Some are correlated to rage, others to anxiety, fear, love (oxytocin).

Neurohormones define chemical states, somewhere in the brain. Maybe in just one place, maybe in many places. Those correlate with emotions, often through the activity of sub-units in the brain (say the amygdala for fear). Which neurohormones are tightly connected to which emotions, and how, is yet to be ascertained in nearly all cases.

We just know that, to define which emotion a brain, or part thereof, is undergoing, it will be necessary to determine neurohormones, their presence, secretion, or suppression.

People love to project “calm”. When “calm” is faked, is it real? “Calm” is not far from stealth. Any predator, be it the average cat, or the ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu, knows that stealth is of tremendous advantage for a successful aggression (Sun Tzu’s book, various treatises on war, and a casual look at history show that surprise is half the victory).

Is there a neurohormone of “calm”? That’s unlikely: the lion stealthily, crawling on his belly in the grass toward the prey projects “calm”, but for the occasional twitch. Yet its neurohormonal war systems are primed up for maximum violence. At the time of the attack, they will be unleashed with great fury, demonstrating that feline clam is just a tactic.

A sleep hormone does exist: that’s Melatonin.

Conclusion? “Calm” is rather deceit, or computation, or then relaxation and laziness (something brains need, just as they need sleep… probably because they need to establish a hierarchy-network of knowledge).

Alex Jones wrote a second post on “Wisdom comes out of calm”. He explains that calm is how to deal with dogs. Meanwhile he explicitly said in a preceding reply to me, that the Americans were wise to calmly wait for Hitler’s attack (see below).

Alex’s position is interesting, because it reflects the popular expectation about what wisdom ought to be: something calm, a form of torpor. No wonder, calm is typical of herd behavior. The herd calmly grazes and ruminates, when lions are not pouncing. Here is Alex:

“The mind that has no calm is like a drunken person, it has no wisdom, rushing from one crisis to another, lacking the anchoring of wisdom, the drunk does stupid actions and ruin is the drunks ultimate reward. When a cat comes to me inviting me to stroke it, I gain opportunity to find my inner calm in a world of war.”

Equating lack of calm with being “drunk” is alien to me. I drink water, I find that smart. A mind that is not calm, does not have to be angry: there are other moods. When the anger neurohormones are on, the mind is certainly not calm, but that does not mean that, when the mind is not calm, the mind is angry. It could, simply, be an attentive, or hard thinking mind.

Defining “calm” neurologically has not been done. Yet. The only calming hormones I know of, serotonin and melatonin, rather induce sleep.

Too much calm puts morality to sleep, if nothing else. In a preceding comment of Alex, one finds:

“Calm provides the opportunity for wisdom to emerge, metaphorically like soil waiting for the seed. The mind that is angry, in emotional turmoil, acts like the drunk, and they will never make wise choices or actions.

The Americans were wise to avoid war, and they were wise to stay out of other peoples political problems until those aggressors began to attack them.”

Here Alex is alluding to my position that American calm while Hitler raged, killed and attacked, was monstrous. Hitler had given explicit instructions not to make Americans angry. Hitler considered white, racist America to be half Nazi already, and thought of the USA as a natural ally. Hitler’s plan went awry, in great part because enough Americans had the great courage to get angry, in spite of their compatriots’ selfish calm tolerance of infamy.

The Americans refused to support France and Britain, and the Commonwealth, in 1939-1940. Calmly supported by hordes of American plutocrats and their corporations, the Nazis came very close to annihilating France and Britain in 1940.

Consequence? More than 70 million people died, including six million Jews assassinated calmly. I understand that this vicious American policy calmly established the empire of the USA, and its famed “American Century”. And that calm propaganda has made most people believe that the intervention of the USA was purely to rescue democracy, instead of the much greater plot that it truly was.

In 1945, and thereafter, the USA supported massively at some point, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Nasser, the FNL, Saddam, even bin Laden, or the Taliban. Those details have to be forgotten: the Devil dwells therein.

I refuse to call that “right”. I call it wrong. I even call it an infamy, or a whole succession of infamies.

Something the USA ought to be eternally ashamed of was the support American political and business leaders gave to the Nazis. Consider this telling detail: the USA, as a state, had to wait for Hitler to declare war to them to find something wrong with him. It was more than despicable, and unwise. It was outright criminal. That, of course, is my calm opinion, forged by decades of calm, careful considerations.

And the real truth is even worse: German generals asked for American and British help to get rid of Hitler. Would the democrats please make clear that they would join France in a war against Hitler?

Calmly, British and American authorities denounced the generals… to Hitler.

So calm is definitively not wisdom, but something that can masquerade as wisdom.

In truth, no new wisdom can be reached without turmoil. Most great creators lived in turmoil. And that’s no accident. There is an obvious neurological reason for it.

Emotions build reasons (neurohormones guide the construction of new neuro-geometry, by growing axons, dendrites and synapses just so). To have new, better ideas, one needs to wipe out the wrong brain geometry, thus new neurohormones, that is new emotions, have to invade, submerge, and grow new geometry.

Thus fresh passions and actions bring new and better reasons. To model the world better, we have to engage the world, further. Experiments do this.

Indeed exercise itself, let alone challenges, bring higher mental performance. And it’s not just performance, that they bring, but also even neurological existence. Rats with a non-stimulating environment see their neurology shrink. Neurology was evolved for turmoil. Without it, the very reason for its existence disappear.

And so it goes for entire civilizations: the more turmoil, the more wisdom. The Greeks, a notoriously bickering lot, as Nietzsche pointed out, were not just about Apollo (calm, beauty, poise, balance), but also about Dionysus (agitation, turmoil, passion, mess, craziness). This is the main idea of Nietzsche’s “Birth of Tragedy”, an analysis of the genesis of Greek greatness.

Civilizations which are too calm produce nothing, not even their own survival. This may be the problem of Europe now.

Pathological calm was certainly the problem of the civilizations that Genghis Khan and his generals overran. The Mongols said so explicitly. The fierce horsemen accused those they invaded to be sleepy plutocracies mistreating their own people.

Notice that Greek civilization, although it was conquered, greatly survived, so strong were its animals spirits. There is nothing calm about the main Greek notions. Nor is there anything calm about science. Physics has energy at its core. In physics, calm does not exist.

Truth comes out of trial, error, and the passion to engage in them, which rampant imagination. Really new ideas disturb all brains, that’s why they are new. I have had many of my comments censored, all over the Internet, because they contained what was perceived as new, thus inconvenient, ideas, or facts.

Latest example? Scientific American publishes carefully controlled articles on the climate. I dared to mention that there was coral in the Mediterranean. The six words comment was censored. (An email informed me of this.) I guess that, as long as I stay calm, I will keep on paying for “Scientific American” (which is neither scientific, nor American). But is that the wisest course? Would not anger be a better adviser?

Highly conservative types may object that they do not see why we need new wisdom, and thus the exhausting task of neurogenesis. Indians, Egyptians, Pythagoricians, Stoics, and their parrots, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, believed in Eternal Recurrence, the fact that nothing is really new under the Sun. Wisdom consisted into accepting what had been, as it sure, will be again. Related to this is the Arabic “Inch Allah” (If God wants it.)

However, an achievement of modern science, was to disprove these philosophies of Amor Fati (Love of Fate).

Starting with the discovery, and subsequent disappearance, of Sun spots in the Seventeenth Century, and then the discovery of biological, and geological evolution by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and his somber company, turmoil was found to reign all over. The universe, biology, man himself, let alone technology and civilization, are never, ever standing still, nor repeating themselves. Everything is a force that goes.

New wisdom is necessary for survival. It’s not a matter of choice, and esthetics. Those who will still stand in the future, individuals or civilizations, will have thought anew, and their brains will have mutated, from their own volition, or dismal condition. Others will have turned into the main course, literally, and figuratively.

Patrice Ayme’

 

Consciousness I

July 22, 2013

Abstract: I tie in consciousness, incompleteness, the mind as multiverse, logic incarnated by high dimensional neurocircuitry, and various states of consciousness as their architects. Among other things.

***

Consciousness is a major mystery, blatant to all. Much boring stuff has been said about it. That does not mean we can’t progress in our understanding. We will. Here is a sketch of some of my ideas, and, as there is much more to be said, I will call this “Consciousness I”.

Are we conscious when sleeping? What’s the connection between intelligence and consciousness? I was pondering those questions while more or less sleeping (for want of a better description). That struck me as entirely appropriate: thinking about what happened when sleeping, while sleeping. Obviously I was conscious, and obviously, there are many levels of consciousness. (And, with modern technology, modulo the injection of drugs, aliens can come to control our minds and spy on our brains!)

Consciousness is a little bit like the light of a lighthouse: what it illuminates is visible, but the rest is still there. Like a lighthouse, it can be seen from afar.

An illustrative dream came up to help further my meditation. I was swimming in a rather cold sea, next to the shore, and then what I vaguely feared happened: my daughter was swimming too, somewhat in the distance, among the ominous waves. As she is only three years old, that was something to worry about: she swims very well, but in warm swimming pools. Not in this very black, frigid, undulating ocean.

So what was the point of this dream? Obviously to warn me that, were a body of water to be present, any body of water, even when clearly dangerous, there was a possibility that she would launch herself as boldly as when she jumps in a swimming pool. So I was forewarned. New logical circuitry connecting to the great danger center had been vividly forged.

No doubt that, should a somewhat similar context possibly arise in the real world, I would pay more preventive attention to what my daughter was doing.

A way to look at Quantum Physics is that the world is made of probabilities. Experiencing, and managing, the world as if it were made of probabilities is fully compatible with the vision, and experience, of the world prehistoric man had. There was no way to be sure that there was no venomous snake ready to strike below that rock, so better poke it with a stick, or give it a precautionary wide berth.

Meditation is a most precious, most human state of consciousness. Whereas sentience is shared with many animals on this planet, obviously, not so with the capacity for meditation. meditation allows to shut down most (over-) used neuronal circuitry, and engage more strategically important parts of the brain.

Action without meditation is as slavedom without wisdom

What does it mean to be conscious? Well, first, that we feel conscious. Clearly, in a sleep, quite often, we feel very much alive (“sentient” to put it in one word, meaning to have sensation, or sentiment), even though we can’t recall much of it when we wake up. This type of partial, but vivid, consciousness can happen under general anesthesia, as it did to me after an accident. I was waxing lyrical, doing poetry… I was told by the doctors, and even now, partly remember.

The key to logic, beyond what the Greeks understood, is the process of “meta”. It’s just the realization that, for all practical matters the world is uncountably infinite, whereas any language, hence traditional logic, is countable. This means that no logical process will exhaust the world.

That’s called logical incompleteness, and is associated to Gödel’s name. But the fundamental idea is very simple, I just uttered it. (Gödel went further than that, proving the logical process will get to a finite number of steps, where it will fail; related to this is my assertion that there is a largest number, the end-all, be-all of mathematics…)

If any logic is incomplete, how does one make do, and complete any logic? By adding dimensions, going meta.

We can’t go through the obstacle, so we jump over it. Consciousness is made to perform those meta jumps. How? By reconfiguring the inner mental universe in various states of… consciousness, and leaving memory traces of it.

I absolutely do not believe in the incredibly stupid interpretation of the Quantum according to the brainless “multiverse”. (Another case of human idiocy by types so arrogant that they do not understand how little they grasp.)

However, choosing an alternative or the other in a logic after a while, as Gödel says we have to do, is, basically, a choice of dimension. Here is the multiverse. But it’s neurobiological, not quantum.

Thus the capability to create multiverse within minds exists, it’s called consciousness in its various states. It’s between the two ears of a normally constituted human being. To go multiverse, various parts of the brains get more or less shut down as others are able to gain some ascendency. This is why getting drunk, and drugs in general are tied with some creativity (disclosure: I never used drugs because being arrogant, I think am a drug onto myself, and that I would best be trained by implementing the craziness myself!)

Notice that there are other ways to look at Quantum Physics (full of matrices for Heisenberg, full of waves in many ways for De Broglie, me, etc…). According to circumstances, the ways to look at things is more or less appropriate to the action at hand. Consciousness acts as a director, a decider choosing what ingredients one should throw in the reality our brain operates in.

Reality does not just depend upon what we perceive, but also upon what we decided to have perceived. Consciousness makes the decision to decide what’s the best reality one should operate in. and this goes all the way from the logical, to the factual, to the emotional.

One has to realize that, to start with, the brain is an extremely high dimensional object; each of the 50 known neurotransmitters or neurohormones can be viewed as a dimension. Different logical paths (neuronal paths, dendritic connections paths, etc.) can also be viewed as dimensions (I use the algebraic definition of dimension here: if each point of a space is determined by (x1, x2, x3,…, xn), the dimension of that space is n).

In normal operations, we favor some of these paths. (Be it only because some peculiar neurons, always the same control which part of the brain receive fuel and oxygen, and when.) However, when we shut down some preferred areas (from sleep, meditation, physical exercise, highly excited hormonal states, alcohol, etc.), and in particular those gateway neurons, other circuits and organs are then free to offered their alternatives. Hebbian reinforcing can do the rest, and new dimensions of thought then appear in everyday life.

***

Patrice Ayme

Blood: Appetite Comes With Eating.

May 31, 2012

HORMONAL DELIQUESCENCE WIPES OUT CIVILIZATIONS.

Dark Site Exposes Why & How Obama & Merkel Are Going To The Dark Side. When Practice Makes Perfect, Growing The Satanic Mind.

***

 There used to be many civilizations. Some died, so that others could thrive. Today we have just one civilization. If it dies, it will have no replacement.

 The terrorizing, theocratic Roman empire crumbled: fascist makes stupid, stupidity kills. As the social order that had made Rome possible collapsed, its technological economy imploded too. The shock was terrible; most people died, often from starvation, and the unrest that a drastically reduced economy brought.

However, imperial Rome was replaced by the philosophical renaissance of the Franks in the north-west, and the Golden Age of Islam, over two-thirds of its territory. When the Han, or the Ming collapsed in China, they were replaced by the stronger civilizations of the Yuan and Manchu.

 Then, of course, the mighty civilizations of the Americas have now been fully replaced by much more successful successors.

 Transitions, though, can be extremely bloody. 95% of the original population of Mexico may have been annihilated in the process of creating the root of modern Mexico. The reasons for this massacre have been studied ever since queen Isabella outlawed the enslavement of Indians, and her grandson Charles outlawed further conquista (on the ground that conquista had caused a holocaust, whatever the exact reasons).

 The same cause as in Rome was at work, to some extent; these were technological societies. The Spaniards deliberately destroyed the highly technical lake gardening of the Aztecs, the core of their population, hence their power. The Inca empire, a highly efficient control and command communist system, was also dismantled by the Spaniards, for the same reason.

 Another well known cause of the holocaust was biological.

 The arrival in Peru of the Spanish Conquistador Pizarro and his 200 companions was preceded by smallpox (1532 CE).

 The Inca emperor got it, was disfigured, suffered, and then died from it. A civil war between his conflicted sons followed, while various epidemics kept ravaging the empire.

 American peoples’ genetics had absolutely no memory of smallpox, and was intrinsically all too weak to deal with Eurasian epidemics. Eurasia was a much bigger petri dish than the Americas, it was endowed with a much greater variety of microbes living in symbiosis with Eurasians (to this were added Euro-African diseases, such as malaria).

 So it felt as if the gods had deserted the Incas, while the awe of the conquistadores spread ominously.

 It is said that many were victims were sacrificed to the angry gods (some archeologists claim, say in Tucume).

 One thing is sure, Pizarro’s men, in probably the fiercest, craziest feat of military history, went on a blood frenzy at the battle of Cajamarca, killing and capturing perhaps more than 10,000 elite Inca troops, in one shock assault that baffles the imagination.

 Before the battle, the 200 hard core conquistadores could see in the night the thousands of campfires of the Inca imperial army, at least 80,000 strong. Those 200 Spaniards were probably the world’s most highly trained killers. Still, many, learning of their capitan’s maniacal plan, “wetted themselves in their terror“. However, the next day, on command, the Spaniards turned into frantic killing machines. Pizarro was even wounded as he saved the Inca’s life from one of his crazed-out armored subordinate. (Atahualpa was more useful alive, as he was still the official Inca.)

 In some quarters it is fashionable to either excuse, or excoriate murderers because of their upbringing, or atavism (their ancestors having supposedly endowed them with the wrong genetics).

 However the most sophisticated evidence is that most evil arise from situations, not from individuals. The worst culpability comes from those who created the situation, not from whom the French call “second couteaux” (second knives, secondary assassins, a sort of pietaille, foot soldiers).

 For example high level executives on Wall $treet and in American industry who collaborated with Hitler on a gigantic scale, of their own free will, were in a completely different, much higher criminal class than even the worst, most criminal French collaborators. The former were giants, the later irrelevant rats, in the greater scheme of things (although thousands were rightfully executed, be it only to write a warning in history. Executing hard core criminals, at that level of criminality, is certainly no crime. And I never read of one case where the innocent family of a French collaborator was killed with him…) 

 Interestingly, some of the most notorious actors of Vichy France had been authentic heroes in WWI. They were condemned and executed. They typically died, shouting:”Vive la France!” Many thought they were out to heroically mitigate a terrible situation. Sometimes, maybe they did. The director of IBM France was viewed as the worst collaborator, in charge of finding where all the hundreds of thousands of Jews in France were hiding.

 He never quite discovered where the Jews were. He was diligent, instead, establishing a draft list of all young French males, to reconstitute a full French army, starting with North Africa in 1943. When the Nazis found out it was too late. They tortured him to death.

 Some of the top Americans plutocrats who worked with Hitler were crucial enticers and enablers. Without them, Hitler would simply not have been, at least not to the letha level he got to. They deserve their title of admirers of Pluto in full.

 Henry Ford was awarded by Hitler in person the Grand Cross of the German Eagle on his 75th birthday, 30 July 1938. Ford had given extravagant amounts of financing to Hitler, starting in 1920. It is probably him who taught Hitler antijudaism (Hitler had Jewish comrades in WWI).

 Charles Lindbergh was awarded the Order of the German Eagle with Star 19 Oct 1938. James Mooney, General Motor’s chief executive for overseas operations, was awarded Order of the German Eagle 1st Class. Thomas John Watson, founder of IBM, was granted the 2nd class badge and star in June 1937 at the International Chamber of Commerce Conference in Berlin. Watson managed the Nazis’ computing operations all the way through until their surrender in May 1945. All his 35 factories in Germany were left operational, thanks to very careful targeting of German cathedrals rather than American factories in Germany.

 The worst of the worst, the Bushes, Brown Brothers, Harriman and many others, knew that one of Pluto’s greatest assets is invisibility; they stayed in the shadows as much as possible as did giants such as Standard Oil, Texaco, General electric, DuPont, Rockefeller Chase, JP Morgan, Warburg Manhattan bank, etc. When the decision of making Hitler Kanzler was taken, January 4, 1933, the Dulles brothers were there. (Considering how useful that decision was for the USA, they fully deserve to be honored to this day with their own airport! As I wrote this, 50,000 Orthodox Jews made themselves very small, and scurried deep into the closest holes they could find…)

 Those leaders who are after real goodness ought to avoid encouraging or inciting evil situations, instead of insisting on witch hunts.

 One can presently observe Obama and Merkel going over the Dark Side, day after day, doing so because of situations they created themselves. Characteristically they have found entire families of innocent witches to hunt down in Greece, Spain, Yemen, or Pakistan. A way to reassure themselves about their own goodness, while pursuing much larger evils. OK, I concede that it is better to be starved by Angela, than bombed by Barack.

 The evil is not just in the details of the circumstances, it is in the hormonal universes they can suddenly inflate.

  Cosmological Inflation probably does not work (I claimed, and will claim again in a coming essay). But psycho-hormonal inflation surely does happen, especially as far as evil is concerned. Perseverance is diabolical, said the Romans. But it is not just about the inertia of the task started. It is about the inertia of hormonal states, especially when they have created, as an infernal feedback, the demand for even of the brain structures that create them.

 One saw something like that, an inflation of evil, with the First Crusade, when the would-be crusaders, although they were on the attack, massacred countless Jews in the “Roman” empire (aka Francia, Germania, etc.; ). The Crusaders were just warming up. To become destroyers of Muslims, they had to grow their Dark Side. Killing European Jews, who had lived there longer than Christianism existed, was a form of hormonal foreplay. It was not foreplay for sexual games. It was foreplay for homicidal games. something much more important, evolutionary speaking.

 Human beings, the mindsets of human beings, rest on hormonal states. Nietzsche used to say that men thought with their stomach. Nietzsche was probably inspired by Napoleon’s “an army marches on its stomach“. In truth brains work within neurohormonal states.

  Everybody has seen movies of sharks progressively entering a blood frenzy. Humans are the same, just worse, because, unlike sharks, they make up stories.

  Blood calls for blood. Watch Obama drawing his ever longer assassination lists, deliberately sacrificing entire families of innocents (New York Times, May 29, 2012). What for? To be re-elected? To make the USA the only country in history where the ruler deliberately killed innocent families, in cold blood, in countries far away, for all to see, as if assassination were the highest possible value, the one projected from the bully pulpit?

 Even Hitler did not cross that Rubicon of abject horror (although Hitler was a piece of trash of very high order, he was careful to never leave traceable orders; in a court of justice, he could have been only convicted of crimes against mankind: wars of aggression, etc. He could not have been convicted of direct assassination orders… OK, except, however, for the notorious “Commissar Order“, the one ordering the execution of all Soviet Commissars).  

 Speaking of the Nazis, they reached such a high state of murderous insanity that they kept on fighting, even when it was clear they had lost the war. Why? Because the Nazis were in a mass hormonal state of homicidal fury. At the end of their reign of horror, when it was too difficult to find Jews, Untermenschen, or Allied troops to kill, they would readily kill the Germans themselves.

 Massacre call for massacre hormones, and the appropriate brain structures to produce them. Those juice up best after warming up to the situation. It is known that, when the brain becomes good at something, it grows the organs that support this activity. Thus, to some extent, the activity makes the brain. Watch Obama in his White House, drawing his assassination lists. Is your family on it? Why not? How quaint Nixon was, with his “enemy list“.

 Male canaries grow a song brain, just to sing. Exercising rats grow neuronal networks as needed. Taxi cab drivers in London grows their hippocampus, to learn the map of every single street in London. Is Obama growing a murder brain?

 The Mayas, were victims of a super drought, and they lost ecological control completely. Mayan hydraulics had worked for several millennia. Massive overpopulation (ten millions?) played a role in the loss of control. Soon Maya engineers were reduced to use very inferior wood for necessary construction, including for the gigantic canal and dam system.

 Then an abominable civil war was started, incidentally, by a secondary queen. The balance between the two leading city-states was disrupted. Fire and sword finished what the drought had started. It took nearly three centuries for consuming the entire Maya civilization. When the Spaniards landed, five centuries later, it was a ruin of its former self.

 The Maya civilization was a highly technological, hydraulic dependent society. Such societies are highly brittle. If the technology that supports them is struck down, the population immediately starves, and said immediate starvation prevents the re-establishment of the technology that made it possible. An example is Rome. When the German Vandals invaded Africa, they cut off the wheat supply of Rome, and the city shrunk, not to recover until recent decades.   

 Just as blood calls blood, war calls war. That’s why there are periods of peace, and periods of war. When an hormonal state of war has arisen among the masses, it’s hard to stop.

 Obama, as he deliberately targets innocent families for assassination, on the other side of the Earth, just because they happened to be there, should also learn this: horror calls upon much more horror. Once one has taught one’s enemy that horror does not have to stop anywhere, one did not just give them ideas, one has lost the high moral ground, essential to win wars.

 Bin Laden, by attacking civilian objectives in the USA did exactly what the CIA had taught him to do. It fit reasonably well the Qur’an interpreted all too literally. But bin Laden had practiced in Afghanistan, under American guidance. Thus 9/11 was a feedback loop.

By making the targeting of innocent families for assassination the call of the highest officer in the land, Obama is taking a civilizational risk, that no civilization took before. I really don’t know of any major leader, in the last 3,000 years, keen to be viewed as a responsible assassin of families, or responsible for assassinating families, as a matter of state. It is actually a direct violation of the State of Law doctrine, well known of the ancient Romans.

 True, many leaders did just that, assassinating innocent families. Charles Taylor, ex-president of Liberia, 64 year old, just got 50 years at la Hague, for such crimes. But Taylor did what criminal leaders like him did in the past; he tried his best, to hide his crimes. Whereas the Committee Of The 100 Murderous Ones operates in such full view in Washington DC, that even the New York Times finally detected its existence (I have spoken of it for a very long time, while the NYT ignored it…)

 In an instance of comparison, emperor Tiberius, who succeeded Augustus as “Princeps” (“First Man”… in the senate!) is widely viewed as bloody, and tyrannical. However, an examination of the historical record shows otherwise.  In the whole twenty three years of Tiberius’ reign, no more than fifty-two persons were accused of treason. Almost half escaped conviction. Others were extremely culprit, some even having killed one, and possibly both, of the emperor’s sons, who were themselves the two most major Roman politicians (that was discovered 8 years after the second poisoning!) Four innocent people who were condemned fell victims to the excessive zeal of the Senate, not to the Emperor’s alleged tyranny. We don’t know of ONE assassination ordered by Tiberius. Not one. Whereas the New York Times speaks about “lists” of assassination by Obama. A Death Panel of the murderous 100 sits at the White House. “1984” feels quaint. 

 Nevertheless, thanks to Tacitus’s propaganda, Tiber’s, and Rome’s reputation, have been forever marred.

 Too bad. Faced with a gigantic debt crisis in the entire Roman empire, Tiberius did exactly what I say should be done now. An enormous, generalized default was followed by a gigantic government stimulus and re-financing program. It was so successful, that even Tacitus has to admit it!

 Merkel, as she destroys Europe by refusing the only solutions available, while letting accomplices accuse scapegoats, and stuffing the culprits (banks) with free money, is herself letting an intolerable situation grow ever more insufferable, the sort of situations that lead to war. In that sense she is like these Maya leaders who, around 600 CE refused the only solutions available. Just as Obama, she chose plutocracy as her friend. Blacker than  Obama himself, she adds coal to her hellish recipe.

 In the 1300s, Europe enjoyed a huge population, and faced an ecological disaster. Forests had been devastated, but society depended completely on wood, for construction and energy. Leaders took dramatic ecological measures. Wars and plagues were not avoided, and Europe lost half of its population in a few years (around 1350 CE). On the positive side, the forests grew again.

 At some point nasty situations will always careen out of control. That is why nasty situations have to be defused, as soon as they are detected. (Something Merkel is deliberately not doing as she claims, disingenuously, that only thus, by creating an insufferable situation, will other countries reform; she forgets to mention that most of the so called “aid” is a subsidy for the plutocratic system, where it circles right back. In other words, she is a liar.)

 The real Satans are those who could have done something about it, but refused to, be it only because nobody called them out for the trash they became.

 At this point, we observe a moral collapse of leadership in all too many places. It’s no coincidence: miscreants encourage each other, be it only by playing real dumb. It is easier to be a criminal than a honest person, especially when plutocracy dangles its fruits of evil, for the taking. 

 Civil war in the Inca empire, the exactions of the Aztecs on surrounding nations, Rome ethical collapse in guise of Christianity, Bagdhad’s, the Hans, and other empires’ degeneracy before the Mongols showed up, all played crucial roles in their collapse. So it was for the Mayas’ implosion. 

 A civilization can be destroyed by a cataclysm (Crete) or a hateful enemy (Carthage). However, most of the time, civilizations fail morally first. Just watch the news, and worry.

***

Patrice Ayme

***

P/S: L ‘appétit vient en mangeant (Rabelais in Gargantua, 1534 CE). Captured by Shakespeare in 1600 CE as “Appetite comes with eating!

Way Out For Obabush, Bushama, and Oblahblah.

January 23, 2010

  

NEUROHORMONAL CHANGE NEEDED. 

[Neurohormones are chemical substances secreted by the brain, which allow it to become a higher dimensional object, the way I look at it; for a more thorough and conventional description of neurohormones see: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/410635/neurohormone

*** 

CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN: OUT WITH GREED! 

*** 

Abstract: The first year of Obama’s presidency has been an unmitigated disaster. Ironically, the fundamental reason has to do with the essence of Mr. Obama’s character, which led to his selection by the true bosses of the USA (Warren Buffet, Jamie Dimon, etc.). 

However, if Mr. Obama understands that he has been played like a violin, precisely because he was a sort of Candide, he may be able to change his neurohormonal balance, towards the combativeness necessary to great politicians, intellectuals, and philosophers. Even fishes have come to that conclusion. 

A good first step will be for Obama to get rid of some of his closest advisers, who have been judge, party and perpetrator to the economic disaster visiting the world. 

*** 

BLAHBLAH COMPLETELY LOST IN THE BUSH: 

Is it Obabush, or is it Bushama? Would Bush have been as bad? Obama is still stuck in his Oblahblah phase (described by Scientific American in the December 2009 issue as “Obama’s verbiage”). Obama is floundering mightily in his oil pan, mystifying the People with lofty verbiage and spastic strategy, claiming to be cooler than ever, while everything falls apart since none of the problems has even started to be addressed. 

Trillions of dollars were sent to the individuals who destroyed the world economy. The White House will tell you that it was only a few hundred billions: they lie, or, worse, they understand too little. In any case, the point is that they sent nearly all the money that could be found, in the present, or the future, or in China, and then asked for nothing in return, as they gave it to the “banksters“. 

And anyway, what was the idea there? To give to the destroyers the means, again, to keep on destroying the world economy? The USA has the highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression; the U6 rate is roughly at 17.5% (it reached 25% in the Great Depression of the 1930s). However, the hit on real median per capita income, over ten years, is just as bad as during the 1930s. 

No health care improvement is to be had, the latest pretext from the White House being the election of a telegenic white guy, from the other party that Obama tries to seduce, and who, like Ms. Palin, used professional sex appeal to get started in life. Obama could have signed an executive order or two, improving Medicare’s financial situation, while opening it up. Clearly the power elite did not want to improve health care, because they love to be lobbied by the present corrupt health care industry. 

Obama did not give any relief on the home front, either. There are eight million homes in various states of foreclosure, plus at least 4 million homes in inventory (some realtors say 20 million homes are unoccupied!). Obama could have made it so that principals on homes would have been reduced swiftly, so that homeownership became affordable again, and construction starts again. 

Instead, Obama let the banks keep on using imaginary valuations in real estate, while allowing said banks to still send all the money to the derivative universe, where banks create fake profits that made them so rich (that paradox is the beauty of derivatives, as far as the power elite and plutocracy are concerned). 

It seems that a job program for the average Joe will have to wait until the sea reaches the White House lawn. 

This is, at first sight, weird: just on the environment, there is plenty of work for all Americans, should the president decide the crash program needed for purely environmental reasons. 

So why is nothing being done? As I have argued in the past, there is a single underlying reason: corrupt White House officials, corrupt power elite, and degenerate plutocracy intend to keep on cashing on the banking, financial and economic systems AS THEY ARE, just as they have cashed on it in the past. They preserve their cash cow, while blahblahing the other way. Oblahblah, oblahblah: such is their program, like magicians in a circus. 

For example, Summers, Emanuel, Geithner made a lot of money from banks and derivatives. The right hand man of Obama made 16 million dollars in two years from a bank, while knowing no finance or economics. He was also made a director of Fannie Mae, another lucrative position for which he had no formation. 

Summers, the architect of America’s disaster for 30 years running, made more than eight million dollars “working” for a derivative business, just as he was advising Obama, in his evil way. Other “work” of Summers consisted in advising foreign powers on how to better fleece Americans. There are a lot of American sheep, the “work” is never done, as far as Summers and his ilk are concerned. 

Bush’s last defense budget was 537 billion US dollars. That was already plenty bad enough. Obama boosted the defense budget to 625 billion dollars. Then he tripled the number of troops occupying Afghanistan. Then he received the Nobel Peace prize, thus demonstrating that the influence of the plutocracy extends all the way to Norway. 

Now, of course, the war in Iraq is not finished, and the USA will never win in Afghanistan, for the good and simple reason that the USA has not enough interest, and probably not the capability, to pay the immense price that would have to be incurred to do so. 

Paul Krugman, astounded by the meek surrender of Obama on health care, after losing one US Senate seat,  puts it this way in: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/he-wasnt-the-one-weve-been-waiting-for/ : I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.” 

  

Well, Obama has shown you that he can fight, and kill people, as long as they are out of sight and out of mind. That is why he uses robots. What Obama does not like is real face to face confrontation. As he faced the defeat of his health plan, he said:”I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on.” Apparently, in his mind, Obama is only an adviser. So, question: who is Obama advising, who is really leading America? 

*** 

  

SUMMERS: FOR 3O YEARS FLEECING THE USA: 

Larry Summers already pulled the strings under Reagan, before joining Harvard as a full professor at the grand old age of 28. Plutocracy (Harvard included!) has long seen Summers as their top operator. His influence extended worldwide. The person most responsible for the financial and economic disaster gripping the planet is Larry Summers, for his work in the Clinton administration as Under Secretary and Secretary of the Treasury. Summers and company destroyed the mixed economy of the USA, and tried to extend that “work”, the rise of plutocracy, worldwide. They have been succeeding, so far. 

Let me remind everybody that the disaster of the collapse of the American financial system spread worldwide. Because of securitization, investors, worldwide, found that the quasi governmental US rating agencies had grievously lied, in cooperation with the biggest US banks. They presented products that were bound to fail, as AAA (the highest rating). This affected the reputation of the USA so much, it can be viewed as an attack against national security. 

Because of the derivative market, the taxpayers of the USA found themselves paying billions of dollars to French banks and many other foreign banks. For example, more than ten billion dollars had to go from US taxpayers to the giant French bank Société Générale. Not that I am saying that money should not have been paid. Differently from Goldman Sachs, which had set up the AIG system, Société Générale did not necessarily know that it was victim of a scam. 

The real scandal is that Larry Summers was directly responsible of all this, because he refused absolutely to regulate the sort of derivatives AIG was selling, and, in particular insisted that it should not be checked whether provisions had been made to honor the contracts. When officials under Clinton tried to do something about it, a sexist screaming Summers blocked the lady who had proposed to look into the matter (and who led the appropriate board). Obviously, Larry Summers thought that the US taxpayer would be the payer of last resort, not AIG, nor Goldman

*** 

GET RID OF SUMMERS! 

On the face of it, it’s all very simple: Obama will stay in his Oblahblah phase as long as he does not get rid of the pernicious influence of the very creature who caused, nearly singlehandedly, the financial and economic disaster that struck the entire world economy. Of course Summers is himself just an agent of the plutocracy, but arguably its main agent, 30 years ruling (!) How can one fight a fire, having as fire chief the guy who keeps setting the worst fires? 

Summers is a danger to the entire planet. That is actually his role, to endanger as much as possible, while hiding his causal influence. Summers’ role is to make a bad situation way worse: with a bit of luck, fascism will have to be called to the rescue, we are just in a transition phase, as far as the operators of Summers are concerned. Fascism is the ultimate stage of plutocracy. At least, that is what history shows. 

That Obama named Summers the de facto Treasury Secretary is testimony to his financial ignorance, and, or, that he has been operating under the influence of the top plutocrats. Since Obama called many of the top plutocrats his personal “friends”, one can only assume that his “friends” told him what to do, on a “friendly” basis; let see how long Buffet stays friendly as he gets taxed as he deserves! 

Obama, so far, has behaved as the greatest agent plutocracy ever had. Was it all a conspiracy? Or is there something more subtle at play? 

*** 

WHY DID THE BOSSES SELECT OBAMA? 

Some have written that Obama executed a “bait and switch”. But something else may be at work. After all, Obama was selected by the bosses well before he became a US Senator; the top leadership of the democratic party sent their top operative, Axelrod, adviser of Kerry during his presidential run, to Obama, when Obama was still a total unknown representative in an unknown state legislature. Then of course Goldman Sachs went all out for Obama, and the rest is history (disclosure: I and my family sent what was for us a giant amount of money to Obama; we had very personal reasons to believe in him). 

It is not much of a stretch to suppose that Obama was selected for his highly compliant character as far as the bosses were concerned. It does not take many interviews with the gentleman to figure out that strength of personality is not is forte. 

So here we have Obama, politician. A new type of politician: cool and lofty, like an iguana perched on a tree. 

There have been many types of great politicians. Some such as Churchill, Clemenceau, Lincoln, or Cicero: rocks against fascism. Some like Pericles, or Caesar: grand, but too great by half as they were rendered dangerous by hubris (French and British history have a few of these, too). 

Some great politicians are like Henri IV of France: grand and good, all over. 

But all great politicians all have something in common: extremely strong characters, towering personalities, rebellious natures. This extends to women: Queens such as Bathilde (who outlawed slavery, circa 660 CE), Isabelle of France, or Elizabeth I of England had extremely fierce personalities (the enslaved Bathilde fled her owner, one of the richest men; Elizabeth refused to marry, and welcomed the Spanish armada in armor, on a cliff, at the head of her army). 

The two Roosevelts of the USA were probably the best presidents the USA had in the twentieth century, because they had the courage to curb seriously the plutocracy. 21 centuries ago, Polybius explained that plutocracy was a recurring threat, part of a cycle, the way he saw it. 

Plutocracy was always a threat for civilization. The Romans, the Maya, the Yuan, and countless others fell to plutocracy. The threat of too much capital gathering in too few hands is driven by pure mathematics, and the law of compounded interest (which is just the exponential in disguise; the richer one is, the easier it is to get richer; even herdsmen have figured that one out… but not the Reagan style economists). 

Being a grand, or great politician is driven by more than thoughtful behavior. It is no accident that many great politicians, such as Henry VIII, Henri IV, JFK, even Roosevelt or Ibn Saud never ran out of skirts to chase. Ibn Saud, great warrior and founder of the country named after him, confessed that nothing beat lying on top of a woman. Muhammad himself was just the same, even stealing wives from his closest associates (a subject of deep scandal in Islam to this day!)

***

GREAT MEANS FORCE, HENCE NEUROHORMONAL FORCE:

When the leader of a school of some species of fish dies, another male dominant fish becomes him. So doing he becomes completely different in aspect, size, and strength, as supremacy hormones take over (or, more exactly a supreme hormonal cocktail takes over). If there is no dominant male available, a female undergoes all the transformations, and becomes the dominant super male. While not as dramatic, there is plenty of direct evidence that, even in human beings, although hormones direct behavior, the converse is also true, and an amplifying feedback system exists (and not just for sex, but also for the more esoteric stuff, the point of this essay). 

The reason for such passionate characters dominating and leading is hormonal and neurological. Great things done with minds are those requiring the most force. Mental force is mental, sure, but it is still force, and, of all the forces, it is the force with the most force there is. 

Evolutionary speaking, mental force has been driven by ferocity, for want of a better word. The ferocity of the human species has made the planet into our garden. Yes, well, this is very far from Rousseau’s platitudes, and it puts a somewhat sinister foundation to Voltaire’s final injunction in Candide: “Il faut cultiver notre jardin!” (one must cultivate one’s garden). But as Deng Xiaoping said:”It does not matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice!” To cultivate the garden well, one needs to eradicate the pests. 

The point is that Homo Sapiens is a cat who, whether it be black, or white, or big or small, was, overall, capable of catching mice. And also all big cats (Big cats are suspected to have had the greatest mass of land animals, until fairly recently). 

Some men become leaders, because their natural ferocity and mental strength drove the extermination of enemies and the accomplishment of great tasks. Not all men can be leaders. The same can be observed with lionesses: not all are leaders, and great huntresses. Others just follow along, opportunistically: they feed on the kill, but they systematically do not work as much for it (evolutionary theorists have worked on that intriguing subject). 

*** 

KENNEDY HAD BALLS, IN OTHER WORDS, THE CORRECT NEURO HORMONES: 

In 1962, president Kennedy confronted the biggest steel companies: “The simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steel corporations increasing steel prices by some six dollars a ton constitute a wholly unjustified and irresponsible defiance of the public interest.” Kennedy was a real warrior, and authentic war hero. He went on the offensive in the next three days

1) The Defense Dept. announced plans to review steel contracts and switch to lower-cost suppliers. Defense Secretary McNamara placed an order for three submarines with Lukens Steel, which had not raised its prices; the contract would normally have been split among different suppliers including U.S. Steel. 

2) The Justice Department initiated an investigation as to whether the near-simultaneous price increases were a form of monopoly subject to anti-trust laws. Attorney General Robert Kennedy explicitly included the question of whether U.S. Steel “so dominates the industry that it controls prices and should be broken up.” 

3) The President went on the air to tell the press and the public why the steel companies’ actions were not in the public interest, and against the “MIXED ECONOMY OF THE USA”. 

Now of course neither the Reagan brain washed public or professional economists have any idea about what a MIXED ECONOMY is, and, a fortiori that the USA had one when it was the greatest. All the public and the economists know is that it has got to be something rather French, and, therefore, suspect. 

Now what we have, ever since Reagan, is an attempt to get a purely plutocratic economy, where everybody would be a servant to a private very rich individual, or a powerful oligarchy. We had that before: it was called (plutocratic) Rome. It failed. The Middle Ages, instead, were characterized by the rise of guilds, in other words, unions. Unions of workers, fraternal, proud of work in general, and their work in particular. The USA that won the Second World War, and that Kennedy inherited, was a republic of engineers (that is why it won WWII). It was not the plutocratic republic Rome, or the USA, turned into. 

Kennedy concluded: “My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now.” 

*** 

I THINK MORE, THEREFORE I WELCOME THE FIGHT: 

The difference between someone such as Roosevelt or Kennedy and Obama has been, probably, so far, at the very least, neurohormonal. Different neurohormones are produced by, and lead to, different brains. The brain of a lackey is different from that of his master. Masters lead, lackeys “advise“. 

Forging ahead in the mental world  requires great gusto, great heat, unstoppable force, just the qualities Obama seems to believe are not characteristic of the intellectual he claims to want to be. 

But Obama knows his history too little. He does not even seem to know, that THINKING IS FIGHTING. Although many intellectuals pushed that notion explicitly during the twentieth century: Camus, Hemingway, etc. Camus named his newspaper “Combat”. 

Just in France, in a particular short period, intellectuals such as De Beauvoir (yes, a woman), Joliot-Curie (yes, another woman), Sartre, Camus, Foucault, Aron, even as they talked peace and progress, were not only extremely gutsy, but also enthusiastically at each others’ throats. 

Their fights were something that, far from demeaning it, fostered world intellectual progress. The passion provided –literally- with the energy inside the brains to melt the old mental structures, and replace them by more sophisticated ones. 

The all-consuming passion those intellectuals had for thinking better, helped in all sorts of ways. In the 1950s, the Soviet Union representative, in a world intellectual meeting, called Sartre a “dactylographic hyena”. Irene Joliot-Curie stormed out, with the entire French delegation that she led. After that, intellectually compromising with Stalinism was definitively on the way out in Europe. 

*** 

NO GUTS, NO BRAINS: 

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt loudly boasted of the “hatred” that bankers had for him. Hate can be an excellent motivation. Passion is good: such is the difference with the passivity of Buddhism, or Confucianism, and that is why China, after millennia of soporific “Eastern” philosophy, is standing up, ever since she adopted Marxism, a typically passionate Western European philosophy in the best tradition of Western European democratic rebellion. 

Earlier Nietzsche, said of his book Ecce Homo that “one has to have guts merely to endure it”. That is the point: one needs guts just to endure some thoughts

One actually need guts just to produce the most advanced thoughts, at any stage of human progress. 

A practical example: Obama obviously cannot endure the thought that his hyper rich friends who were so tender and respectful of him, obviously preparing for him the best of futures, are just sleazebags burying the world under their filth and dementia. There is only that much that one can take when one’s guts are too delicate. The best American presidents, Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Eisenhower, JFK, all had lots of guts. 

*** 

BACK TO BASICS: 

Politics is practical philosophy. Politicians who forge new politics forge, or use, recent philosophy. 

“Philo-sophy” means love-wisdom. But, of course, everybody loves wisdom. So what is really meant by philosophy, or a philosopher, is someone who loves wisdom much more than average people do (and, implicitly, does it better). And what does “much more” means? It means that one will fight more readily, that one has more passion for the cause, a cause, some cause. Better mental combat capability, more aggressive neurohormones

All great philosophers, and all great politicians, those who have durably changed the world’s thought system, were all great fighters. If one does not have the passion to sustain the fight, one cannot even think, let alone act. Being cool and superficial depicts oneself as just a pawn of higher powers. 

In the USA, right wing politicians have dominated for thirty years, because they have the fire of passion for their (perverse, and self defeating) causes. If Clinton let Rubin, Summers, Greenspan (yes, I know the Fed is supposed to be independent) and company lead him by the nose, it was, fundamentally, because he worried mostly about himself, and that the passion for doing great things was with the plutocrats. 

Some will argue that nothing has changed, that we have in Obama another figurehead, mostly fascinated by himself, and doing whatever the higher powers want him to do. But there is hope. 

*** 

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL WAY OUT: 

Precisely because Obama was ignorant, obviously embarassingly so, of how evil and incompetent Larry Summers, and most of his corrupt advisers were, therein WHAT COULD SAVE HIM. 

Obama can now turn around, and say that he was misled to an immense extent, and that these people need to be punished all the more, since not only they misled the American People, but they even misled him, Obama. A good occasion for Obama to show how intelligent he really is. Intelligence is adaptation, and the teleonomic selection of the fittest behaviors. Intelligence, thus, means change. Not change one can believe in, but change allowing to find the fittest behaviors, and thus, survive. 

It could all turn out to be very cathartic. Of course Geithner, Bernanke, etc, should also go, but they are just little soldiers, relative to Summers who has presided over the destruction of the USA ever since he served Reagan thirty years ago (bringing destruction of FDR’s work, deregulation and thus the failures of the Saving and Loans industry, to start with). 

All the big bankers should be examined by the justice department under RICO, the anti-Racketeering Act, as I advised to do  a while  ago (https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/time-for-rico/). 

If the conspiracy between Goldman Sachs and AIG was not racketeering, I wonder what is. 

So there is hope. As long as Obama uses this catharsis to change himself. And that should start with recovering some dignity with the help of anger. Someday, though, we will need a political system that depends upon more than one king, however elected he is. And certainly not selected by the self serving Warren Buffet. About the later plutocratic boss, see for example: http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2010/01/21/buffett-lets-public-down/?source=patrick.net

We need to start to elect ideas, not people. And certainly not puppets. 

*** 

Patrice Ayme 

*** 

Annex: direct democracy has been used in Switzerland for a long time, with good results (except for the occasional craziness such as the Minaret interdiction, which should be struck down by some European court). In California, a partial direct democracy exists, but without enough constitutional guarantees: prop 13 sucked out too much taxation income to leave enough to operate the state, to the glee of the plutocracy, and the increasing sorrow of everybody else). Thus direct democracy can work, but only in a carefully constructed constitutional context still to be determined. Polling opinions is the ersatz presently used.