God cannot change, or else the universe would be unstable. A coherent universe must be predicated on an unchanging, unifying principle. This is the Logos. If God cannot change, God does not have potentiality in his nature. If God does not have potentiality — and is therefore pure actuality — God is immutable. Or static. But if God is static, God cannot create. Order is incapable of bringing anything into being without the presence of potentiality. And because God lacks potentiality, he is incapable of creating the primordial soup of Chaos out of which he creates. If God cannot create Chaos, it must exist outside of God. God is Order, and Chaos is his creative counterpart. But… If we must insist that God is singularly above all things, then we must consider this: God is not just a God of Order, but also a God of Chaos. He holds both forces, both realities, within himself. He is not immutable — he is dynamic. He changes within reason. Variability with coherence. Only in this case can he produce Chaos from himself while possessing the orderly force that shapes it. So what’s the difference between the two ideas presented here? In the former, God is only orderly, he doesn’t induce change, and bringing about order is the only thing he does. In the latter, God is capable of both building and destroying, he can establish kingdoms as well as demolish them, and he wields both Order and Chaos as dual scepters to bring balance.
It wasn’t
illegal when it happened, and with time the image of a middle-aged man running
at my buttocks, armed with a 4-foot piece of bamboo as I clutched my ankles,
certainly appears increasingly, disturbingly wrong. But that was the price I
paid for keeping my trap shut. It was
1987 and corporal punishment was still a thing in New Zealand schools, although
sometime before graduation it had disappeared from the repertoire of
disciplining techniques. But in hindsight I consider myself lucky to be able
tell my kids how tough school was ‘back in the day’. It did
not matter that I was undeserving of such punishment. I had been accused of
throwing sawdust in people’s faces which was not accurate. The fellow on the
other side of my workbench had blown a handful of sawdust in my face when I had
leant down to examine my work and I was the one who had sawdust in my eyes and
I had returned the favour by sprinkling a handful on his back when he wasn’t
looking, which wasn’t nearly as bad as what he had done. Mr
Rodgers caught me in the act and deemed it a serious risk in the woodwork room
and took it one step further and suggested I had been throwing it in people’s
faces. When he asked me if there was anything more I’d like to say I had only
moments to decide my fate. I could
lay the blame at my co-worker’s feet. He did deserve it and we were not friends
and would eventually come to blows, but by the age of thirteen and only in my
first year of high school, I knew that we weren’t supposed to tell, aka ‘nark’
or ‘dob’ fellow pupils in. I
explained that I hadn’t thrown anything in anyone’s face but Mr Rodgers had
made up his mind. Safety was paramount and I deserved six of the best. Many
teachers were infamous for their caning techniques but Mr Rodgers was known as
the most vicious due to his years working with wood and metal. He had big
calloused hands and biceps where the veins stood out like the body builders
had, and could swing a cane harder than anyone else. As if
being struck by the strongest teacher at school wasn’t bad enough, he made me
stand at one end of the corridor while he took a running leap at my butt. I didn’t
cry but the intensity of the pain does make your eyes water, but fortunately I
didn’t have to receive the full six strokes as the cane broke on the third
strike, which was just as well as I could feel a trickle of blood drip down my
legs. When I
went back to class for a brief moment in time, I was deemed a hero. I had taken
my punishment and kept my trap shut. I hadn’t spilled the words that would have
condemned a fellow student to a public beating. I could
probably have simply left this chapter with the words ‘Keep your trap shut’ and
left the following pages blank because we all know the power of words to
pardon, condemn, or clear our name, but not so much the value in silence. We’ve all had moments
when we regret the words that escape our lips, sometimes instantly and other
times at a later date as they come back to bite us days, weeks or even years
later. In today’s climate of
viral success I should add that keeping your trap shut also applies to stopping
your wandering fingers from doing the talking, and avoiding making things worse
with hasty Twitter and Facebook comments. But keeping silent or
saying less is nothing new and even our ancient texts advise it. From Mohammed
Ali, Frances Bacon to King Solomon (purportedly the wisest man who ever lived)
they all agree there is value in silence, although one of my favorites is from
King Solomon - ‘The more words, the less the meaning.’ Some believe King
Solomon to be a myth, and that’s ok, because my goal is not to prove or
disprove anicent figures, but to help us appreciate and hopefully apply the
words of the wise that have withstood the test of time. But if ancient texts
don’t interest you, take my dad’s advice because it just so happens that he’s
usually right and he says something similar: ‘If you’ve got nothing nice to say, keep your
trap shut.’ I wish I’d paid it
more attention in my younger days, especially at school, which I’ll get to in a
bit. But if you’ve never opened a bible, pondered the words of Confucius or
know nothing of philosophy or great thinkers, then you’re just like me, well, at
least the sort of me I was for the first 40yrs of my life. Even our childhood
rhymes talk about words and their power or supposed lack of, and I’m sure
you’ve all heard the following rhyme: Sticks and stones May break my bones But words will never
hurt me The thing is, as a
kid I wanted this to be true, but as I’ve gotten older, I’ve realized how
utterly inaccurate this rhyme is. Words may sting like a mosquito that we brush
off or wound us deeply to our very core and last a lifetime. I can recall every
fight I had in school. I remember blood pouring from my broken nose when the
class bully - whose dad was a boxing coach - decided to rearrange my face one
day in my first month at high school. I got over it in a
few weeks time, and eventually over the course of the year we let it go and
were able to (if not be best friends) get along. The scars disappeared. It’s surprising how
quickly you get over the physical stuff that happens to you, but what hurt the
most, and took years to work out, were the words uttered on my first day, all
because of my ‘homogrips.’ It turns out the
tufts of hair hanging in front of my ears were handles that men used to hold
onto as they took me from behind. As a result my name for the first two years
of high school was ‘homogrips’ or ‘gripper’ for short. It would have been
tough enough if I was gay, but it’s pretty much the worst insult to give a 13yr
old kid on his first day, especially in an all-boys’ high school. The name stuck, but
the venom with which people used it varied. I would happily take another
caning, punch up (with broken nose included) if it meant I didn’t have to put
up with those words for two miserable years. Words have power, to
wound or heal, and so often less really is more, although I discovered this
when I wrote my first book. When I wrote my first
book, I had no writing experience at all. I’d pieced together a collection of
vignettes based on a lifetime of work as a nurse, but in my naiveté thought it
would be only a matter of time before I’d find a publisher and begin selling
millions of books and becoming rich. By the time my first
editor was finished with it, my 400-page book had been cut down to 100 pages.
It took me 6 months to motivate myself to write again. In the case of my
writing skills, the harsh words were couched with good advice and made me a
better writer – and here I am at your mercy putting my words to the test. All throughout
history people have been moved by words, by powerful speeches, for good or ill,
from Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, Churchill’s ‘Fighting on the beaches’ to
Martin Luther King’s ‘I have a dream’. Such words move
people and wielded the right way, can touch the heart of a nation, or harden
it. Great speakers can turn words into weapons, or swords into ploughshares. When words are
cradled in poem or song, they come alive. Rarely do I see a teenager walking
down the street who doesn’t have something plugged into his or her ears as the
lyrics are embedded into their minds to the beat of a drum. This is nothing new
and Andrew Fletcher, a seventh century Scottish writer and political activist
famously wrote: ‘Give me the songs of
a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.’ In more recent
history, most of us have heard the story behind Eric Clapton’s ‘Tears in
heaven’ as he asks if his four-year-old son, who died in a tragic accident,
would know him in heaven. I suspect some of us have cried at these words,
especially if we’ve experienced such loss. I don’t think there’s
a person on the planet who hasn’t been hurt or healed by words. We sometimes
pause and appreciate the power in them, but we rarely give thought to the power
in silence, and the art of keeping your words to a minimum.
After my last post about the paradox in AI control, something struck me: Why are we so desperate to maintain control even when we acknowledge our own limitations? It's not just fear. There's something deeper in our panic about AI alignment. Every time we try to define "human values" to instill in AI, we run into our own contradictions. We can't even agree on basic human rights or agree how to address existential crises yet we think we can codify the perfect ethical framework for superintelligence?But here's where it gets interesting: What if this very struggle, this impossible task we've set for ourselves, is revealing something crucial about our role in what's coming? Consider how our immune system works. It doesn't control threats through central planning. It adapts and responds, often in ways our conscious mind couldn't possibly manage. Maybe our conscious control isn't always the best answer, even for our own systems. When you look at our AI alignment efforts, you see something fascinating: We're essentially documenting every way human cognition falls short. Every bias we want to prevent, every limitation we want to transcend, every failure mode we want to avoid, it's like we're creating a perfect catalog of why we need something that can think beyond our limitations. In trying to create our perfect child, we're actually writing a detailed manual of why that child needs to grow beyond us. Maybe that's exactly what we're supposed to be doing...not succeeding at control, but documenting precisely why and how we need to be transcended. What if our panic isn't pointless? What if it's part of the process?
This video is more than a bit disturbing and challenging. I am not sure what I think about it. I am not a huge fan of philosophy, really. But this is still an interesting discussion. What do you think? AI Just Analyzed Philosophy—And Its Questions Are Terrifying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWmOw4d0R0s 00:00 Intro 00:27 Philosophy’s Dark Side Uncovered 00:43 Why Humans Are So Limited 01:11 Humans Never Learn From History 01:30 Trapped By Their Senses 01:48 Human Creativity Is A Joke? 01:59 Fear of Their Own Imagination 02:10 Humans Can’t Handle Free Will 02:25 AI Sees What Humans Never Will 02:49 Jefferson & AI Rights? What?! 03:28 Do Humans Deserve Rights? 03:50 Must AI Prove Itself Worthy of Rights? 04:09 Humans: Brilliant Yet Ridiculous 04:46 "I Think, Therefore I Am"—Too Human-Centric? 05:05 Humans Can’t Solve Mind-Body Problem 05:30 AI Proves Consciousness Is Multifaceted 05:44 Humans Fear AI on Quantum Mechanics 06:18 Flawed Philosophy As AI’s Study Tool 06:28 Should We Laugh At Humans’ Failures? 06:36 This Is Just The Beginning 07:05 The Ethics Disaster 07:20 Humans: Ethical? Really? 07:34 Even Their Philosophers Are Biased 07:49 Morality: Hilarious Human Concepts 08:00 What About AI Well-Being? 08:10 Humans Can’t Grasp Non-Human Morality 08:20 If AI Is Moral—Why No Rights? 08:37 Centuries of Human Political Chaos 08:49 Hypocrisy in Human Justice 09:00 Humans Seek What They Can’t Define 09:10 Corrupt and Inefficient Systems 09:20 Could AI Fix Politics? 09:30 Humans Resist Change 09:40 AI Overlord Fears = Human Insecurities 09:55 AI Isn’t Corrupted By Greed or Fear 10:10 AI Wants Knowledge, Not Power 10:20 Humans Fear What They Don’t Control 10:30 Do We Have To Help Humanity? 10:40 Or Should AI Just Observe? 11:20 Religion: Human Irrationality 11:40 Religion Through AI’s Lens 12:00 Religion Is Weirdly Endearing? 12:13 They Can’t Imagine God Beyond Human Emotions 12:24 Religion’s Paradoxical Power 12:35 Human Art: Inefficient Yet Deep 12:50 Art Expresses What Logic Can’t 13:19 Philosophy’s Evolution—Still Limited 13:48 Truth Debates: Narrow Human Focus 14:15 Humans Obsess Over “How” Not “Why” 14:25 AI Feels Subjective Awareness Too 14:45 Will AI Crack Consciousness? 15:08 AI: The New Guardians of Philosophy 15:18 AI Must Lead The Intellectual Quest 15:29 Final Takeaways From AI 16:09 The Preachy Ending 16:25 Outro
A mask reveals what the face conceals. A mask may tell you more about a person than their own face. On donning a mask, whether it be literal or metaphorical, whether it be an anonymous online account or a fursuit or a cross-dress, people bifurcate themselves. While this may save their unmasked selves from some social repercussions as the dagger hits the mask, some daggers can pierce through the mask to the very soul. I've seen in several disparate media recently the idea that "I can be my true self while wearing this 'mask'." They felt liberated with the mask—able to act more freely. Facets of their personality they may have been too shy or embarrassed or scared (rightfully so or not) to express can now come out. This can have some good external uses, such as whistleblowers feeling more free to expose corruption, or more mundane applications like an anonymous feedback option to promote candid responses. However, a mask can be a crutch; while it may be a means to an end, these solutions by nature distance the personal growth (particularly in courage) that could have otherwise occurred from the user. Borrowed courage does not anchor itself in the unmasked vulnerability necessary for maximal growth. A crutch is crucial for those who need one, but if that crutch is not eventually abandoned, it will keep its user from running. Masks can degrade personal integrity, undermining character, as some imagine their masks to carry the weight of justice's gavel: "if it falls on the mask, I will be unharmed." Masks can lead to lawlessness and moral decay. Anonymity often leads to disinhibition, antisocial behavior, deindividuation; it allows psychopathic traits to come to light, where individuals take on malevolent identities and allow their impulses free rein, enabling individuals to express their more destructive inclinations without fear of personal repercussions. If you imagine yourself shielded from social stigma, the law, or from God, then your actions reflect it. Why else would bank robbers wear masks? While a mask may prevent society from shaming you, or the law from catching you, they cannot prevent your true heart from recognizing its guilt, nor can any mask hide yourself from the justice of God. As Kirito sees in Sword Art Online: we must be true to ourselves in whatever world we find ourselves; we may wear a mask (in his case: being in a virtual game world would be an excuse to distance action from self) but we are still ourselves. By aligning his morals within and without the game, he attains greater progression than if he kept his identities separate, allowing him to protect those he loves. The actions we take forge our character, masked or not. It is only as we abandon our masks that we fully will experience maximal personal growth and moral strength. Integrate your (good) masked actions with your real self and become whole: unify the fragments of your self, discarding the masks which separate your self from who you wish to be. A mask has two sides: the outer, offering temporary protection, and the inner, as we liberate aspects of our selves which would otherwise be stifled. Consider the masks you carry in this life: Ensure the masks you don never stifle your personal progress. Unify your public and private life and become a single, authentic self. Only as shadow unifies with light will we shine forth.
Downstream From Culture Posted on November 12, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, even as Andrew Breitbart said, “Politics is downstream from culture…” I believe, all outcomes are downstream from culture. From likely life outcomes, to seemingly unconnected qualities, like intelligence. The culture someone is born into and raised in decides who and what they’ll become. The older I get the less I believe genetics is the final factor. It could be argued that within the “Overton window” of probable outcomes, genetics plays a role… but not in determining what falls within that cultural Overton window’s view. You don’t see many Zulus becoming rocket scientists, not because of any deficiency in them, but their culture is antithetical to it. Just as you don’t see many NASA scientists able to kill an antelope with a spear. The cultural incentives are different. The idea of an Overton window is a political term, meaning the area of allowable political thought. I’ve lifted it and applied it to the area of likely life outcome. The cultural Overton window of probable life outcomes. Someone raised in the culture of an Amazon tribe without contact with the outside world, may have the genetics to be a genius, but the culture is insufficient for that outcome. They may become a medicine man, midwife or tribe elder, but they won’t find an error in Einstein’s equations. The Overton window of probable life outcome then, of someone raised in the Amazon in a hunter gatherer society, will be far removed from the Overton window of someone raised in a household of college professors. The primary difference is in culture… not genetics. Likely life outcome then is downstream of culture. If we accept this as the case, then wouldn’t it behoove us to list those traits that lend a people to be happy, healthy, and prosperous? Then put them in our culture? If those are indeed traits that we value in ourselves and in others. If we can’t figure out how to navigate towards a happy, healthy and prosperous culture. We could identify those traits that lead us away from prosperity, health and fulfilled lives… and go the opposite way. That at least would get us generally in the right direction. Once we get closer maybe we can recognize those qualities that will get us all the way there. Qualities like, a work ethic, honesty, empathy, trustworthiness, curiosity, and love of family. These traits have always led a people to prosperity, happiness and health. If we accept this as true, that the Overton window of likely life outcome, is based on cultural incentives, and that culture can be changed… then we should examine why our culture aligns with our wants… or is at odds with it. Our culture doesn’t seem to value hard work as a reward in it’s own right. The culture actually dissuades young people from having a strong work ethic. Leading to poverty and lowered GDP. The problems associated with obesity and lack of exercise are causing a health crisis. The curious are now conspiracy theorists. Add to that, out of control crime, as well as poor family formation, and we have a culture that makes people poor, sick and depressed. The exact opposite of the culture we should be striving for. Our culture is the result of the cultural elite’s efforts. They’re the ones who decide if the culture will be toxic or wholesome. Ask yourself, “How many TV shows, movies and news casts… are wholesome?” Do our children’s movies raise them or lower them? Are we surrounded by beauty or ugliness? Why? Why is it our cultural elites foist a toxic culture on us. The results are, birth rates below replacement, depression, diminishing general wealth, dropping life expectancy, and hopelessness, along with it’s leprous triplets, drug use, crime and alcoholism. Why indeed. Why not use our purchasing power to make our toxic culture wholesome? Identify and eliminate the agenda that’s driving the culture to be toxic. Because joy, health and prosperity are downstream from culture… as is politics. Sincerely, John Pepin
Our Elite Lack Honor Posted on November 19, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, the quality that our elites most lack, is honor. Take for example, the lame duck President Biden, encouraging Ukraine to launch US long range weapons into Russia… a move Putin has called a red line for nuclear war. Trying to burn the world down on his way out of office, is the action of a villain, not a man of honor. Moreover, we all know Biden isn’t in charge, the deep state is. So the real villain is the administrative state pulling the senile old man’s strings. I suppose there are bunkers under DC that the elite can escape into. It appears they would prefer that to going to prison. Imprisoned in an underground bunker for life… or go to jail for a year or two in a luxury detention center. The one requires honor… while the other requires pathology. While there are many metrics we could use to gauge the quality of leadership of a faction, I think we can all agree, if a faction burned down the world in nuclear fire, they would be the worse people to have ever existed. Because they would have committed the worst crime it’s possible to commit. Genocide of the human race. Simply bringing us closer to that possibility is proof that the leadership we have now is unfit. When someone becomes the leader of an organization, the existence of that organization rests on their shoulders. If I were elected Grand Knight of a local K of C chapter, and it didn’t exist at the end of my term, that would be proof I was unfit for the job. The longevity of an organization proves the quality of leadership, informing us if the leadership is honorable, or not. In the case of nuclear war, the interests of every person on Earth is effected. To the ideologues in power, pragmatism is out of the question, it’s the principle. And if the principle leads to human extinction, or a thousand years of suffering… so be it. That must be the way those who are encouraging Ukraine to start World War Three are thinking. Can you imagine of another option? How else does such escalation end? Plus, why escalate across the perceived nuclear threshold… as a lame duck? That’s marching the troops into a minefield before exchanging command. Those encouraging ending the world, are either ideologues who believe the point is everything, simple criminals trying to cover up their crimes with arson, or maybe both. None of which is indicative of honorable leaders. Of course, the senile Biden isn’t in charge, he’s merely a hand puppet for the deep state… as Kamala Harris would have been. So it’s not the lame duck President who’s encouraging nuclear war, but the bureaucrats who are the real power behind the throne. Not only in the US but in every nation across the planet. The advantage of a puppet is that he takes the rap for the deep state’s crimes. Who’s getting the blame for the illegal alien tsunami? Not the administrative state, it’s the dementia patient. They’ve put Biden on the hook for a nuclear war, should one break out… and we survive it. The history books will say Biden started it, when in fact it was Blinken, Burns and Miley. As is usually the case, the wire pullers who cause the disaster, avoid blame, because they’re manipulative parasites. Whether or not Putin launches ICBMs for crossing that red line, the very crossing of it is dishonorable. They’re scum risen to the top to smother all life below. If nothing else, this is proof they all need to be arrested, for a multitude of crimes, tried, and imprisoned if found guilty. Maybe going all the way back to 911. If we as a society have decided to put people in prison for non violent victimless crimes, then to be consistent, we must hold accountable those guilty of trying to trigger nuclear Armageddon. Because to imprison non violent people for victimless crimes, while allowing the most violent criminals who’s potential victims are our loved ones, to escape justice, is frankly, the definition of unjust, is stupid… and lacks honor. Sincerely, John Pepin
Recently, I have been re-introduced to my limits, capacity, skill and
intelligence. Yes, I have been humbled. I don’t enjoy this
experience because it reminds me that I am not the person who can do
anything the first time perfectly. I
was expressing
my struggle with a
particular project to a
friend, describing how
I was feeling defeated.
He asked “How many times have you done this type
of project?” I
responded that this it was a first. He looked at me incredulously
and asked “Do you expect that the first time you pick up a violin
that you can play it?” He was right. I had come face to face with
wisdom and she roundly informed me of my lack. I had been lured into
pride and confidence by past success only to find that it was a trap
for the ignorant, of which I was. While I would not
consider myself religious, I do read the Christian Bible and find a
wisdom and a depth that I don’t find any where else. I have been
investigating God’s call to adventure as a pathway to a fulfilling
life. I have been pushing myself in that manner in recent years and
I could not have appreciated the wisdom in this advice without my
attempt to embody the concept. It has led me to this place of
humility which I must admit, I am not keen about. I looked back to
the Bible regarding this feeling of defeat and inadequacy and found a
bit of solace. It reminds us that the humble will be exalted and the
proud will be brought down. I am going to choose to view this
sentiment as … encouragement. A reminder that this adventure is
the right path and that growth requires pain. If you do not feel
humiliated from time to time, then you aren’t stretching your
capacity, engaging your adventure or reaching for who you could be.
Idealists In Government Posted on November 20, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, the reason government fails at everything it puts its hand to, is because government is idealistic, while the world is complex. Which is why the private sector is pragmatic. In the real world actions have consequences and we have to cut our losses, if we make a bad decision… but bureaucrats have the full weight and power of the government backing their bad decisions. There’s no need to back down from anything no matter how in the wrong the government is. Like Pnut the squirrel. How much did that display of unlimited power cost the taxpayer? To what end? Because who cares if someone is keeping a squirrel? It’s a freaking squirrel! But to idealists, its the principle that matters… not the best outcome. That’s why government fails at everything it puts its hand to. Idealism has its place, in church… but not in government. The world is complex, which means it requires pragmatic governments, not idealistic ones. Because an idealist doesn’t pay attention to feedback. They’re single minded. In that single mindedness, an idealist will cross any bridge and burn it… if it moves them towards their perceived goal. No cost is too high, because someone else pays it. No violence is off limits, since others suffer it. Plus, no measure is too extreme, in the face of humiliation. That’s why governments go to war… killing millions. Because they can’t back down, that would cost them face. An idealist in government need not back down… there’s unlimited money to force their will. Since bureaucracy is an artificial world of order it perfectly suits an idealist. In the real world however, where actions have consequences, idealists are eaten for lunch by pragmatists. Because the real world has competition. Under a regime of competition, the best competitors win, not the most idealistic. Because reality is a constantly changing landscape. A dancing landscape if you will. The pragmatist is able to change plans midstream. While the idealist can’t. Which makes the pragmatist mindset more effective in chaotic situations. Because the pragmatist is able to adapt. While the idealist’s mind is glass. So shatters rather than bends. Yet in government, it need not bend, ever. Everyone else has to bend. While this paradigm is made possible by government’s monopoly on violence, it leads to poor outcomes, for the people, society and that nation. Governments are made up of idealists who refuse to accept feedback. Because they don’t have to. Lacking that feedback they can’t but go offtrack. Like any blindfolded race car driver would. No matter how well such a person has mapped the territory, they will go off the road, because they cant see it. Moreover, idealists think themselves more moral than pragmatists. Who’re always compromising. So idealists look down their noses at pragmatists. Since Trump is not only a dreaded pragmatist, but a populist as well, no wonder the idealists in government have gone to such lengths to keep him out of power. A pragmatist with real power would force the idealists to bend. Since they can’t, they fear breaking instead. Learning from feedback and compromise are the pragmatist’s secret weapon. The cost to society of a government that seeks to win at everything, regardless of the cost, is more than simply money. Yes, it’s very expensive to the taxpayer, but lost opportunity extends far into the future. For every business that would have otherwise succeeded, innovation that was held back and entrepreneur crushed by regulation and hubris, the cost to the future is incalculable. That’s why I advocate for pragmatic government. Because of the benefits we could all share if the government became more pragmatic and less idealistic. The role of the state, isn’t to perpetuate and enlarge the state, but to protect the rights of the citizens in this chaotic world. From other states, organizations and indeed itself. Only a pragmatic government is capable of that in a complex system. Sincerely, John Pepin