My idea: CLOTHES SHOP FOR DADS
You roll up at the facility, drive over to the JEANS hut. Dinnerlady-type in her wee hole says "What size luv," you go "thirrehfourthirrehtwoluv" while making a mental note to go easy on the pies so you can get back to 32/32, she goes "Right you are luv, tenner alright?" and chucks you a bin bag full of dead blokes' jeans that aren't too far gone and you give her a tenner and you're done, move on. T-shirts next.
T-shirts are more complicated, your jeans were the simple one to ease you into it. Pull round to a bloke eating a pasty. He asks "Size," you go "Medium or large depending y'know," he nods, "You wanting colour, drab, black or mixup?" you think about it a moment and go aye, go on then, "Mix it up mate, colours and drab," he goes "Plain or wi' shite on, plain's two quid extra," you're sure as hell not gonna advertise some bugger else's T-shirt business on your body, so you give him twelve quid and he hands you Bin Bag 2.
There's a pub on-premises that'll do you some chips or a pasty and you can watch the JCB sorting out the clothes while you drink your pint and furtle through your bags to see what you've bought.
It'd be brilliant. Buying clothes would have nae stress at all, plus if you ended up wearing shite and looking a bit of a muppet you could just go "Aye well it were in the bag weren't it" and everybody'd nod and go aye, fair do's
The anarchists discipline their ranks by exposing their backsliders to elections, and thereby subjecting them to the agonizing and paradoxical combination energies that politicians provide: nerd and theater kid energy.
Democracy is a system by which the anarchists punish us statists by sending their most marginally pro-social representative to be a representative of chaotic neutral in order to generate the surprise needed to steer the ship of self-organization. We democrats think that we are settling issues by a comparing crowd sizes, but the truth of it is that all of this happens in a clearing created by the silent anarchist majority.
The liberal subject -- autonomous, empirical, rational -- was the culmination of an Enlightenment project of public *paideia,* or *bildung*.
"Walking on eggshells" is basically the phenomenology of internalizing a norm or standard. A person who feels like walking on eggshells is not experiencing something contrary to tyranny, but is participating in it. Tyrants and tyrannizing personalities want you to feel like you're walking on eggshells. They want you to be painfully self-aware. They want you, you, YOU to feel the blame.
At the end of the day, this is what it all comes down to, right? There's just an internal switch that gets thrown and you direct your energy to B instead of A. As much as people try to rationalize the process, almost all of that stuff is window dressing around a big gaping aporia beyond any faculty of reason. People make original choices when they're re-awaken to freedom -- typically by being in the presence of someone else acting truly free, novel, and original-- and the rest is just commentary
A nice video showing what [[Euclid]] is capable of:
https://dlmultimedia.esa.int/download/public/videos/2024/10/023/orig-2410_023_AR_EN.mp4
I'm suggesting that "ESP" corresponds with the Cusan vision of "intellectus," or direct access from the immediate source of experience. "Ratio," which can be duplicated in machines, involves the discursive operation of the objects within mental experience.
A funny thing about Turing's *Computing Machinery and Intelligence* is the discussion of ESP.
ESP seems like a pseudo-science now, but thinking machines were unthinkable in 1950. And the nice thing about this comparison is that they resemble Nicholas of Cusa's distinction of "ratio" and "intellectus."
"Ratio" is discursive comparison, judgment, choice, etc. The kind of thing that no one would argue computers are incapable of doing. "Intellectus" is direct apprehension, like the angels.
This is honestly one of the scenarios that scares the shit out of me. For all of the problems we see coming down the pike w.r.t. climate change, a major volcano would yield a lot of ecosystem collapse in novel/unexpected ways. All of this would force the existing political system to actively make choices about geoengineering that are very likely to be badly informed, poorly executed, and insufficiently tracked. Once we're geoengineering on the fly I suspect we'll lose the whole planet.
If there is one vice in Greek thought it is this: because they had the misfortune of being *first* in the culture of inquiry, they misinterpreted the silences in their own dialogues as a kind of resting point, akin to the rest of an Olympian athlete after the games. But in the history of thought, the scale of those silences have shrunk into caesurae or less. And now it becomes apparent that there is no resting point within the world of ideas, and that inquiry does not pierce-through to the end.
Humanist interested in the consequences of the machine on intellectual history.