Tom Stoppard’s earliest of many great plays is Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. The title of the play is taken from a line in Hamlet, in which these characters play a small part in the greater drama. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are minor players in Hamlet, but the Stoppard version makes them the main focus.
The play begins with their betting on flipped coins. The unlikely result is that coins always turn up heads. They discuss this seeming anomaly, not completely understanding, nor understanding that the small part they are playing in the drama will result in their death.
Probability is a funny thing. Over many flips, we say the chances are that the number of heads and tails will be about equal, 50/50. But seemingly unlikely, it could be heads every time, since on any one flip, the chance remains 50/50. Stoppard makes this point funny, as is the play, but also a profound truth in the lives of the characters and in our lives.
I’ve written multiple times about randomness. Randomness and probability are siblings, maybe twins. Two sides of the same coin. I’ve pointed out Gregory Bateson’s saying that for him, a random number table is at the heart of his holy of holies.
The significance of probability stretches from the Bible to AI.
The Bible begins with a scene of chaos, a universe of randomness. People, pre-Bible and now, want some order and predictability. So the very first event in the Bible has God bringing order out of chaos, out of tohu and bohu.
AI operates on principles of probability. In that it operates not unlike the way that people also generate information, only from greater knowledge than most and more comprehensively and quickly. Though, as it has become obvious, not always as creatively.
We live with randomness, no matter how much we believe that absolute order and predictability can be imposed. God may be able to eliminate randomness and chaos in the Bible, but we can’t. Knowing the limits of probability means knowing the nature of reality, our reality.
Threats, lies, bullying, beating another party to death is not negotiation. Which explains the long list—a lifetime—of failed Trump negotiations, as a “businessman” and as president. Lose-lose describes many of these deals. The latest is the abandoned attempt to reach a trade deal with Canada, with Canadian retaliatory tariffs now about to be put in place, and with most Canadians, looking at their former North American friends, and saying they don’t need and don’t want the products America has to offer.
Many are feeling dislocated and lost right now. Even the rich and powerful may look around at all the gold they have attached to every available surface in their house and still feel dislocated and lost.
I think about what simple single solution there might to all of the challenges we are currently facing. Not surprisingly, there isn’t one.
But there may be simple help for that feeling of being dislocated and lost in all this.
Most days I place a mat on the floor, place a cushion on the mat, and sit on it. I meditate, but what I am saying here is that you don’t have to.
All you have to do is get a mat and cushion, place them on the floor, and sit. No special position or meditation needed. Just sit there, for however long you are comfortable. This is your place, right there, right now. You are not dislocated or lost because, to repeat, you are right there.
What you do and say and think after that sitting is entirely up to you. Hopefully you are not feeling as dislocated and lost, but maybe you are, for a little while, or maybe for the rest of the day.
But for a moment, there is a place for you, a place you sat and can sit again. Your place.
I published this post in 2019. You may be able to tell it is dated, since it begins with “A good economy, at least for the moment.” So it goes.
I’ve been a fan of this book for a long time. If it made sense when it was published in 1985, and made more sense in 2019, it makes even more sense now. If there is any good news, when I checked on Amazon, it is still being bought, still being read, still being commented on. So there’s that.
Distractions are everywhere. Some because others want us to be distracted, some because as besieged as we are we are relieved to be distracted.
A good economy, at least for the moment. Entertainment and digital diversions to infinity and beyond. If there is also a diminishing—a devolution—of democracy, will Americans care?
Over the last year, as the presidential campaign grew increasingly bizarre and Donald Trump took us places we had never been before, I saw a spike in media references to Amusing Ourselves to Death, a book written by my late father, Neil Postman, which anticipated back in 1985 so much about what has become of our current public discourse….
The central argument of Amusing Ourselves is simple: there were two landmark dystopian novels written by brilliant British cultural critics – Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell – and we Americans had mistakenly feared and obsessed over the vision portrayed in the latter book (an information-censoring, movement-restricting, individuality-emaciating state) rather than the former (a technology-sedating, consumption-engorging, instant-gratifying bubble)….
Unfortunately, there remained a vision we Americans did need to guard against, one that was percolating right then, in the 1980s. The president was a former actor and polished communicator. Our political discourse (if you could call it that) was day by day diminished to soundbites (“Where’s the beef?” and “I’m paying for this microphone” became two “gotcha” moments, apparently testifying to the speaker’s political formidableness).
The nation increasingly got its “serious” information not from newspapers, which demand a level of deliberation and active engagement, but from television: Americans watched an average of 20 hours of TV a week. (My father noted that USA Today, which launched in 1982 and featured colorized images, quick-glance lists and charts, and much shorter stories, was really a newspaper mimicking the look and feel of TV news.)
But it wasn’t simply the magnitude of TV exposure that was troubling. It was that the audience was being conditioned to get its information faster, in a way that was less nuanced and, of course, image-based. As my father pointed out, a written sentence has a level of verifiability to it: it is true or not true – or, at the very least, we can have a meaningful discussion over its truth. (This was pre-truthiness, pre-“alternative facts”.)
But an image? One never says a picture is true or false. It either captures your attention or it doesn’t. The more TV we watched, the more we expected – and with our finger on the remote, the more we demanded – that not just our sitcoms and cop procedurals and other “junk TV” be entertaining but also our news and other issues of import. Digestible. Visually engaging. Provocative. In short, amusing. All the time. Sorry, C-Span.
This was, in spirit, the vision that Huxley predicted way back in 1931, the dystopia my father believed we should have been watching out for. He wrote:
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture.
1984 – the year, not the novel – looks positively quaint now. One-third of a century later, we all carry our own personalized screens on us, at all times, and rather than seven broadcast channels plus a smattering of cable, we have a virtual infinity of options….
Our public discourse has become so trivialized, it’s astounding that we still cling to the word “debates” for what our presidential candidates do onstage when facing each other. Really? Who can be shocked by the rise of a reality TV star, a man given to loud, inflammatory statements, many of which are spectacularly untrue but virtually all of which make for what used to be called “good television”?
Who can be appalled when the coin of the realm in public discourse is not experience, thoughtfulness or diplomacy but the ability to amuse – no matter how maddening or revolting the amusement?
So, yes, my dad nailed it. Did he also predict that the leader we would pick for such an age, when we had become perhaps terminally enamored of our technologies and amusements, would almost certainly possess fascistic tendencies? I believe he called this, too.
For all the ways one can define fascism (and there are many), one essential trait is its allegiance to no idea of right but its own: it is, in short, ideological narcissism. It creates a myth that is irrefutable (much in the way that an image’s “truth” cannot be disproved), in perpetuity, because of its authoritarian, unrestrained nature….
I wish I could tell you that, for all his prescience, my father also supplied a solution. He did not. He saw his job as identifying a serious, under-addressed problem, then asking a set of important questions about the problem. He knew it would be hard to find an easy answer to the damages wrought by “technopoly”. It was a systemic problem, one baked as much into our individual psyches as into our culture.
Conservatives talk about reducing the U.S. national debt, the difference between expenses and income. Trump and his cronies, despite blah-blah-blah, want the national debt to increase to this unsustainable level.
When the debt becomes an even bigger emergency than it already is, those in power will call for a drastic end to most government services and benefits to avert disaster. The exceptions will be those government services like policing and defense contracting, which add to the government power and make those in power and their friends richer.
I am not given to conspiracies or to ascribing villainous motives to others. But this one is too easy to conclude, given the evidence. This level of national debt weakens America and weakens the well being of Americans. If wildly increasing the debt does that, yet policies promoting that continue, either Trump and his cronies don’t care about America and its people, or have a greater goal in mind like shrinking government, or both. One approach to logic is to find the solution that accounts for the most evidence. This is that.
“I would never donate to any charity that helps sharks. I hope all the sharks die.” –Donald Trump
As you’ll see in the below post from 2018, Stormy Daniels reported Trump’s attitude towards sharks, which she said was an obsession. At that point, I suggested that shark jewelry might be a way to protect us from Trump. We don’t know whether or not enough shark jewelry or other shark items were used. Obviously, whatever was tried, so far it hasn’t worked. Nevertheless, if you want to keep trying, with shark jewelry or supporting shark causes, please continue. It can’t hurt.
If you’re wondering whatever happened to Stormy Daniels or Melania Trump, you can look it up.
In Touch Weekly has published an interview with Stormy Daniels about her affair with Trump—while he was married to Melania, starting just after the birth of their son Barron.
It is profoundly sad, dispiriting, and disturbing. But not surprising. Not surprising either is the silence of his Republican henchmen and supporters, who seem to put up with anything, provided they can make more money or keep their jobs and power.
Among the non-sexual tidbits that have caught everyone’s attention is her relating Trump’s obsessive fear and hatred of sharks:
“The strangest thing about that night — this was the best thing ever. You could see the television from the little dining room table and he was watching Shark Week and he was watching a special about the U.S.S. something and it sank and it was like the worst shark attack in history. He is obsessed with sharks. Terrified of sharks. He was like, “I donate to all these charities and I would never donate to any charity that helps sharks. I hope all the sharks die.” He was like riveted. He was like obsessed. It’s so strange, I know.”
Just as vampires are put off by crosses, it is possible, just possible, that shark jewelry can protect us from Trump. Either figurative sharks or shark’s teeth might work. No guarantees, but it’s worth a try.
Update
From Mashable:
Mashable reached out to the Shark Week network after reading a report alleging that Trump once said, “I hope all sharks die.” Its response was measured.
“Shark Week celebrates the wonder of these majestic creatures and their critical importance to the ecosystem,” a Discovery Channel representative told Mashable when asked for comment about the president’s Shark Week viewing habits and fears. “Their safety and conservation is the most important message conveyed throughout the week.”
Do not what is evil. Do what is good. Keep your mind pure. This is the teaching of Buddha.
There is no formal or official Golden Rule in Buddhism.
There is no formal or official Bible in Buddhism. The closest may be the Dhammapada, a concise and widely read and studied collection of what the Buddha said, or what others heard him say, or what others heard he said. There are many translations, each worthy in its way. Even without further teaching, it is a straightforward way to begin understanding Buddhism.
There are many Buddhist teachers in many traditions, some of them well-known even in the non-Buddhist world. Ajahn Chah (1918 –1992) was a Thai Buddhist monk and teacher in the Theravada tradition. He is not as well-known as some, particularly among students in the Mahayana traditions such as Zen, but he is the equal of any.
Food for the Heart is one of the few collections of his talks, though his centers cover the globe. He is not alone in offering his wisdom in a style that is inspiring and inviting, though I defy any student and seeker of any religious tradition not be de-lighted.
He comments on verse 183 of the Dhammapada:
Do not what is evil. Do what is good. Keep your mind pure. This is the teaching of Buddha. Dhammapada 183 –Translated by Juan Mascaró
“Only three lines, hardly anything to it. The first is—Sabba pāpassa akaraṇaṁ: refraining from all wrongdoing. That’s the teaching of all the buddhas. This is the heart of Buddhism. But people keep jumping over it; they don’t want this one. The renunciation of all wrongdoing, great and small, from bodily, verbal, and mental actions—this is the teaching of the buddhas.” –Ajahn Chah
Une difficulté est une lumière. Une difficulté insurmontable est un soleil: ‘A difficulty is a light. An insurmountable difficulty is a sun.’ Paul Valéry
But the core of questions in epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, political philosophy, the ‘philosophy of’ pursuits, and the rest, remain; they are perennial and perennially urgent questions, because efforts to answer them are part of the great adventure of humanity’s effort to understand itself and its place in the universe. Some of those questions seem unanswerable – though to act on the thought that they are so is to give up far too soon. Moreover, as Paul Valéry said, Une difficulté est une lumière. Une difficulté insurmontable est un soleil: ‘A difficulty is a light. An insurmountable difficulty is a sun.’ Wonderful saying! for it teaches us that the effort to solve even the seemingly unsolvable teaches us an enormous amount – as the history of philosophy attests.
There are thousands of people, from undergraduate students of foreign relations and political science to world class experts and statesmen, who know more about the complexities of Israel and the Middle East than the president. But we’ve got what we’ve got.
Most nations think that Israel is on a wrong path. Most Americans think Israel is on a wrong path. Most American Jews think Israel is on the wrong path.
On the other hand, the Israeli administration thinks it’s on the right path. Many, not all, American Republicans think Israel is on the right path. A major American lobbying group thinks Israel is on the right path, and puts it’s money where its position is.
Then there’s the president, who knows little and cares little for the complicated big picture. He generally sides with Israel, and thinks he can be known as the historic one who solved the Middle East. Quixotic hardly describes it. He is Don Quixote without a horse or an able assistant.
Netanyahu sees the president’s ignorance and uncertainty. So when the president came up with a 15-point peace plan, Israel found it unacceptable.
The official Israeli response was no, but the implicit response is: pick a side. If you, Mr President, try to lean even a little way away from unconditional support, we will unleash holy hell on the American political scene, and you will be caught up in it.
We appreciate that you and those loyal to you have been on our side. But you must have realized that once you are with us you are with us. That is precisely the standard you have set for your own followers. If you are not with me, 100 percent, you are against me. I am saying the exact same thing. Pick a side.
There are a lot of adjectives we attach in describing people, some commonly, some not so much. The same applies to our description of the American president.
Watching his obsession with prosecuting a decent man, a former Olympian, for the made up crime of vandalizing the Reflecting Pool, brought another word to mind.
Petty. It doesn’t have the harsh power of so many other descriptions of the president. It is something we might toss at a friend or loved one, when they’ve made something big out of something that didn’t deserve it.
Many don’t consider the president a friend or loved one. Another difference is that with this obsession comes the power to prosecute and potentially jail a demonstrably innocent person, so innocent that the prosecutor dropped the bogus charge.
This is where petty becomes a useful word. Petty plus power is an apt description of one aspect of the situation, though far from the only one. Petty people with power are nothing new, but in every case contradict our basic sense of fairness. The legal system for one, since that is the topic here, is built to prevent unsupported pettiness, a very human trait, from having dire effect. That is the guardrail that keeps personal obsession and vengeance from becoming vendetta or policy.
The most petty president is also the most powerful person. An unfortunate combination.
/https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F696766%2Ff5c48e69-6c57-459d-8097-e1407149c282.png)
Bob Schwartz 