Cȯsꭑọ ∴ ọꭑƨȯƆ @cosmiccitizen@schelling.pt

The reference at the heart of all of this is impossibly obscure. It's impression on your will is crooked and self-mocking. But in all of it there is enough looseness, enough play between the elements that there is the possibility that it is all redeemed by this experience of beauty. You cannot say that this beauty is what the roaches felt, or even what your human neighbors feel, and you cannot say how the cereal makes it possible. But the possibility is undeniable, and it stirs in you a theme:

The more you find yourself contemplating the aesthetic the more it becomes a source of profound inner clarity, deeper even that what you can even articulate in private words.

Beauty. Beauty itself. Beauty in its endless resplendent array of senses. Beauty from the senses but beyond the senses. Beauty that seems somehow beyond the whole world, even though it's only glimpsed in such things as the groin of a tree or an unexceptional historical tea set. Here too beauty is rescuing the world.

The doubts that you hold about pheromones also rupture into your mind at terrible times. Your boss tells you to "follow your nose" in an important meeting and you can't recover after that. Or more accurately you insist on trying to recover but do it in a method that is so pained and self-aware that the episode becomes a major entry in your collection of memories that inspire self-loathing.

And yet even in the midst of all of this there is one aspect that hovers over everything else, like dawn.

You can't give up, or at least you find yourself doubting whether little choices betray you.
One day you hesitate before pouring boiling water on some ants. You cannot convince yourself that you know why you do this: hesitate, then torture. You do not know what this means, but you feel strongly that if you had forgotten about the Christmas Ghost as well as you thought you would have, you would have been certain in either killing the bugs or sparing them.

But the roaches died when the archipelago was contacted by European missionaries. This at least opens up to research, and you get several solid theories about what specifically killed the roaches and how their sense of pheromones might have been physiologically felt, at least.
So now you've got the aesthetics of the pheromones, the way that a qualitative dimension might have felt to a distantly extinct animal population, and you feel like the whole thing turns absurd again.
You try to give up.

You tell yourself that it was a hallucination but the visit is dimly, distantly, but unmistakably captured through the window by a neighbor's doorbell cam.
You don't remember the breakfast cereal, and it has no Wikipedia page, but then you spend so much time trying to remember it that you can no longer say with certainly whether you partially remember it or whether you've fooled yourself.
And then there's the roaches. Wikipedia says that they once inhabited a certain Pacific archipelago.

The Ghost of Christmas Gray-Orange morality appears in the corner of your room with a version of you that is visibly confused. It explains that this is what your life would look like if in terms of specific pheromonal aesthetics, appreciable only to small subspecies of roaches, if your mom had let you have a certain breakfast cereal during your youth. The pair disappear into thin air.

I use every opportunity to say "fingerspitzengefuhl."

Now I want to admit that I could be wrong about the internal coalitional politics of people fighting climate change. It may be that "bleeding hearts" are less influential than I believe. And it may be that the "mere climate" faction is going to lead the charge. I hope they do. But I sincerely doubt it.

The "mere climate" fraction of the coalition -- that is, those who are treating climate change as an emergency sufficient that they must forestall the social transformation -- are probably not going to persuasively prevail within their coalition because they do not have as many prescriptive references to deploy ("look at the suffering of X! don't you care?") and furthermore they are incredibly unlikely to succeed at the object level (actually fighting climate change) as a hyper-minority.

And furthermore this changes the value proposition for joining the coalition. Now if you're a person who *merely* wants to fight climate change, you face a two-sided front against people who want the status quo as well as people who want social transformation welded to climate change. This is not an attractive proposition in part because it is not likely to succeed. The people who make bigger demands have a lot of prescriptive force, especially among bleeding-hearts, and...

But the prescriptive part only has power if it brings together coalitions of people see the value in making it a reality. I think that more people see the value in fighting climate change than see the value in linking climate change to fixing society, and the mismatch between the two constituencies is going to divide the "fix climate change" coalition

So let's say that there's a *descriptive* account of climate change (here's how things are changing) and there's a *prescriptive* account of what we should do about it (fight it like it's an emergency, plus use this situation to fix society). The descriptive part has real predictive power. So far so good.

As for me I will place my trust in the weirdo freaks who jumped multiple quintiles in their standardized tests and those who derive growth from instability. Give me a moneyball team of high-variance space oddities and I'll make hay of the elites.

Here's a strange thing: most of the elites in the developed world have no liminal experiences with gatekeepers or gatekeeping institutions. They think in terms of binary sorting, sheep and goats. So they look at the most stable indicators rather than the most disruptive ones. It is actually an anti-progressive stance in the sense that we have gatekeepers distributing positional goods with very little expectation of growth, development, or the cultivation of surprise by those who they reward.

Keynes' work on probability is the same way.

Charles William Eliot and his consequences

People are clinging harder than ever to the notion that identity is durable and material at exactly the instant that it has become more transient and ephemeral than ever. We all know this to some extent. We're all watching the machinery of the culture industry manufacture new selves, new subjectivities out of holograms. That much is to be expected. But what is most remarkable and dissonant is that there are masses who willingly agree that these phantasms speak to their innermost realities.

I accidentally found myself talking about Nick Land at work over lunch. WHOOPSIE FUCKIN POOPSIE