#Deterministic Evolution

[rodgermalcolmmitchell]

A converstion with Copilot, re. quantum entanglement

As Richard Feynman, a renowned physicist known for his work in quantum mechanics (QM) and quantum electrodynamics, famously said, “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” In one sense, that comment is discouraging, but in another sense, it is encouraging because no matter how ill-informed you may be, you can take comfort in the knowledge that the…

[cursedwretch]

tempted to write a series of character studies for s2!viktor because I largely think his villain arc was rife with missed opportunities

[235uranium]

all of science will alter your perspective and even unsettle you but physics has a tendency to take every reasonable assumption you make and mutilate it

[transmutationisms]

In what way are phrenological principles still foundational to research psychology & neurology, and science in general? Asking out of ignorance and wanting to know more.

so, phrenology throughout the 19th century was a broad program of research principles, self-help advice, and social-hygienic prognostication. we tend to think of it now as being reducible to a craniometric chart and a crank trying to divine personality traits from a person's skull shape—this did happen, but phrenology encompassed much more than that. it was a driving force in the increasing acceptance of ideas like brain localisation (that the brain did not act as one, but had distinct parts that could behave differently and independently to one another), the related position that human psychology and personalities could be classified / taxonomised / measured (like, 'attention' as being a faculty distinct from 'judgment' or 'reason' or so forth), and the belief that organic derangements of the brain accounted for a person's individual social / economic / intellectual success, as well as social phenomena like crime, delinquency, or addiction.

by about the 1890s, the word "phrenology" had become more or less dismissed in mainstream french and british scientific circles, and it was portrayed as a pseudoscientific perversion of respectable craniometry / anthropometry. this happened for many reasons, including that british and french medicine were professionalising over the course of the 19th century and that phrenological practitioners were often unlicensed and operating more in a marginal self-help space (akin to many of today's astrologers) than in institutionally sanctioned scientific circles. additionally, after world war ii, phrenology's association with eugenics made it even more unpalatable; it was now seen to be politically dangerous even to those who had previously endorsed eugenics. the same happened to many other theories and disciplines of social-hygienic or degeneration-theory ideas.

however, the rejection of phrenology that began in the late 19th century and intensified in the late 20th has been largely superficial, and 'modern' science has never really grappled with the phrenological roots of so much neuro-deterministic and anthropomentric thinking, from psychiatry to a great deal of moralistic public health to the incredibly deeply entrenched, yet blatantly prejudicial in every way, idea that a person's appearance is indicative of their character or morality. fundamentally phrenology was a major driver in the acceptance (in many different fields) of scientific 'naturalism', a general rejection of prior christian teleological thinking and search for universally deterministic scientific laws instead. rendering mental action into the category of 'natural thing governed by natural laws' was foundational, for example, to darwin's conception of evolution and his effort to distinguish his own theory from the teleological evolutionary theory of robert chambers.

none of this is to say that scientific naturalism ought to be inherently rejected, or replaced with christian metaphysics; however, failing to grapple with the fuller legacy of phrenology, and eugenics more generally, because we don't want to upset what philosophical boundaries we think we've erected between religion and 'modern' science allows such eugenic thinking to retain its centrality in current scientific practice.

it is also always worth emphasising that phrenology, like a lot of scientific theories of self-improvement, has frequently been employed as a vehicle of liberal ideology, particularly in britain. although phrenological practitioners have at various times tried to ally themselves with a superficially radical sort of 'common man's' rejection of the élite scientific institutions, phrenology has at the same time followed a general trajectory whereby it emphasises more and more an idea of personal responsibility for one's own neuro-biological traits and associated character flaws. this is often seen as more palatable than outright hereditarian thinking because, rather than tacitly endorsing the expurgation of the biologically 'unfit', the liberal phrenologist affirms that people simply need to overcome, tame, or temper their own neurobiological defects in order to live productive, socially desirable lives. cf. 'negative' versus 'positive' eugenics.

if you're interested in this i would recommend roger cooter's 'the cultural meaning of popular science: phrenology and the organisation of consent in 19th-century britain' (1984) and philip rehbock's 'the philosophical naturalists: themes in early 19th-century british biology' (1983). cooter was an avowed marxist and his account of phrenology, science, and their relationships to industrial capitalism—while not flawless—is markedly different from any other prior literature on the topic. rehbock's book is less politically daring and less focussed on phrenology specifically, but clarifies some aspects of scientific naturalism and what is meant by distinguishing a 'modern' scientific episteme from earlier practices and principles.

[txttletale]

You sure pretend like you care about tribal societies a lot for someone whose philosophy depends on the idea that history is a process that starts with Hunter gatherers and then “progresses” into slave society, then feudalism, then capitalism, then socialism, then communism. Do you not understand the inherent racism in this? You seem pretty clever, idk how you believe this shit

marxism doesn't in any way "depend on" marx & engels' 19th-century view of 'civilization' nor upon their drawing upon the (obviously racist and imperialist) anthropological tradition of the time, because marxism is a living theoretical tradition capable of self-critique and evolution. yes, there are aspects of marx & engels that are flawed, particularly their understandings of indigenous society. to be clear--the extreme, deterministic teleology of progress that many modern marxists hold to is a grotesque exaggeration and vulgarization of what marx & engels actually said and the genuine theories of historical materialism.

but that's a little besides the point, because more importantly marxism (especially in latin america!) has in fact reckoned with exactly the sort of bias and bigotry you're talking about here! writers like linera and estes and coulthard have put in lots of theoretical work bridging the gaps between marxism failings and modern movements for indigenous liberation. marxists do not consider marx & engels free from 'ruthless criticism of all that exists'!

[maximumzombiecreator]

Hi, I am so pleased to have discovered your blog.

I am running an AD&D campaign for some friends to expose them to the way things use to work (my parents ran a long term campaign for me and my brother when we were kids) and it has been a blast.

I'm running the temple of elemental evil, which has a (small) megadungeon. they've completed the introduction before the megadungeon and the next session has them entering. I'm doing my best to absorb everything about the adventure and factions to figure out how best to approach it from my end, but also to figure out how to present the playstyle to my players.

you're blog has been super helpful for me, thank you so much!

do you have any advice on how to budget my prep time between every adventure?

Ooh, so, on the subject of prep I am a giant hypocrite. I'm constantly advocating for people to do less prep, efficient prep, etc., and then I Do Not Do That.

I think some of my favourite prep advice is what the Sine Nomine games call the Golden Rule of Preparation: at any given step, ask yourself: Am I having fun prepping this? If the answer isn't yes, ask yourself: Do I need this for the next session? If the answer to that also isn't yes, don't do it. Leave it for later, or don't do it at all.

For Temple of Elemental Evil specifically, I'd probably focus my prep on familiarizing myself with the area of the dungeon the players are most likely to reach in the next session. Gygax's room keys are often written to be big blocks of text that don't make finding the most relevant information easy. I'd recommend either going through and highlighting the most important bits, or possibly rewriting the key in a manner that formats things in a way you like.

The module provides the wandering monster tables and the restocking procedure (though if I were running it, I think I'd replace the restocking procedure. It's deterministic, which I dislike) so you can do any restocking that's called for. But there's not much you need to do. Issues in the key notwithstanding, I'd be confident in my ability to run it blind, even restocking can be handled at the table.

So, if that's the case, then that means you get to focus on the prep you want to do. That'll depend on you, but some suggestions would be:

Create an adversary roster. This is a really helpful tool for managing adjacent spaces in a dungeon. (In fact, the Temple of Elemental Evil is one of the specific examples Justin calls out in that essay.) This will make it much easier to keep more of the dungeon in play at any given point in time and respond to what the party is doing. It's easy to create this while familiarizing yourself with the key as well.

Spice up the evolution of the dungeon. I really enjoy this part, so it's a big part of prep for me. As mentioned, I'd probably want a different restocking procedure, and then I'd spend a bit of prep figuring out how the different factions interact and struggle with each other within the dungeon. Playing the various factions against each other is a big opportunity in the temple, since the various elemental cults are all pretty antagonistic to one another, and I'd look for ways to make this apparent to the players.

Focus on creating specific hooks. For example, Temple of Elemental Evil leaves a sort of floating hook for the GM to place, the poem that is supposed to lead to the Orb of Golden Death. So it's useful to think, in prep, of where to put this so that the players can find it organically. If there are other parts of the dungeon, or the overall campaign, that are interesting to you, creating specific hooks to draw attention to these and seeding them can be a great use of prep.

But overall, don't feel the need to do prep you don't want to. Megadungeons tend to require a lot of single shot upfront prep (the dungeon itself, helpfully provided for you, in this case), and then be pretty low-prep to run thereafter. So focus on what brings you joy, and then let everything else play out at the table.

[transgenderer]

every time yudkowsky talks about evolution i get really annoyed because he seems tot hink of this as this super harsh optimizing process and like obviously this is a qualitative distinction but i think its just...not that? most organisms kind of suck. like. well humans have unusually high mutational load but mutational load is aiui pretty high in general. like i guess the underlying question would be something like "how deterministic is evolution?". i think yudkowsky thinks of evolution as very deterministic (except for the underlying randomness inherent to mutation) and i think of evolution as highly nondeterministic. like its statistically determinist in a very broad sense, if you average over all species over all time there are rules. but you shouldnt expect every species to obey those rules in its particular evolutionary path. like, whatever can happen

[catluniscia]

They Call Me Mother Righteous marked

Okay lot to unwrap here, So you know Mr Sinister? Okay so He is a Clone of Nathaniel Essex if you remember the original 90s x-men cartoon you would remember some stuff about this guy who was super obsessed with deterministic interpretations of natural evolution mutantions, and went bloody mad, And Apocalypse mutated him and made him into the Original Mr Sinister and was determined to basically become like a god called Dominion. So That guy died, and clones were made of him to continue the work, Mr Sinister, Doctor Stasis, and Orbis Stellaris, who are based on Essex, and Mother Righteous, this woman up here was based around his late wife. The clones were basically figuring out ways to reach dominion (god like) in different ways. She specialized in magical studies and the collection of artifacts, becoming a mysterious and mischievous dealmaker. Kinda like medias showing of the devil, the cross roads, what ever. Also all the clones have a card suit as a symbol on their head...and yes of course hers is a heart

-deep breath- I just want you guys to know this was the best bite size way to explain this woman, I read her wiki blurb like 10 times to make sure I get the gist right. Because I know people are gonna ask, I just want it known I just really love her look and just wanted to draw her...she has a look, and its very fun, also who doesn't love women in pant suits? The wrong kind I tells ya! And Yes the title is a reference to Call Me Mother from Rupaul...the song kept playing in my head when I was working on this. 

[omegasmileyface]

i LOOOOVVVEEEEE integrating probability into things. i love fitting functions that probably should just be deterministic behind a dice roll or a random number get function. I LOVE QUANTUM COMPUTING. i love the idea that we never can be CERTAIN whether something can happen, only that there is some small (how small? we dont know!) probability that it wont. i love obscure video game mechanics that are based on strange, hidden number rolls. i love conceiving of the universe as a series of observed probabilities. i love the heart of gold from hitchhiker's guide. i love markov chains and evolution simulations. i used to hate that quantum physics gets to the point where there is no correct outcome, only likelihoods, but i love it now! i love mathematical chaos, i love it when a small change in starting conditions, even in a fully deterministic system, makes for a large change down the line. i love adding randomness to problem-solving algorithms, because if you only let them choose the MOST optimal choice at any time theyll get stuck in local maxima instead of going on bolder, stranger, harder routes and finding the REAL best solution. i love seeing "luck" as a series of probabilities, i love that things with a 0% chance of happening can still happen, and i love that we can never know the likelihood of everything doing what it does— only that some things are happening and some things aren't. thats so cool!

[caliumcyanide]

"Why is it that everyone who has a supernatural ability has a twisted heart to go with it?.."

A haphazardly put together and incomplete Analysis of Dazai and Mori's differences and similarities in relation to their peculiar obsessions.

So, I recently stumbled across Taxidermia, (a 2006 Hungarian surrealist horror movie) and since everything else occupying the RAM in my brain is BSD right now, I subconsciously and later, consciously related the two together.

At this point we're all aware of the themes such as "cycle of abuse" and "the chain of salvation" that are present throughout the whole of BSD. The story isn't a horror, and is not meant so much as a warning, but a conversation with the reader/viewer. Then how can this film possibly relate to any of this? Well...

“By the way, who’s the person you said I reminded you of?” he asked.

Mori smiled faintly. Then with a hint of melancholy in his expression, he gave his answer:

...

So, in this movie, the story is told by means of three generations of Hungarian men; 3 characters with one specific trait, quirk, obsession, if you will. In simple terms: one is a pervert, the other is a speed-eater, and the third one is a dedicated to his craft taxidermist. I guess, by now, you see where this is going, right?

Now, I'd argue the situation relayed in BSD is quite ambiguous. What is a skill? What does it truly represent? (I wanted to look into the play with Tokio Murakami in the UO to figure this out, but maybe later) There's seems to be no definitive answer to this, but as always, there is an ongoing subtextual debate on the nature of human beings (not just the skill users, because even if they are their own category they still belong to the human race, don't they?) the formation and evolution of their identity throughout the years, what influences them to act a certain way, all to ask a bunch of simple questions: "Is there a correct, right way to live your life?", "If nothing I do can change the past, then should I be defined by said past?", "Why is it that everyone who has a supernatural ability has a twisted heart to go with it?", ad infinitum. That last one, eh? It's introducing a sort of deterministic element to the nature of the ability users. Which is curious, to say the least.

Now, back to Dazai and Mori's exchange. Right out of the gate it could be argued that Mori, in spite of his claim, is admitting to both Dazai and us, the audience, that he doesn't, in fact truly grasp what this teenager's dysthymia was born from.

“Dazai,” Mori began while still pondering that question. “I may not be able to comprehend your answer, but I nonetheless want to know: Why do you want to die?”

Especially when we trace their relationship to the Dark Era, where he might've used his general understanding of the human nature to force Dazai out of the Mafia, because he knew of his connection to Odasaku, but the way he argued with Dazai, the way the latter had a hard time articulating his irrational feelings and justifying them as beneficial to the Mafia (we all know how concerned Mori is with being rational.) made me question whether Mori ever understood Dazai even just a little bit.

“It’s a win-win situation. So why are you so angry?"

Dazai didn’t say a word. That was just about the first time he’d ever been unable to articulate his feelings.

“I…”

—“There is nothing worth pursuing at the cost of prolonging a life of suffering.”

—“Awaken me from this oxidizing world of a dream.”

“I just…” His voice came out strained. “I just don’t get it.”

Don't worry, Dazai, I don't think Mori gets it either.

“I have just one thing I’d like to ask: What’s wrong with that?” “……”

“My answer is the same, Dazai. I will do anything for the benefit of the organization. Besides, we are the Port Mafia. We have always brought darkness, violence and cruelty to this city. “Why is that a problem now?”

Dazai knew. He knew Ougai’s calculations, his mentality, and the rationale behind the plan. That was just the kind of organization the Port Mafia was. Logically speaking, Ougai was right, and Dazai was wrong. “But…” He turned on his heel, then began walking toward the door.”

Did Mori's plan succeed? Yes.

Did he correctly predict Dazai's actions? That's right.

Did he come to understand Dazai after having him as a subordinate for all these years? No. Not one bit. Because, there is this fascinating thing about humans, where they fear what they can't comprehend. Why again did Mori want Dazai out of the Mafia so badly?

"You were afraid of me, weren't you? Afraid that I would aspire to take your position, that one day, I'd run a knife across your throat. Just like you did to your predecessor."

Then, once again, why the comparison?

Well, there's always a possibility of him just lying to Dazai plain and simple, though I can explain why it can be easily discarded as "not worth the effort". Mori doesn't need to lie to get Dazai to do things for him, he doesn't even need to be particularly discreet about it, like this example from Storm bringer:

“My reasoning is extremely simple.” Mori smiled. “If that monster kills you, nobody will be able to save Chuuya, and he will die as well. In other words, you will finally get the death you have always yearned for but with Chuuya by your side.”

A full ten seconds of silence went by until Dazai broke it.

“Hwaaah.”

“Was that a yawn I just heard?”

“Look, I know what you’re trying to do, and it’s not gonna work. You can’t manipulate me. Good-bye.”

The radio then cut off. Mori held his radio with a faint smirk.”

Hehe, the infamous double suicide argument.

Mori seems to have a general grasp at how Dazai works, but that doesn't seem to be enough. Because there's this:

"No single word or phrase could accurately describe their relationship. The closest approximation would be bound by a common destiny."

And this:

"And yet no one trusted him. Because the darkness lurking within his eyes was deeper than the ink black nights that hung over the dumping ground he inhabited."

And this:

"Miscalculation.

"You misjudged the situation." He told himself. You failed to pick the optimal solution. You shouldn't have chosen this child to help you. Dazai is unpredictable. He can be sharp, but in a dark, twisted way. He's observant. He's cold and calculating with no equivalent even in the Mafia, where the most evil reside."

Honestly, the mention of "darkness" in various descriptions of Dazai by different characters deserves its own fully-fledged analysis. Even if all my examples would consist of excerpts from Oda's internal monologue, it'd still be a treasure trove of information and food for thought.

Back to Mori. I believe this "I'm just like you" moment serves a bunch of purposes all at once. "If you are like me, and I am the head of the Port Mafia, then, by extension, this is the only place that can give you purpose too, because this is where individuals like us thrive." It makes so much more sense to follow somebody else's example, if they really are as similar to you as they claim, and if they truly did find what Dazai is desperately searching for.

The other purpose it might serve can look a bit more sinister: "There is darkness in you, there is something very wrong with you and what I can help you do is put it to good use. I know, because I was the same. I can help you use it for the greater good."

What's funny about BSD is that it's not just that there is the lack of transparently defined right and wrong, (which I believe should be a standard in any media, because otherwise art is reduced to nothing but a slightly subtler version of propaganda) but the lack of a clear winner in these types of existential mental confrontations. Dazai did fail to pick up on Mori's real motives behind the Mimic incident in time, yet his observation of Ougai's lingering fear and paranoia towards him is pretty spot on. Mori did succeed in many aspects of using Dazai as a tool and even going so far as to conduct a plan to dispose of him properly, yet he remains as apprehensive of Dazai as he was from the beginning. To this day, he is still able to predict Dazai's actions, but because of what Mori defines as: "common destiny", "flashes of brilliance" and the "bizarre, meaningless fascination with suicide", he most of the time fails to see him an an autonomous individual, capable of having a purpose different from Mori's own.

Ultimately, does any of it even matter? I'm sure Mori would have been fascinated to know why is Dazai the way he is, just like he would inquire Oda about his guns in the future, but not then, because what he wanted from Dazai when he was in the Mafia is to be a polished diamond scalpel he can use for combating anything threatening the organization. And scalpels aren't known to possess any free will. It didn't matter at all what Dazai went through to reach this point, but what was important from Mori's point of view is that they do, in fact, have similar "steel trap" minds as well as certain obsessions.

"bizarre, meaningless fascination with suicide"

"Are you still lusting after little girls?"

...has a twisted heart to go with it...

I'd argue what Mori expresses here can be described as a very flawed form of cognitive empathy. It isn't full comprehension, by all means, which is why other people in their analyses usually point out the harm it can bring to project onto someone to such a degree, without acknowledging the possibility of even a single difference between the two of you, to force them to be a carbon copy of you for the sake of nothing but blind self-indulgence.

What, in my opinion is a first clear symptom of Mori's pathological misconception... is using the word "meaningless" to describe Dazai's supposed obsession with suicide. For someone of such caliber to be fooled by Dazai's facade so easily is a crazy feat to accomplish. Congratulations on your incomprehensibility once again, Dazai!

Like I mentioned before, BSD takes a more ambiguous approach to all of its themes, characters, et cetera, so it's definitely curious that Odasaku's quiet emotional empathy (as opposed to cognitive, which Oda also expresses, but much later, as a means of deepening his understanding) is, in fact, what reaches him, and in contrast to the narration or Mori's words, Oda doesn't describe him as the "darkness itself", but akin to a person, suffering from a chronic illness.

"I could see a thorn the size of a harpoon wedged deeply into his life."

A child who is surrounded by the darkness and hurt by it, even seemingly bleeds it, yet remains at his core a lonely, abandoned, sobbing child.

“He was too smart for his own good. That was why he was always alone. The reason why Ango and I were able to be by his side was that we understood the solitude that surrounded him, and we never stepped inside it no matter how close we stood.”

Speaking of contradictions and complexity:

“Ougai stared at the scattered reports on his desk. The organization had received an item of great value, something that more than made up for the total pecuniary damage and loss of talented subordinates. That included Dazai’s disappearance as well. Logically speaking, the results couldn’t have been better. Everything was going according to plan.

Ougai folded the document into a misshapen paper airplane. Then, with his chin still resting on his hand, he threw it. The deformed plane almost immediately crashed into the floor.

“Things sure are going to get boring around here…”

First and foremost, was that plane some sort of Guild-related foreshadowing? (that scene with Dazai's brainstorming session with Ranpo came to mind.) I shouldn't be too surprised though. I guess he didn't think Dazai would get involved, because with the only kind of leverage Mori had - gone, the former mafia executive just disappeared into thin air overnight. Little did he know...

What was that, Mori? You've won, you've driven him out of the Mafia for good, then why are you still unsatisfied?

Oh, GOD How I love the Dark era.

How I love Beast AU.

Ok, fine, I admit it. I love everything that comes out of Asagiri's head. I want to pick his brain, dissect it, put it back together and eat it with some soy sau-

...

To be entirely honest, I haven't even watched "Taxidermia" to the end. So, I don't think any of these tidbits of comparison should qualify as a correct interpretation of the themes or the overall message of the movie. What I've seen just sort of inspired me to feed some of the ideas I had to a vast collection of BSD analyses stashed in my notes.

Someday, I really should find patience to organize and post those.

...

Oh, now I remember! Why I wanted to write something related to both Dazai and the embalmer character from the movie.

It's that... (spoilers)

I was just wondering what would Dazai think of this character's method of suicide? There's anesthesia involved, so it's certainly painless, though arguably not "clean" and "beautiful" the way he would have wanted.

What a weird note to end an essay on, huh. Oh, well. I guess the one who had the twisted heart was me all along, eh?

[pterobat]

I want to talk about some of the tie-in stuff featuring Lance Bishop that I took in recently.

“Broken” by Rachel Caine, in the anthology Bug Hunt.

The idea that a previously-established character has to be special—bothers me a bit, and I can’t say why. I do know that I felt, after years of pushing back against the mechanistic/deterministic view of the Zentradi in Robotech and Macross fandom, it was time to accept that a character might lack something in the way of “free will” and might not be one of a kind—but still be sympathetic

However, Bishop didn’t put that egg on the Sulaco, Your Mom did, and he asked to be euthanized for firmly "human" reasons, not utilitarian ones.

Anyway, “Broken”, states that Bishop having a stronger altruistic drive than the AP norm, which very briefly leads to the possibility of him being scrapped, and then later lets him disobey orders and save some people in his non-actiony way.

It’s still mostly satisfying, except for two things: Bishop has “brothers” named after other chess pieces (except "Queen" because of cowardice), and while that’s cute, it’s at the expense of the Frankenstein-ish story in the novel below, where he shares the name with his "Father".

Secondly there’s the groaner when the last scene of the story leads right into Bishop meeting Apone’s unit after being repaired by Hudson and the Knife Trick getting brought up already.

William Gibson’s Alien 3 (Novel and Comic Version):

To steal from Dostoevsky, all versions of Alien 3 are stupid in their own way. It’s hard to think of where to go from Aliens, though it’s not my job to do so, right?

At least there’s no chance of Gibson’s version being lionized as a course-correction or a bold strike against some imagined saccharine future. Instead we get something that’s readable and likeable enough, but pretty bland. Kind of like Hicks as the main, really—nothing against the dude, but there’s just not much going on with him.

Part of it’s not the fault of Gibson: he had to write out Ripley, but man, you don’t have to give it a gold star just for otherwise trying. I can also see how the Xenomorphs as a Thing-esque virus would occur to writers, but it just doesn’t feel right.a

Also, for what’s supposed to be a riff on the Cold War and MAD, the Union of Progressive Peoples are cartoonishly silly, constantly thinking about “capitalism” while capitalism doesn't think of them, while the narrative makes a point of how run-down and crappy their tech is.

Even Bishop notices that without any spite, while the UPP are harsh towards him out of an understandable vision of worker’s rights, but in a Dolyist sense is only there to make them more unsympathetic and caricatured.

As for Bishop, he’s fun to follow because I like reading about him just being totally chill about everything, still without coming across as heartless. But he doesn’t have much of his sense of weirdness or of that awkward kindliness that makes his character more interesting than the average friendly AP.

Two more things: I was first harsh on the idea that an ovomorph would grow from Bishop’s exposed guts, but I came around when I realized it was an example of a slightly-more grounded Xenomorph evolution/adaptation than the virus, just putting more of the mechanical in bio-mechanical—plus it was the only example of gender fuckery to be found for miles.

Secondly, I liked his quiet little monolgue at the end that humanity ought to destroy Xenomorphs for their own good. It’s the usual trope of having a heroic character fascinated by monsters, who must prove they are still heroic by killing or opposing them.

Aliens: Bishop by T.R. Napper

It’s funny that this book came out last December, like it was waiting for me to start thinking about the character again.

Sadly, the original characters were not so entertaining, which is often but not always the curse of tie-in fiction. It’s another reason why it’s hard for me to be fannish about the larger Alien-a-verse besides not much of it sounding interesting.

It doesn’t help that the story starts out with a USC Marine mission lead by an Apone, with a male corporate stooge on board, and our new MC gets the nickname “Cornbread” within a few pages—come on with this. Otherwise, she’s like Hicks in the sense of readable and serviceable.

To go back to Alien 3 for a second, and franchising in general—they repeat themes and motifs because that makes the selling easy, and you can make a keen case for “The Real Enemy is Man” being a theme of the Alien universe.

Because of that, having Michael Bishop be who/what he said he was makes the most sense if you want not only a thematic through-line but the Frankenstein-ish subtext of the book which is like catnip to me.

Normally resurrection is thematically cheap in fiction, but given that Alien 3 comes off as cheap (lazy) to begin with, and we’re dealing with an AP, and the results are interesting, it doesn’t take much to win me over.

I don’t know how much research the author did, or if it’s just serendipty, but Henriksen said he played Bishop as an abused child, as a being who knew he was disposable but consoled himself by knowing he’d outlive those who could hold that over him. And even though they look the same age, the abusive-father subtext is all over this. Michael is nice enough until he doesn’t get what he wants after being “patient” and “giving”.

And speaking of franchises and theming, something about creator/creation in the Alien series no longer feels out of place in post-Prometheus world, even if the execution in those movies was a letdown.

Transhumanism also comes into the picture, and while it first seemed Michael would steal Bishop’s new body, instead Michael wants to transfer his body digitally and succeeds. It also feels out of place in the larger franchise, but I might check out a sequel.

I also wish the book were more creative about trying to do something with the Xenomorphs. Michael pretends it’s about something different as part of his manipulation, but alas it’s the same old militarization.

It’s kind of funny that Bishop meets the captured Morse who quirkily tells him a few things about how humans don’t value other humans. It helps Bishop get rid of the last vestiges of attachment to his Shitty Dad, and Bishop otherwise returns to the same place he was before, just with a new unit.

I was waiting for some other shoe to drop, but the Apone #2 unit appeared to have no ulterior motivations when it came to finding Bishop. Returning to a quiet status quo does suit him in a way, since Bishop is so chill about everything.

The book also establishes that Bishop asked to be euthanized because of grief. I didn't want a purely utilitarian reason like reaching a damage threshold that cheapie W-Y labelled unsalvageable--that doesn't work narratively/tonally/emotionally--but it was enough to think poor Bishop decided on death because he couldn’t ever reach adequate quality of life.

So a lot of fun here, even what with the brief moments where Bishop is emotionally demonstrative or fights physically and it’s cringe-inducing rather than an extrapolation of the character.

[gladstones-corner]

On the Nature of the True Will

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." 

– Liber AL vel Legis, Book 1, Verse 40 

This is one of those posts where I'll ask that you bear with me, as it will be more opinionated than my standard fare. 

Please understand that my goal isn't to force my viewpoint; it's to share my observations and contribute to the conversation. 

Let’s dive in. 

So where do we start? 

I suppose a good place would be with Crowley. After all, he made famous the phrase "True Will"--though he wasn't the inventor of the concept. That would arguably be Socrates, who attributed his actions to a "personal daemon" or "internal oracle". But that's another post.

Crowley uses the word "Will" as the nearest English translation of the Greek Θέλημα (pronounced Thelema). In the Christian New Testament, Θέλημα is most often used with respect to the Will of God (such as in the phrase θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ [Thelema Tou Theou]). Knowing Crowley's familiarity with Jewish and Christian holy texts, we can infer that this usage is intentional; it aligns the tradition's very philosophy with the concept of a Divine Will.

But what does the Divine Will mean, if magicians can be anything on the religious spectrum? Generally speaking, Divine Will doesn't necessarily mean that an external deity has a vested personal interest in your fate and has sealed it in stone. No; rather, the True Will--the Θέλημα--is your niche in the universe. Billions of years of evolution have led to you, and you have a role to play in the grand scheme.

Does this make Θέλημα a deterministic reality? Not necessarily. In Liber Librae, Crowley writes: "A man is what he maketh himself within the limits fixed by his inherited destiny." In my opinion, this means that you are free to realize your role in the universe however you choose, including the choice to ignore it completely.

What happens if you ignore your Θέλημα? Considering that achieving it would lead to greater harmony and peace, we can speculate that ignoring it would lead to greater discord and strife.

Does this mean that all suffering is due to ignoring your Θέλημα? Absolutely not. Crowley again writes in Liber Librae: "Thou then, who hast trials and troubles, rejoice because of them, for in them is Strength, and by their means is a pathway opened unto that Light."

This goes deeper than just "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". This is an exhortation to approach suffering differently. It is painful, yes. It is unavoidable, yes. But to change our attitudes towards this suffering will prevent that suffering from being more than it is on its own.

Keen eyes may recognize this as one of two approaches:

Therapeutic methods such as CBT/DBT

Eastern traditions such as Buddhism

So there's evidence there that Crowley was on to something, even if his execution is reflective of the relatively primitive understanding of Western psychology at the time.

Okay, so we've covered that the True Will is your personal niche in the universe, that you still have free will despite this, and the benefits of approaching suffering with your True Will in mind.

But what he haven't covered is how to follow your True Will--how to discover it, how to cultivate it, and how to embody it.

Unfortunately there isn't really a hard and fast rule to following your True Will. But it can help to remember a couple of things. First, you can think of your True Will as being made of two complementary parts:

The Life's Purpose

The Moment's Action

In a balanced magician, these are symbiotic. The Life's Purpose drives the Moment's Action, and the Moment's Action realizes the Life's Purpose. In an unbalanced magician, most often the Moment's Action is driven by an unchecked Ego; the Life's Purpose goes unknown or otherwise unfulfilled.

This implies a certain level of mindfulness required to achieve the True Will. Your actions, moment to moment, should be guided by your life's purpose. That purpose is something only you can discover, but in Thelemic thought that purpose should be supported by a universal, unconditional love for all beings.

Easier said than done, but I think taking a moment to think compassionately before reacting to the world around you is critical. It's extremely difficult, but the potential for positive change is huge.

Just remember that "Love is the Law, Love under Will."

Stay safe. Blessed be~

[palilalia]

PAL-088 Chuck Roth LP

“watergh0st songs”

Chuck Roth’s music wanders. The New York-based guitarist’s inquisitive style builds from rippling patterns that center the physicality of his instrument, roaming wherever they take him. watergh0st songs, his Palilalia debut, collects songs from the past half-decade, presenting an intimate snapshot of his music that draws from an eclectic background in classical guitar, electronic music, and improvisation.

The mark of watergh0st songs is its exploratory nature. Roth began his musical journey as a classical guitarist studying the canon works for the instrument, but he was never interested in playing fast or flashy. Instead, he wanted to roam down musical paths and see where they led him. He eventually became more interested in electronic music, where he found inspiration in subtractive properties and patterning. The music of watergh0st songs translates that electronic music to the guitar: many of the songs began as synth tones and later branched out through the physicality of his instrument.

When writing music, Roth wants melodies to feel comfortable in the body, focused less on setting a structure and more on letting music unfold how it happens in any given moment. His songs are fluid and his melodies are clear, plucked with careful attention but never too deterministically. His is the music of a traveler, floating around the strings of the guitar. It is about embracing the banal, or the everyday moments that shape a life.

Though Roth’s music often feels quite direct, there is a dreaminess that lives inside of it. His lyrics don’t feel too hot or cold, instead they have a wistfulness and melancholy of what it feels like to live through every passing day. His exploratory style bolsters these lyrics, giving the music its sense of ennui, as does his focus on texture. Each track takes on a different structure: “Bunny Hop” unfolds like a squirrel jumping from branch to branch of a tree, while “Private Boy” has a slower approach, growing from delayed harmonics that almost sound like bowed strings. His textures range from metallic and bristling to soft and feathery, evolving with gentleness. It is about ending up somewhere different than where it started, and watching the notes that fall in-between.

The embrace of the routine colors Roth’s music. In it, there is a sense of presence, of admiring the smallest details and moments. Roth loves to take walks and look around, observing the beauty of his surroundings. Similarly, watergh0st songs feels like moving through the world at the pace of a comfortable trot and soaking in every sound as it emerges. It is a quiet evolution -- but one that stays. — VANESSA AGUE

[nitrosplicer]

Lombroso believed that genius and madness were closely linked, being two sides of the same psychobiological condition. A man of genius was a degenerate, an example of retrograde evolution, in whom madness was a form of biological compensation for excessive intellectual development. ... He asked himself: why not meet Lev Tolstoy, the supreme genius of world literature, in his natural habitat, to scrutinise his features and confirm his theory by seeing Tolstoy’s degenerative features with his own eyes?

.... But Tolstoy remained deaf to all these arguments, “he knit his terrible eyebrows” and hurled against Lombroso menacing flashes of his deep-set and penetrating eyes; finally he erupted exclaiming “All this is nonsense! All punishment is criminal!” According to him, human beings have no right to judge their fellows, and all forms of violence are inadmissible even if exercised with the aim of reparation of crime.

… On the evening of the 27th August, 1897, Tolstoy noted in his diary “Lombroso came. He is an ingenuous and limited old man”. And in January, 1900 he remarked, again in his diary, on the science of Lombroso: “All this is an absolute misery of thought, of concept and of sensitivity”.

…

In the definitive text of Resurrection , Tolstoy added, among other things, a detailed description of the legal processes and punishments current in Russia at the end of the century and the anthropological theories of Lombroso were discussed and roundly rejected as immoral. According to Tolstoy delinquency was not “evidence of degeneration of a delinquent type of monstrosity, as certain obtuse scientists explained them to the government’s advantage”.

Interesting article on how Cesare Lombroso (noted biological determinist and father of scientific racism) was obsessed with proving that Leo Tolstoy was evidence of his “theory of degeneration in geniuses.”

[horsesource]

Franco Berardi: I have the impression that we are shifting from a phase or a period of a colonization of the psycho-sphere to a new period, which is a period of neuro-colonization, the construction of a sort of neuro-totalitarianism, which is based on the adaptability of the social nervous system: what is called neuro-plasticity, if you want. Neuro-plasticity is, in my opinion, the next big thing. In April, the President of the United States of America said that the most important project, scientific and technological project of the next decades, will be brain activity mapping. Wow, interesting. Interesting thing…Brain activity mapping is something that directly concerns the main force of production of our age: the brain, the social and collective brain. Investigating, mapping the brain, the individual brain, means creating the condition for a new step in the process of neuro-totalitarianism..The problem is directly the ability of the brain to produce and to be controlled by power…

Q: This idea of the colonization of the brain, I wonder if the neuro-decolonization could be a strategy, or the neuro-plasticity of the brain can be used against this neuro-totalitarianism that you’re speaking about?

Franco Berardi: Actually, yes. I mean, I think that the concept of neuro-plasticity is an interesting concept because it’s totally open. What’s the meaning of the word? The brain is not specified. The level of biological evolution of the brain, contrary to the deterministic idea that everything is implied in genes, is that the epigenetic process is continuously redefining the ability of the brain to map the territory…Catherine Malabou says Freud has displaced the problem from the level of neurology to the level of psychology, from the level of cerebrality to the level of sexuality—sexuality being the process of language, not only of sex. And now in a sense we have to go back to the pre-Freudian space, not in the sense that we have to go back to the determinist, mechanistic idea of the neuro system. But we have to recognize—think about Alzheimer’s, for instance, think of the traumatic disorders. These are not psychological processes; these are neurological processes. I think that, also, the relation of the brain with capitalist acceleration is not only a psychological problem, but it’s essentially a neurological problem. The collective brain is unable to go so fast, is unable to be autonomous, singular. And at the same time, to follow that rhythm, this is producing psychopathologies that are not part, or cannot be only explained in terms of psychoanalytic suffering. They have to be explained in terms of neurological disturbances, of neurological disease, redefinition, and pathologies. So they are not psycho- but neuro-pathologies, in a sense. I know that there is a very dangerous outcome of such an idea, which is the idea of adaptation. I mean the idea that we are suffering but there is the possibility to redefine or manipulate the brain so that it becomes able to face the acceleration. What is really happening with the psycho-pharmacological drugs? Prozac is the way to face acceleration, precaritization, and the unhappiness that capitalism is producing in our lives. So this is the dangerous outcome of the neuro-plastic thing. There is an ambiguity in the concept of neuro-plasticity. We have to accept this ambiguity. We are forced to accept this ambiguity. I mean we have to create a sort of psychoanalytic and political ability to deal with the suffering in a way which is not only healing the individual brain, but is also disentangling the collective brain from the capitalist angle.”

[frank-olivier]

Explanatory & Comprehensive Realism: A perspective on reality and human potential

Understanding David Deutsch's worldview requires delving into the intricate interplay between science and philosophy that characterizes his work.

At the heart of Deutsch's philosophy is a robust epistemology influenced by Karl Popper. Deutsch champions the idea that knowledge is not static or absolute but is instead a dynamic process of conjecture and refutation. He posits that all problems are soluble, given the right knowledge, and that the growth of knowledge is potentially infinite. This perspective is crucial in understanding how humans can address and solve problems, including those that seem insurmountable, like disease, poverty, and even mortality. Deutsch's emphasis on "hard-to-vary" explanations highlights the importance of theories that withstand rigorous testing and criticism. These explanations are not only central to scientific progress but also to practical and moral reasoning. By applying this epistemological framework, Deutsch argues that we can continually improve our understanding of the world, leading to better decision-making and ethical considerations. Deutsch's support for the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is a testament to his belief in the vastness of reality. According to this interpretation, every quantum event spawns multiple parallel universes, each representing a different outcome. This view challenges the traditional notion of a singular, deterministic universe and opens up a realm of infinite possibilities. The multiverse concept aligns with Deutsch's broader thesis of infinite progress. It suggests that the universe is not limited by a single trajectory but is instead a tapestry of countless potential realities. This perspective not only influences his understanding of physics but also informs his views on human creativity and the potential for innovation. Deutsch's integration of evolutionary theory into his worldview underscores the importance of adaptation and complexity in the development of knowledge. By drawing on Richard Dawkins' ideas about replicators and memes, Deutsch explains how cultural and intellectual evolution parallels biological evolution. Memes, like genes, are subject to variation and selection, leading to the evolution of ideas and technologies. Computation plays a crucial role in Deutsch's framework, as it represents the ability to simulate and understand complex systems. He views the universe itself as a computational entity, where transformations are governed by information and algorithms. This perspective suggests that by understanding the principles of computation, humans can harness the power of technology to create and transform reality. The concept of the universal constructor is a cornerstone of Deutsch's constructor theory. A universal constructor is a hypothetical machine capable of performing any physically possible transformation. While humans are not yet universal constructors, Deutsch envisions a future where technological advancements could bring us closer to this ideal. This idea reflects his optimism about human potential and the transformative power of knowledge. Deutsch believes that, through creativity and innovation, humans can overcome current limitations and achieve unprecedented progress. This vision aligns with his rejection of "deathism"—the acceptance of death as inevitable—and his advocacy for scientific research aimed at extending human life. Deutsch's ideas, while bold and imaginative, have sparked debate and criticism. Some critics argue that his application of scientific concepts to areas like aesthetics and moral philosophy is less convincing. They question whether the principles of physics and computation can fully account for the complexities of human experience and ethical decision-making.

David Deutsch's worldview offers a vision of the future, grounded in the potential for infinite progress through knowledge creation. By emphasizing the importance of explanations, creativity, and the integration of diverse scientific and philosophical domains, his ideas provide a framework for addressing contemporary challenges and unlocking human potential. As societies continue to navigate an increasingly complex world, Deutsch's perspective serves as a reminder of the transformative power of knowledge and the limitless possibilities that lie ahead.

Chiara Marletto: Paradigm Shift, Ghost Particles, Constructor Theory (Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal, January 2024)

Wednesday, September 4, 2024