Talking Behind Someone’s Back and Fait Accompli

At the moment there is a bit of furore in the press that Trump et al. are taking with Putin et al. behind the backs of Ukraine, Europe and the UK. They are doing this in the Machiavellian home of Saud.

People seem not to like this yet they talk behind the backs of others on a regular basis. It is a play straight out of the forceful manipulation handbook / playbook, cobble together some cunning plan and then present it to the absentee(s) as a fait accompli. Should they not accept they are branded ungrateful and non-cooperative even if they have to bend over grab their ankles and take it up the arse without lubricant.

The praetorians always know what is best for the plebs. The plebs should thank their lucky stars.

Behind closed doors cabals are not inclusive. They may pretend and profess to be, but that is bullshit.

These cabals are part of what is euphemistically termed “management practice”. The 1922 committee is an example of behind doors stitch up. I have been on the periphery of such behaviours and perhaps on the receiving end of fait accompli. It is a Don Corleone offer even without the nocturnal equine encouragement.

Wherever actual transparency as opposed to the public relations version of that is absent, gossip spreads faster than Covid 19 at a race meeting / piss up. I saw firsthand on Twitter / X how misinformation and BS spread faster than a Los Angeles wild fire blown by a warm breeze.

A forced “agreement” rarely has longevity. A contract based on gossip and hearsay lacks solid foundations.

I have never myself appointed a spokesperson or port-parole so if any charlatan pretends to speak on my behalf, they are lying. If someone says behind closed doors that they know what I am after, what I might want / like they are delusional, mendacious and manipulative. Yet I could not stop anyone from casting themselves as such. People may speculate, that is at best inaccurate and at worst dangerous.

Many people are so sure that they know how to sort a situation out, how to bring it to a close. Such premature omniscience is rarely able to hold back adamant opinion. It rarely occurs to these that they may be wrong. One cannot change the view of an adamant dogmatic by persuasion.

——————-

Do you talk behind people’s back?

Do you make cunning plans without inclusive consultation?

Are you a Trump mini-me?

——————–

Do You Bat for the Same Team as Jesus and Buddha?

In our times where once again brutality and coercion are to the fore, where people soap box to gain attention, where adamant dogmatic assertion tries to overcome and suppress considered debate, there are many who do not bat on their team. The gargantuan ego of ME swells and seeks airtime. Many a brutalist claims God is on their side and that divine will is aback their wholly “justified” actions. But at one level we know that this is bullshit.

I’ll postulate that the gobshite occurrence frequency per unit population has risen sharply in recent years and that the decibel count of their most welcome interventions is significantly enhanced. After all, where would we be without the benefit of their omniscience?

I don’t recall either of these gentlemen advocating the use of 2000 pound bombs to blow poor, near defenceless people and their families, to smithereens. That is not the action of team Jesus or team Buddha. I don’t recall them ever mentioning doing “deals”, for mutual benefit. That is Mephisto talking. They never said love thy neighbour but only if he gives you a large wad of cash or rare-earth metals. Neither of these guys was conditional.

Viewed from more than one angle humanity and western humanity in particular is no longer bound by morals and decency. A “what is in it for me” mentality can be found on many sides. Genuine, as opposed to PR, altruism is rare. Sodom and Gomorrah would be seen as bastions of morality in our times. We have a president who allegedly knobs a porn star. There are many “leaders” whose legality is questionable. The corrupt get elected by the corruptible. There is a bit of a lads club.

We could re-write Matthew 5

Blessed are the loud gobshites, for they will talk over everyone and browbeat them into silence.

Blessed are the corrupt for they will slightly lower our tax burdens as a bribe for our collusion.

Blessed are the warmongers for they will enhance the values of our shares in the defence industries.

Blessed are the hypocrites for they will ban abortion but allow God like IVF. They have the power of life and death.

Blessed are the vengeful for they will stir our righteous ire to get our backing for their slaughter and death. We the just, shall prevail whatever the cost to the heathen subhuman hordes.

I don’t think Buddha and Jesus have many on their pre-season roster, they cannot afford the salaries, the perks nor can they give big kudos and internet fame. They can’t offer backhanders and jobs for the sycophants, pals and donors. It is not their way.

Whose team are you on?

A Fondness for Thought Experiments

I speculate that many like to “win” an argument and be “right”. Some dread being demonstrably wrong. But the diamond sutra advises against seeking the absolute…

Our schooling demands answers which correspond in alignment to the quasi-consensual mark scheme. I have seen “A” level students marked wrong because, even though their answer was correct and accurate {according to my expert opinion}, it did not comply with the dogmatic mark scheme prepared by the thought police. Straying from the agreed dogma yields a poor grade and can prohibit further education.

There is an ethos to conclude, to be right, and to want to know where one stands. People can seek certitude when in fact there is none. They may misconstrue adamant assertion with accuracy and broad applicability. In fact, over simplification can be very attractive. There is a bit of laziness. Many rely on the imagined omniscience of “they”. If the herd deems it so, then it must be. Individual thinking and the expression thereof can lead to prompt and irrevocable social isolation.

One of things, I like to do is to take some kind of conceptual framework and then apply it to my life, to see if there is any fit. I don’t do this in a quantitative way rather I try it on like a moccasin. If it appears to fit as a thought experiment, I note the fit and then like a child with a sandcastle rub it out. I am really not fussed if I am right or wrong, nor with the quality of fit. I am fluid and don’t need fixed descriptors nor to be corralled by a conceptual framework. I am mindful that were the outcomes of these experiments accurate and those within the framework aware of this, implications might follow. Some of these within the model could be wide ranging.

Some might find this annoying.

“Tell me the answer!!!”

I also like the idea of all or nothing situations in which there is no negotiable middle ground. Herein lies a problem. Whenever I mention that I do not negotiate people immediately see it as a negotiation strategy which it is not. I am not responsible for the perceptions and conclusions of others. If they like to interact transactionally via negotiation, they may transfer their preference onto their interpretation of me. They may see me through their lens, which may have aberration and distortion.

Which model, which thought experiment applies? The answer is quite a few.

It would be very easy to characterise me as a spendthrift quasi-functional alcoholic who threw it all away, and as a result is a socially isolated loser eking out his end of days in self-induced poor health.

This model has only a very local implication and using Occam’s razor, paraphrased:

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

As a model which fits it is the simplest and the best.

Therefore all other models are speculations and by way of embellishment.

People like complexity and may not be satisfied, though it is possible to leave things here with this characterisation. My (our) physical plane life does not impinge beyond a small geographical radius and a set of healthcare professionals. I very rarely travel more than 35km in radius. I have only travelled more than 150km once in six years.

There is no need to invoke any other explanation. I have played with various alternatives.

This then is a nothing situation, a null, a default

There are various other interpretations which may be a tad more grandiose, but although there is a hint of applicability, they are inconsistent with observable circumstance. These interpretations may further be inconvenient. Any model must have use or else it cannot be tested thus a theoretical possibility remains speculation and likely to fade into the mist. There is no point developing a use-less model, when viewed from one angle. Inconvenience is also not a desired property of a model. This can lead to jettison.

Reductionist thinking can limit but it also simplifies.

The thought experiment in the absence of tangible and measurable data often leads back to the null or near null hypothesis, which is the safe conclusion.

We all often unconsciously apply the model or bias which suits us best, which is easiest for us to assimilate and has little inconvenient implication for us.

Are Reality and Significance Subjective?

If one watches US news, Al Jazeera, BBC and France 24 it would he hard to conclude no. Because the narration of reality and its significance to the participants presented therein differ widely. This is a mark of subjectivity as opposed to an objective reality. France 24 today had a debate about Trump’s off the cuff remark about the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. One man’s conquest is another’s brutal ethnic cleansing. One man’s real estate project is another’s exile and abject misery. These realities are not co-realities. A business deal to Trump is less significant than an irreversible life change for another and what is left of their family. Significance is in the context and the eye of the beholder and is not absolute.

The reality of a 9 to 5 job safe and secure in the city where one has kudos and power changes abruptly with a plane crash in the jungle. The hungry leopard does not defer to the fat cat boss over the manual worker. It sees dinner. The boss is easier to eat than the serf. In terms of economy, it selects the most calorific and facile.

Our normal realities are not as secure as we imagine, a mammogram or a prostate exam can flip our worlds in well under an hour. Yet we imagine in our complacency that our “reality” applies and continues to do so.

I am fond of multiple universes or put less dramatically, differing assimilations of “reality”.

My reality today is markedly different than it was 20 years ago. I do not walk in those circles and am not obsessed about the reality-metrics which apply therein for the measurement of success. I do not give a shit about research assessment exercises or student satisfaction feedback surveys. My main concerns are health and the bloody Coypu. My reality is wholly different and significance for me has changed vastly. Which suggests that reality and significance are in a way, time dependent. They are certainly spatially dependent. I no longer occupy that physical plane space; my reality has changed.

A socially acceptable narrative for me is that I was doing OK, then had burn out, and chucked my toys out of the cot. I dabbled a bit with science tutoring and then retired to France. I am now socially isolated and quasi-hermitic. This is largely lacking any wider significance, there are few implications. My impact on the world was short-lived and very local.

Based solely on dream “evidence” and subjective vision alongside this version of reality is that I have partial recall of prior lives inter alia a few as a Buddhist priest/monk. This in itself is not overly significant. It is the sort of thing one might say after a spliff or two.

“Hey man I can remember my life as a Thai Buddhist practising something like Muay Thai.”

“Far out Bro! I always thought you were spiritual.”

Of course this could all be made up hippy-trippy stuff.

People tend to choose the contextual framing of any “reality” to suit that which is most convenient for them to assimilate the world with.

I have been reading Anatole Le Braz today. He has compiled folk stories from the immediate area and they have been fun to read. In one such story a young woman of “friendly” morals had seven children. She dies as does her brood. She is doomed to spend purgatory near her erstwhile home as a sow with seven black piglets. After several interactions that went badly, the locals decided that if they encounter said sow and brood, they should cross the road.

Likewise, the souls of the dead can spend earth bound purgatory as crows.

If you and I were out and about on a misty Breton night and I mentioned the latter “fact”, and even if you were a rational omniscient scientist, a surprise meeting with a pair of crows might unsettle you. If I started to talk with those crows even though you could not hear their reply, you might brick it, a little. You might suspect that I was taking the piss, but you would not be sure despite all your omniscience. I could wind you up or simply laugh at your predicament with the crows. When they laughed back a shiver would go down your spine.

Out of context at your work desk in daylight your encounter with souls trapped in earth corvid purgatory would no longer seem an optional reality. They were just crows.

The assimilated reality is often highly subjective…

Two crows on a misty crossroad at dead of night are more significant than a deskbound recollection whilst dining al-desko.

What you deem significant might only be significant in your little world. This is not a thought which many entertain as they are often self-obsessed and fail to empathise with the wider world. As a consequence, people might miss something with much wider significance after all the fluff in the navel is tantamount.

Just because you don’t understand it or are unfamiliar with it does not mean that other realities are less real than yours. They may be separate but you would be a bigot to deny them if you have not as yet experienced them.

Are Reality and Significance Subjective?

A big fat yes from me…

Karmic Snakes and Ladders

In Buddhism we have the notion of stream enterer which if entered leads to, in the fullness of time, liberation or nirvana. This does not mean that the subsequent lives of a sotāpanna are easy rather ultimate “success” is assured. The challenges scale with the capability of the being.

One can think of the lives leading up to a possibility of stream entrance as a game of snakes and ladders. In some lives great karmic progress is made, a ladder. In other lives normal steady progress is made, the roll of the dice. Then there are lives in which arrogance and poor choices loads on extra karma. These lives are the snakes where one starts off again in a worse position. There is a snake on square 99 {97 here}. Just when success looks possible the chance is squandered. The problem is that progress and illumination can often stimulate arrogance and poor attitude. By accumulating personal power, one might get wealth, greed and clinging. What looks shiny could be retrograde.

As one gets close to the fleeting moment of chance for stream entry the challenges get ever larger and sometimes way more subtle.

Imagine if you encountered Siddartha and failed to learn from him. Your “omniscience” somehow got in the way. That fleeting moment of chance which led you to the presence of a Buddha was missed. That is one massive Burmese python or anaconda of a snake! A Buddha could be the key to stream entry.

You missed a huge possibility for progress and were sent way back to learn all over again. A potential fate was forfeited.

Because of dependent origination or dependent arising, no fate is 100% fixed. But the general trends of karma and fate hold true. You have to cooperate with your fate in order to progress smoothly. If you are sulky and “do I have to” you won’t get ladders you will get snakes. If you are stubborn and pig-headed you will get many snakes. If you are light and easy, you will get ladders and people who help you on your way.

Some people really make bad choices, and in my experience, this is to do with them being glamoured in one way or another, by things or people. Those fond of short cuts, can find that they are anything but.

Grizzly Adams – Twitter and LinkedIn

I have lived to a large extent in a vacuum of social interaction for a number of years. It was perhaps foretold by my like of “The Life and Times of Grizzly Adams”. As a teenager I really enjoyed the programme and the lifestyle idea, living in an isolated cabin in nature.  My extroverted parents kept bloody talking whilst I was watching the programmes and often commented about isolation leading inevitably to cabin fever. Although adjunct to society we do not really participate and cannot be said to be socially integrated. We are immersed in nature at the very edge of a village.

Because I have arthritis sooner or later, I will be unable to manage our 2 acres. So, I joined LinkedIn with a view to seeing if I could get some science editing work to help pay for assistance in the garden. That has not proved possible / easy. As a result of this LinkedIn exposure, I delved into the venture capital start-up world to which I once pertained a quarter century ago. It was interesting for me to track down people I did my first degree with and to see what they are / have been up to. When taking the integral over my life I have perhaps been among the least financially successful of all my peers. We live below minimum wage. This is not a usual outcome for a high technology start-up co-founder and an ex-academic from a world top ten university.

What I see is that the tendency to hype and spin has not gone. It has gotten worse. Many of my invitations to join my network have been ignored. People whose lives I helped change can’t be arsed with me anymore, my leper’s bell can be heard across continents, it seems. Some of these people are very “successful” now. I know that I have helped many people over the years. It seems they have forgotten or are embarrassed by me now. I am not resentful I have perhaps always given more that I have taken. It was never done transactionally.

By following the likes of people I knew, I have had exposure to a Jewish / Israeli perspective on some things. I found this interesting and had been unaware of some of the depth of feeling.

Obviously, LinkedIn has a sales / public relations purpose. It is not for deep spiritual insight. It could be said to be for people “on the make”.

Has anyone every studied if LinkedIn is worth the money time and effort? Or is LinkedIn yet another part of our modern FOMO addiction?

Twitter has some gems but it also has a lot of shite. There is darkness, hate and some light. I am amazed at how very polarised the world is now. I was trying to sum it up.

People it seems can be gullible, adamant and evangelical.

They may actually believe some of the stuff they soap box about. Conspiracy theories can be way out there. Deep thought and balance seems missing. OK not everyone likes Twitter/X or whatever. Not every “omniscient” being needs to spout off about their agenda. But it is a sample of our world today. I sense that the younger people are underrepresented. It does not fill me with optimism about where humanity is heading.

In a strange way I find both of these medias “intrusive” the world “out there” is somehow leaking in to they world here. The more I see they less I sense a belonging to that world. I don’t fit in, perhaps I never have.

My working hypothesis is that there is not really much more for me to do “out there”.  I am done, used up. I have had a dream recently suggesting that this self-image may be wrong and that my opinion of self needs a polish, a glow up. But true paths can and may be filled with emptiness as opposed to societal detritus.

It seems likely that in the upcoming weeks I will pull the plug on LinkedIn and now that my research on Twitter is nearly over, I will stop using that too.

I have one observation Twitter live feed is way better before the USA gets out of bed. Reiteration differs from fact. Boring.