Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog

December 9, 2012

me+ME: On Orwell and On seeing others


“You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”
-- Lincoln

Then again, in a postmodern democracy, you only need to fool the majority of the badly educated to run what is effectively a disguised dictatorship.
-- MM



Sections

Introduction   
1. On Orwell
2. On seeing others
About ME/CFS


Introduction:

As I said, I will return to the corruption of the Dutch universities soon, indeed with a bit of English satire, but my eyes are none too well, and I am otherwise also none too well, so I'll just do two brief bits today, the first bit today also added to the PS of yesterday's Dutch piece, but in English, and the second bit about logic, and indeed psycho-logic, with a small excursus on drugs.

I leave the opening quotations as they were yesterday, because they are good and relevant to the text that follows.



1.
On Orwell

Yesterday I wrote a Dutch bit that in fact illustrates the themes of the Surveillance State, for which see e.g.
I also added links to the images, namely to a 65 minutes long version of
from 1955. I've now seen all of that, and I like it. Also, while "Animal Farm" was clearly a satire of Stalin's Soviet Union and intended as such, it also applies to the current  supposedly free Western states, that are being rapidly changed into
The last link is to the Wikipedia, from which I quote (status today):
A police state is a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and
social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

For an example of just this ee e.g. this article by Glenn Greenwald of Dec 4 last
from which I quote, especially for the enthusiastic chanters of "This can't happen here" (kill lists, drone strikes, indefinite detention without trial, rendition to torture chambers ... why worry: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"):
In essence, the bargain offered by the state is as follows: if you meaningfully challenge what we're doing, then we will subject you to harsh recriminations. But if you passively comply with what we want, refrain from challenging us, and acquiesce to our prevailing order, then you are "free" and will be left alone. The genius is that those who accept this bargain are easily convinced that repression does not exist in the US, that it only takes place in those Other Bad countries, because, as a reward for their compliant posture, they are not subjected to it.
And lest I forget: The argument by Our Fine Government Officials Who Defend Us All Against Terrorism that

    If you've got nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear

is the argument of a sick sadistic bully who in fact insists that he decides what you are to think, say and write, and threatens you only to think, say and write what he allows.

It is the rule and morality of a police state: The state and its organs are run by Übermenschen (German) i.e. supermen, in their own minds and behaviors, to whom you owe tribute and allegiance, as a mere citizen, simply because you are not one of them, and because for them you exist to satisfy their ends, not your own.

History - if there is any - may well show that the era from 1700-2000 was a very rare era of relative freedom in Europe and the US, and indeed it seems as if ordinary men and ordinary leaders do not care for freedom (except in propaganda and in name) and are fundamentally totalitarian at heart. And also see
For more on totalitarianism, see Orwell, whom I wrote about several times in Nederlog. Here are four Nederlogs on him, two in Dutch and two in English:
There is probably more in Nederlog, but then that is over 120 MB collectively, and I only searched to titles now.

2. On seeing others

This is a brief exercise in logic, for which you find some of the background here:
Here it can be mostly seen as mere notation, to clarify what is a bit harder to grasp in natural language.

My theme is simply to lay out some of what is involved when I see you and you see me, or slightly generalized, when a experiences b and b experiences a.

If we write "q" for "it rains" then we can render "a experiences that it rains" as "aE(q)". Also, we can render what a experiences that a experiences - aka a's conscious experiences - by using an abstract:
i(a) = {p : aE(aE(p))} = {p : aEaEp}
that is: the - supposed - facts p, such that a experiences a experiences p. This may also be called "a's inside", on the understanding that if one is not a, then one does not have a's experiences, which are inside a (in some metaphorical sense, and in some real sense if what a experiences are a's brain states). The rightmost abstract just is the one before it, written without parentheses.

What another person than a, such as b, can see of the person a are just some features of a's body, so let's suppose we abstract only bodily features of a:
o(b,a) = {F: bE(F(a))} = {F: bEFa}
That is: The outside of a for b is the features of a's body - what a looks  like, says etc. - here rendered by the abstract the F such that b experiences that a has F. The rightmost formula again left out brackets tacitly understood for reading convenience.

It is not assumed here that b's experiences are veridical, but this can be easily added if wanted
:
o(b,a) = {F: bEFa & Fa}
does the trick, with "&" for "and", for this means logically speaking that what b experiences of a in fact is so.

And now I have the wherewithal for what I wanted to formulate, namely for what is the case (among many other things) when a and b experience each other "in the flesh" (and also in other ways, I don't consider now).

The formula is this
aE(i(a) & o(a,b)) & ~aE(i(b) & o(b,a)) &
bE(i(b) & o(b,a)) & ~aE(i(a) & o(a,b))
That is: a experiences a's inside and b's outside, and does not experience b's inside and a's outside, and for b (likewise) b experiences b's inside and a's outside, and does not experience a's inside and n's outside.

In fact, of what's going on when a and b experience each other each experiences just half, and that half is precisely what the other does not experience - as can be seen from the formula, and indeed also be proved logically with a few other intuitively evident assumptions.

In other words: If I meet with you, what each of us experiences is the other person acting and behaving, and the person mentally commenting, interpetering, guessing and assessing, while not experiencing one's own acting and behaving (or only very partially so, as when looking at one's own hands or legs) and also not experiencing  the others
mental commenting, interpetering, guessing and assessing.

Trivial? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that this is fairly obvious if one thinks about it. No, in the sense that it is rarely formulated as clearly and it can be made the start of quite a few more precisifications.

And it makes or helps to make some points that are rarely well seen, and that I have only seen more or less well described in fairly old books that teach acting to actors - stage players - and then indeed not with formulas nor as a logical exercise:
  1. When two persons interact, each sees only one half of what is going on between the two: the outside of the other, and the inside of oneself, and indeed
  2. each of the two does not see the half the other sees. Also
  3. When two persons interact, each will tend to mistake the outside of the other for what the person "is", while thinking of oneself as of what one thinks inside, and not as one's outside that the other sees (and tends to confuse one with).
  4. What each experiences is, accordingly, the outside of the other, usually mistaken for what the other "is", while not seeing the outside of self (except rarely, such as in front of mirrors).
This was just a tiny part of the psycho-logic I was not allowed to get a Ph.D. with in the University of Amsterdam, because I could not get any help while being seriously ill, because I protested against the low level and strongly politicized character of the "education" I received there, and because I protested against illegal drugs dealers protected by mayor, aldermen, police, and districts mayor, very probably because these good Dutch folks are - secretively: don't tell! - immensely rich through precisely that channel: They personally hand out the allowances to deal illegal drugs, know who they allow these allowances, and if they get just 5% of the yearly 5 billion euros that are turned over this still is 5*5.000.000.000 / 100 = 250.000.000 - 250 million euros. Each year. Only in Amsterdam. Only in soft drugs.

And 5 billion euros, annually, is just a low estimate for the turnover in Amsterdam alone, according to the one parliamentarian report about 42 years of this trade, in Amsterdam, for which see May 4 2012:
From the Dutch Parliamentary Van Traa Report on Drugs of 1995 (*) 

"Boekhoorn and others (1995) estimate the current yearly turnover of cannabis for Dutch consumption as  0.8 billion, the yield of the export as 1.8 billion, that of the import/export trading at  3.9 billion and that of the international  trade that does not take place inside the Netherlands at 12.5 billion guilders. The total yearly turnover of cannabis for all of  The Nederlands is therefore 19 billion guilders. If the yield of the trade in all other kinds of [illegal] drugs were added to this the sum of money becomes yet again much larger. The trade in [illegal] drugs is one of the most important and fastest growing sectors of the Dutch econonomy. Amsterdam takes part in this trade to a much larger extent than would appear  (..)" [*]

Amsterdam owes that to the mayors and aldermen who had me rather threatened with murder and gassed by the dealers they had allowed with their signatures, approval, support, respect, toleration and protection in the house where I tried to survive, being ill and not able to escape, and being systematically ignored, laughed at, offended, and threatened when I tried to get any help from anyone who in Amsterdam is paid to uphold the Dutch laws, that forbid all of this, all of the 42 insanely profitable years this has been and is happening.

And so it goes: In Amsterdam bin ich ja nur ein Untermensch...
 
----

[*] For Dutchies: "A billion" = "Een miljard". And the Parliamentary Van Traa Report (part Amsterdam) is under the link, but is much more readable by way of my notes to it. The above quotation is in Noot_60. For Non-Dutchies: Van Traa got killed in 1997, the Amsterdam police says "accidentally", since when no Dutch politician looked into this trade seriously at all, presumably because they have understood the point of "the accident".

About ME/CFS (that I prefer to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search machines) which is a disease I have since 1.1.1979:
1. Anthony Komarof

Ten discoveries about the biology of CFS(pdf)

2. Malcolm Hooper THE MENTAL HEALTH MOVEMENT:  
PERSECUTION OF PATIENTS?
3. Hillary Johnson

The Why  (currently not available)

4. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf - version 2003)
5. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf - version 2011)
6. Eleanor Stein

Clinical Guidelines for Psychiatrists (pdf)

7. William Clifford The Ethics of Belief
8. Malcolm Hooper Magical Medicine (pdf)
9.
Maarten Maartensz
Resources about ME/CFS
(more resources, by many)



       home - index - summaries - mail