The Problem of Both And

This “problem” can be found on all sides. It stems from the desire to have both one thing and another. It has a root in idealism but also in an unwillingness to choose or decide.

At the moment relatively wealthy humanity is accustomed to having multiple up to date electronic devices, frequent new cars, foreign holidays involving air travel and conspicuous consumption which is sometimes diarised for show in social media. Yet in the back of the mind there is the spectre of anthropogenic climate change. There is a weak desire to slow this down. People want both their current way of life and to limit the ravages of global warming. Most approaches to planetary heating back “solutions” which do not significantly impinge on current lifestyle.

This is an obvious fallacy.

But it is one that is not addressed because in affect it is taboo and politically very unpopular. In wanting both and decisive action is delayed and put off. The advocates of striving to limit climate change themselves travel by air. People cross their fingers and hope we can limit climate change without changing our behaviours. The fairy godmother of technology will wave its magical AI wand and ta-da we have a solution for global warming. In the meantime, business green washes to keep the greenbacks rolling.

There is an awful lot of kidding and people are willing to be kidded because their conscience is assuaged by flashy on tone public relations. Look the oil manufacturers and producers are transitioning to green alternatives…😉

“Phew, I can have my holiday in the Maldives after all…”

Elsewhere I have predicted that the impact of climate change needs to get catastrophic before humanity wakes up. By which time it will be very late, perhaps too late.

We saw it coming, we did fuck all.

“Complacency is a state of mind that exists only in retrospect; it has to be shattered before ascertained.”

Vladimir Nabokov

Humanity has a monkey with its hand in the cookie jar mentality. Inside the cookie jar are lovely cookies. We put our hand in it to extract the cookie but we cannot pull it out with the whole cookie in hand. The villagers are coming with sticks. We are so tempted by the cookies; we do not want a beating by the villagers. What to do?

This is a catch 22 which stems from greed and desire. In the absence of desire, there is no dilemma. Drop the cookie and get the hell out of Dodge. But it is a lovely cookie with banana and chocolate chips….

I cannot have both the cookie and avoid a beating.

No desire, no greed, no problem. Let go. Do a runner.

Most catch 22s stem from wanting something, some desire or some ambition. They are based on preferred outcome. In the absence of these the dilemma dissolves; it is a figment of mind and emotion.

Humans have a face in a jar problem. Inside the jar is their face, their social self-image, which they are clinging on to. They may want to resolve a relationship or ameliorate it but they are burdened by their face which they hold clenched in their fist. They are unable to shake hands whilst their fist is clenched tight around the mask of face. So, for most of their lives they walk around with their face clenched bare knuckled in fist and never know the freedom of an open palm free of social encumbrance. They may want to save both their face and a relationship. However, this is impossible, humans are stubborn and before long, it is too late.

You can see this human folly all around you.

Life is not a quantum superstition state. Sooner or later the both-and must be measured and collapse into either-or. The coherence of the both-and is finite. Decision is not something people are fond of.

Sometimes nature, the universe, or a planet will make the decision for us…

Wanting both-and is greedy.

LIFE is way bigger than petty human want and desire…

The Price of Face

22 is the dark jewel egotism and it can create many catch 22 situations. People do not as a rule, in the common socio-political construct, like to lose face. This notion of “face” can be very expensive indeed.

One can cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face.

Face is the dreaming symbol for social self-image which belongs to the class of mayas and illusions. Despite what your social media tries to push, you are not the image imagined and advertised thereupon. That is just some stuff you made up.

People like to “win” arguments or battles in order to save “face”.

I have been in numerous situations where people have expected me to act in accordance with what they imagine face saving behaviour might be. They were fighting a “battle” on the assumption that the normal rules of society and “face” applied.

“He will come round, he will break. He will say sorry because of the guilt trip I laid upon him.”

When this does not happen a kind of catch 22 situation results. The protagonist does not want to lose face but starts to understand that holding breath and crossing fingers is not the answer. What to do? If one gives in, one loses faces. So, one cuts off one’s nose to spite one’s face and leaves a totally unnecessary bloody mess. Because the “he” here did not succumb to the manipulation a loss, perhaps profound has resulted. It was about something not real – face.

Face can be very expensive indeed.

Tens of thousands have people have died because people do not want to lose face.

Deterrence as it is often used / bandied about relies on this notion of face. 

“They killed a few thousand in October. How dare they!!”

“We will destroy their country, kill fifty thousand, maim a hundred thousand more so as to save face because we were caught napping! Are we not heroes? That’ll show them!”

People can try to justify so many things with this emotive notion of face. It is cyclical and silly.

He offended me, I must offend him back or get him cancelled as punishment. My face got upset that he called me fat even though my BMI is 40. I must make him pay for offending my face. I’ll send the message on my way going to the pharmacy for my Ozempic.

Face it seems requires punishment as deterrence for questions or contradictory versions of reality. Face does not like to be challenged because it is the outer expression of egotism, self-importance and victim martyr tendency…

——————————

Has face and the attempt at preserving thereof ever worked out very expensive for you?

Was it worth it in the final analysis?

——————————–

Catch 22

A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules or limitations. The term was coined by Joseph Heller, who used it in his 1961 novel Catch-22.

Catch-22s often result from rules, regulations, or procedures that an individual is subject to, but has no control over, because to fight the rule is to accept it. Another example is a situation in which someone is in need of something that can only be had by not being in need of it (e.g. the only way to qualify for a loan is to prove to the bank that you do not need a loan). One connotation of the term is that the creators of the “catch-22” situation have created arbitrary rules in order to justify and conceal their own abuse of power.

Wikipedia

———————————————————————

catch-22

an impossible situation where you are prevented from doing one thing until you have done another thing that you cannot do until you have done the first thing:

a situation in which there are only two possibilities, and you cannot do either because each depends on having done the other first

a difficult situation in which the solution to a problem is impossible because it is also the cause of the problem:

Cambridge Dictionary

——————————————————————

catch-22

noun

1. a situation in which a person is frustrated by a paradoxical rule or set of circumstances that preclude any attempt to escape from them

2. a situation in which any move that a person can make will lead to trouble

Collins English Dictionary.