Being part of a group of people, a community, without being a conspicuous member of said community.
Last Sunday, it was my privilege to sing in a choir led by my brother-in-law, Ron Harper. Both my wife, Sara, and his wife (our wives are sisters) were also in the choir. Our performance will be on the web for some time, thanks to YouTube and it's community-enabling platform. It was entitled "Symbols of the Nativity - A Musical Celebration" and was a wonderful experience.
I'm confused about something that I don't understand. At least I'm aware of it; you have to be aware of something before you can understand it, although you might very well be confused about something before becoming aware of what it it.
When I was much younger, in Junior High School, the science class was great. One day we learned that the earth's climate changes over time. Like in this screenshot
In fact, we were told, the earth is currently moving towards its next Ice Age! Furthermore, there was nothing, nothing at all, that we humans could do about it. Colder temperatures were coming in the future, no matter what we wanted or tried to do about it.
After getting a bit alarmed, we were soothed with the information that it wouldn't be for hundreds of years at the soonest.
Nevertheless, this little bit of scientific instruction has stuck with me.
Fifty-five (or so) years later: surprise! Humans can and are doing something about it! We are making the world warmer, through our efforts, and staving off the next Ice Age. Yay!!! Let's celebrate*, right?
No. Apparently, today's science has a different message** for us.
I completely do not comprehend, much to my consternation.
Notes
* I think we should get that classroom of students together for a reunion and build a great big bonfire, to liberate some carbon into the atmosphere, and do our small part to keep the world from getting colder -- doing our small part, since, we can after all do something about it!
** That message is, roughly, "human-caused global warming is an imminent existential threat to humanity, and we must all hunker down, reduce our standard of living, and give up our freedom to the smarter people telling us this, or risk losing our planet!" [to be read with an increasingly shrill and loud voice]
"reduce our standard of living" happens when we are expected to use less energy for cooling our homes in the summer and heating them in the winter, or curtailing our recreational travel, and so on
Or, a never-ending hierarchy.
In a hierarchy, there are levels of authority, with commands coming down from a few higher authorities to many subjects.
For example, people might be organized into communities, which are subject to counties, which are subject to states or provinces, which are subject to a federal government.
In my dissertation, I wrote about two hierarchies (early in Chapter 5):
At the top of every hierarchy, there has to be something to stop the upward path, lest it go on forever (which means that this post is unique to this blog in that it is actually about defeating its own title rather than supporting it).
In the programming language that I described in my dissertation, the two hierarchies end (looking in the upward direction) in different ways:
Returning now to the first example, communities of people. Here is a possible list of ever-higher authorities: the federal government might be subject to a planetary government, which might be subject to a solar system government, subject itself to a galactic government, and so forth, on up to a government of the entire known universe.
In the case of the United States of America, the federal government is subject to what? Some possible answers:
These possibilities reflect some of the different ways that a hierarchy can end.
First we have the way outlined in an earlier paragraph (which ultimately ends with null (as with the Object class of my dissertation) since we know of nothing that contains the entire known universe).
The second option, supported by the phrase, "one Nation under God," is an option in which authority ends with a self-sufficient being (like the Class of my dissertation).
The third option, supported by the phrase, "of the people, for the people, and by the people," is a very different way, a very large loop.
Now that I have the (hypothetical**) reader thinking in terms of a hierarchy of government, I can present my own views. I am absolutely opposed to the view that our nation is subject to any other government. Yes, we support (and host the headquarters of) the United Nations. But, no, we do not take direction from them and are not subject to that organization.
Since we are created (whether you believe this to be by a personal God, some ineffable supreme being, or mindless random evolution), the second option holds some appeal. Some of the definitions of Creator, though, do not allow for appeal to the higher authority (and the one that does historically requires belief in a Prophet (which would not be tenable in today's secular society)), so I do not prefer this option.
The United States of America has a constitution which describes a very limited federal government, with all but a few roles given to the states, and ultimately answerable to the people.
Indeed it is a very loopy hierarchy. Communities are answerable to the people as well as to their county, Counties are answerable to the people as well as to their state. States are answerable to the people as well as to the federal government. Finally, the federal government is answerable to the people, and not to any international organization: neither the WHO, the world bank, nor even the world court. We, as a nation, stand independent above all other creatures, and yet we expect our nation to serve and answer to its people.
Notes:
"lest it go on forever" A hierarchy can conceptually go on forever, such as the one described by Douglas Hofstadter, who invented a recursive acronym for GOD Over Djinn, which behaved as an infinite hierarchy (in a hypothetical world).
"the programming language that I described in my dissertation" is also named by a recursive acronym, TOOL Object Oriented Language.
* The link is to a page treating "new world order" as a conspiracy theory! However, some theories are actually true*** and there are books written to support the absolute reality of a new world order (such as Slaughter's eponymous book on the subject).
** As claimed in this earlier post.
*** Proponents of the theory of evolution can certainly relate to this notion that some theories are actually true.
At this morning's breakfast, I noticed this poster, which gave me a bit of cognitive dissonance:
The photorealistic fried potato strips are shown within the pictured* device (although seeming to reach out of it).
The pixelated stylized fries are outside of the device rectangle**.
The message apparently being that if you want fries, "there's an app for that"™, and it is in your smartphone (along with the fries). And you really should get that app now (and the fries).
A commercial doesn't have to be consistent with reality to be effective.
Commercial without consistency.
* You are looking on your screen at a digital photograph of a printed poster of a stylized smartphone frame around a photograph of french fries poking out of a stylized container with the golden arches on it. Which happens to line up with the stylized container sticking out from behind, etc. Talk about reality...
™ This quoted phrase has been trademarked (and copyrighted (I really hope this is fair use)) by Apple™.
** My friend Doc Searls describes "rectangle bingo" as a game in which he observes people in his travels and "wins" if there is even one person not staring into a rectangle. As in the photo headlining his blog post on journalism which I guess documents a loss.
[ edited June 8, 2022 ]
This must be part of a campaign. This, this morning on their ordering screen:
