What he said… It turns out that Reza Shabanali and I share some ponders.
Theseus returns. Or does he?
Socio-political philosophical musings
What he said… It turns out that Reza Shabanali and I share some ponders.
Being critical of freedom, liberty, and autonomy is likely to make one the subject of scorn and derision. Most people tend to feel these things are self-evident attributes and goals, but they are all simply rhetorical functions. I was reading a passage in Mills’ On Liberty, where he posits
That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant … Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
On Liberty, John Stuart Mill
It should come as no surprise that I question a position adopted by the Enlightenment Age. These geezers posited that many things were self-evident, but all of this is self-serving magical thinking, and there is no reason to have truck with any of it. These are all normative claims being dressed as positive, non-normative, ones, hoping to skirt scrutiny by employing a position of self-evidence.
I am generally critical of any notions of identity and self from the start, so affixing some attribute of power to it seems just silly.
It seems that I again am distilling this notion to a power equation. As a person, I want to claim power, if anything, over my self however that might be defined. And though, I would like this, too, it is nothing more than some emotional reaction.
Without delving into the depths of autonomy quite yet, on a proverbial desert island—as necessarily the case with any social constructs, where these notions are meaningless without a social context—adding a second person creates friction. Person A seemed to have full autonomy on this island—notwithstanding the other life forms on this island that are somehow never granted autonomy—now has had this autonomy reduced by the presence of Person B.
Firstly, Person A may have claimed this island to be their own. Given this, Person B is infringing on this autonomous decision, having arrived sequentially. Is Person B tresspassing? Does their presence harm Person B, be limiting their autonomy however slightly?
Mills’ concept is one of no harm: one is free to do what one chooses as so long as it doesn’t harm another. Accordingly, it says one is free to harm one’s self—essentially treating the self, the corpus, as personal property. Just as one could damage a piece of personal furniture, one could damage themself. I am not sure if Mills intend this to extend to suicide, but that’s not an important distinction here, so I’ll move on.
Let’s return to Person A on the island—only Person A is a woman and Person B is a fetus. What rights and autonomy does Person B now possess? For some, it has full autonomy; full personhood. Still, Person B is ostensibly trespassing, so does this autonomy even matter if it exists?
If you are Person X and own a house, and I, as Person Y, enter into it, how does this differ from A and B? Can you justify disallowing Person Y from exercising autonomy whilst supporting Person B? I don’t want to make this about abortion, so I’ll keep stop here.
Those who know me know that linguistics was my first love—if only I thought it could have paid my bills. On balance, I am not a universalist—philosophically or linguistically. I love Noam Chomsky and I like Steven Pinker (notwithstanding his Enlightenment nonsense), but I am partial to theories that privilege disorder over order and language as erosion. This erosion is why grammar Nazis will always have something to complain about—and this doesn’t even take into account the distinction between spoken and written language that these folks refuse to recognise.
This WSJ article crossed my feed, and I was compelled to comment. Entropy is alive and well. Phonetic morphology favours erosion, and grammar is emergent. Although the evolutionary (devolutionary?) motion is complex, we can see where the once voiced K in knight and knee are now silent. Knight has been through the wringer, being reduced from a three-syllable word to only one—from /k nɪç t/ to /nɑ́jts/, now rhyming with night, which also retains the silent gh. For those who mock Cockney’s ‘Keef’ (as in Richards), the F /f/ phoneme takes less effort than TH /θ/. Although I wouldn’t be surprised to witness this TH to F drift in a hundred years, I would be surprised to find myself still alive and breathing. Written language retains vestiges of older pronunciations that confound many.
This is all I really wanted to say, though I can leave with other examples. In English, we see going to degrade to goin’ to and then to gonna. En français, on voit « il n’y a pas » se transforme en « n’y a pas » à « y’a pas » ou « ce n’est pas ce que je veux dire » devient « c’est pas c’que j’veux dire ».
Many of my co-workers live in Ukraine. Leading up to the current state of events, they reassured me not to listen to Western media accounts. Living in Kyiv—that my Russian colleagues scold me for not opting for Kiev—, these colleagues were shocked when their country began to be overrun, and they were forced to leave their city.


Sadly, all politicians have their supporters. Thankfully, some parents raised their children to resist hapless politicians. This is bollox propaganda, but still.

In war, politicians give ammunition; the rich give the food; and the poor give their children.
When the war is over, politicians get back the leftover ammunition; the rich grow more food; and the poor search for the graves of their children.
Serbian Aphorism

« Pendant la guerre, les politiciens donnent des munitions, les riches donnent de la nourriture et les pauvres donnent leurs enfants.
« Quand la guerre est finie, les politiciens récupèrent les restes de munitions, les riches cultivent plus de nourriture et les pauvres recherchent les tombes de leurs enfants. »
— Aphorisme serbe
I was thinking about a story idea, but it seems too daunting to attempt. Call it a mind experiment tethered to solipsism. The conceptual framework is this:
The premise is that ‘reality’ is generated in real-time—except there is no time; there is no space. All of this is constructed. Think of the sort of dream you may have experienced where physics-defying events occur. These dreams don’t care about the continuity of time or space. You can instantly be here and then there irrespective or where here and there are. One may even be in both places at once or nowhere at all. One can transform from one state to another or even be stateless. One doesn’t require an ego or a sense of I; rather, the I may shift without effort or it might dissolve. We are not encumbered by bodies. Vonnegut’s short story Unready to Wear—that for some reason indexed in my recollection as Pas prêts à porter.
In this world, perception is loaded into memory. But unlike a typical video game, the rest of the world is not a telos. It’s rather procedurally generated. In fact, even this is a poor analogy because the generation could be some stochastic process with no need to connect event 0 to event 1.
Empirically, events rely on preceding events. This is the world of cause and effect—a snooker ball collides with another and causes it to fall into a pocket; a stock price rises or falls, but these are not random events as they are inexorably linked to the past. As no one expects an unperturbed ball to jump into a pocket any sooner than one would expect a stock price to be truly random–to jump from 100 to 2 to 999 to 42. But with dreaming, all of this is possible.
Returning to the video game metaphor, what you see in the moment is all that is real. If you look in a particular direction, a table with a lamp and book on it might appear to be situated next to a chair; that registers as reality. But if you look away and then back, none of this needs to remain there. There needn’t be a table or a chair. Or there could be, but they don’t have to be the same table and chair; and there needn’t be a book.
In this reality, the mind—label it as you will—continually reconstructs whatever it wants to, simultaneously—apologies for the temporal terminology, but communication is restricted to the convention of shared meaning—and whatever it generates arrives with a plausible backstory. Given this, any history or relationships are always part of this fiction. Cognitive devices would be active to ensure this backstory appears to have continuity with our sense of the past; rather, it generates this plausible past. This past only has to be plausible in the moment—enough to hold the illusion together.
Consider a nebulous dream. These dreams don’t need to conform to conventions of time and space. But when we occasion to convey these dreams to a journal, a mate, or a therapist, we are forced to fit into a conventional spatiotemporal structure–first, this happened and I was here, and then that happened and I was there. But this was not the reality of the dream. This is subjectively experiential and so cannot be conveyed. In these dreams, there are no rules, but we apply structure that wasn’t really there in the first place; but we interpret time and space linearly and contiguously—even where no such structure exists. I think it would tedious to write and difficult to follow….. Perhaps better suited for an AI author.
To put a finer point on it, I’ll leave with a snippet. Let’s begin with the chair next to a table with a lamp and a book set upon it. You are a nuclear scientist on your way to a job interview at 3:30pm because why not?
A scheduled alarm awakens you. A clock on a bedside table reads 8 a.m. Your focus is on an interview this afternoon at 3:30, so you don the suit you’d set out the night before.
In the kitchen, you decline your partner’s offer of the soup he’s heated for lunch. He routinely eats soup for lunch on Thursdays.
The engine is still making a ticking sound, but you are distracted by the woman fussing with her makeup on the commuter train.
You’ve always preferred to take notes by hand with a fountain pen, having found the mass of the implement to add weight to your ideas.
Your wife, sipping café au lait on the sofa, smiles adoringly at you as you walk through the living room. She’s wearing that azure sweater she bought in Anchorage—or was it Chicago? The telephone rings.
“The captain has asked all passengers to fasten their seatbelts and prepare for a landing. We’ll be arriving at London Heathrow in about 20 minutes.” You close your laptop and acknowledge the flight attendant as she walks past.
You hang up the phone and tell your girlfriend it was a wrong number. You’re not sure that she believes you, but the barking dog distracts you. You don’t prefer to take lunch in public parks. You prefer the beach.
You pay for the trousers and accept the recommendation to purchase a leather belt. You’ve got to get back to your office. There’s not usually traffic at this hour. That’s why you left before 11.
Out of the corner of your eye, you catch a glimpse of your husband. What’s he doing in Sydney? You tell yourself that you must be mistaken and eat the last morsel on your plate, the waiter hovering with the check.
Ten more minutes you tell yourself as you glance at the clock on the wall. Don’t go off you plead with the alarm clock, but the cat walking across the bed tells you that this ten minutes will not be used catching up on sleep.
“Four. Seven minus three is four,” you offer.
“Very good. And what is seven plus three?”
This is your favourite part of Phantom, but you wonder what became of your date. On one hand, he seemed like a nice guy.
“There are only eleven. It says a dozen.”
You continue to read the same paragraph over and again but it doesn’t seem to make sense.
Why is that guy looking at you? He must know that you know that he’s staring.
You are trying to find the heat of the stage light so you can get into the shot. “Line?” you ask.
You lock the door of your hotel room behind you as imagine crashing on the bed in front of you, but you’ve just noticed that you’d forgotten your luggage.
As I just took a stream of consciousness approach save for actively quashing any semblance of contiguity. To be honest, I seriously considered entering snippets into a spreadsheet and then randomising the concepts. Another thought was to approach it like Mad Libs, but I opted for a more organic approach.
In the end, my goal was to dissolve concepts of sex or gender of time and place and of context in general. Looking back, it seems one could create continuity differently. In dreams I’ve experienced, I’ve awakened to discover an element in the environment likely inspired the events in a dream, so perhaps the ticking of the engine could have derived from the ticking of the alarm clock.
My initial goal was not one of continuity, but reading ex post facto, it might need something to keep attention—rather a string to follow out of the labyrinth. On the other hand, that is more of a testament to a need for some narrative.
And so it goes…
Shout out to Nick Bostrom’s essay Are You Living In a Computer Simulation?
Busy, but not too busy to post another trolly challenge. Why make it a dilemma?

Honeybadger don’t care either.
Why so serious?
I’ve got several things on my mind, but they are ostensibly unrelated. I’ll post separately as time allows, but this is a personal story.
My sister has been visiting a dialysis centre three times a week for the past 5 years awaiting a matching kidney donor. She rang me the other day to tell me she was en route to hospital as they had found a donor. Found is probably a poor word choice. Some person had died, rendering the kidney superfluous for all intents and purposes.
My sister was excited to regain some control over her life. She was told that the host of this kidney had been diagnosed with Hepatitis C and was informed of the risks. The official cause of death was Covid—perhaps owing to a compromised immune system. No matter. My sister accepted the risk. It was evening, and the transplant was scheduled for the morning after running some test panels.
That morning, she was devastated by the news that she had tested positive for Covid, so she was no longer a candidate for a transplant. This is a reminder that Covid is not just about the effects of having caught it. She’d go back on the list and wait. Perhaps it wouldn’t take 5 years this next time, though there are no guarantees.
This is not my first experience with Covid. My 20-something-year-old daughter was hospitalised for over a week due to Covid. I’ve had friends and acquaintances get it, but they all survive–long-Covid effects notwithstanding.
I thought I’d written about the death of my last girlfriend who was another Covid casualty of the indirect variety. She died in June 2020. Her plight was sealed by deferring treatment of an infection for fear that hospitalisation would increase the probability of her contracting Coronavirus. This decision turned out to be fatal.
To be fair, there is a lot of information, misinformation, and disinformation abound, and it’s a challenge to sift out the relevant material. And neither is the ambient fear helpful. And so it goes…
Some art just catches my eye and resonates. Here is an image of a robotic arm. Nothing quite captures the Modern human condition quite so poignantly. This is the plight of Sisyphus but not so pedestrian as Camus’ version. One can’t imagine this one happy. This robot was built intentionally to bleed the hydraulic fluid that is its lifeblood, as it toils to retain that sanguineous fluid. But as with life and humans, the task is futile.
In this shot, we see human spectators watching its eventual demise. Memento Mori. No one gets out alive.
The Instagram copy captures my sentiments pretty well, so I’ll end this here.
“Wage slavery is not the same as slavery, and this diminishes the experience of plantation slaves in the antebellum Southern US states” is a sentiment I’ve heard repeated over the years.
I’ll argue that it is the same. Saying wage slavery is like when the then-president of the United States, Bill Clinton, denied that oral sex was sex despite it being an obvious part of the name. When one says wage slavery is still slavery, s/he is making a commentary on the lack of agency, a lack of personal control. That the worker has a choice over which master to slave under is hardly a consolation. That a plantation slave has a choice of picking cotton or tobacco is of no consequence.
To disqualify wage slavery as slavery is to disqualify a 3-month pregnant woman as being not as pregnant as a 6-month pregnant woman. One might be closer to term, but they are equally pregnant.
That a plantation slave may have had less freedom and run the risk of physical beatings, torture, or even death is a sad commentary. That they may have separated from their families and have no autonomy is a matter of degree.
The slavery connexion occurs where the human needs to comply. Sure, a wage slave can opt out and live as a transient—ostensibly homeless; perhaps s/he can home-surf. Perhaps s/he can beg or live off the land.
Wage slavery is not the same as slavery
To me, the common missing element is to be able to operate as a functioning society, that as communities, we might contribute however we see fit. Of course, that narrative will quickly provoke an appeal to Tragedy of the Commons. People are selfish and act only in their own self-interests. And this is accepted uncritically as fact rather than evaluating whether this worldview is a consequence of Modernity or Capitalism, whichever nomenclature one has opted to adopt.
Wage slavery is slavery. Depending on the information source bout 50 per cent of Americans are a paycheque away from needing to deplete savings to survive; some have assessed a single paycheque from homelessness without intervention. One paycheque from poverty. Over two-thirds of Americans have been living paycheque-to-paycheque since the Covid-19 pandemic hit. If this describes you, it likely provides little solace that you are not alone. Who on the Titanic was relieved to know that other people shared their plight? Is there a silver lining for those who are paid fortnightly or monthly? And God forbid the ones whose paycheque arrive daily—perhaps in cash from the till.
Research from the Federal Reserve found that 4 in 10 Americans couldn’t afford a $400 emergency, and 22 per cent say they expect to forgo payments on some of their bills. It’s not much better in the UK, where the runway appears to end at 2.5 months rather than 1, although about two-thirds of renters would expect to make it more than a month.
Slavery, like turtles, all the way down. Just be thankful the worst that can happen is that one starves to death or pursues the life of Valjean. Dissociating wage slavery from plantation slavery is like separating the abbatoire from the butcher’s shop. When you’re the chattel it makes little difference.
Sometimes I feel the need to focus. This is a desire of mine. I’ve got so many irons in the fire that I (1) don’t finish thoughts in a ‘timely’ manner and/or (2) don’t articulate and expound as much as I might have otherwise been able to.
In another forum, Deleuze’s concept of desire—humans being desiring machines (production désirante*)—came into the conversation, emergent desire generators versus Lacan’s version of free-floating desire—desire like æther. Through this course, I came upon a YouTube video, Desire and Class Interest: Insights from Gilles Deleuze| Literary Theory, by Masood Raja, and I want to relate his position here.
Ostensibly, Masood’s response is to the question, ‘Why do working-class people so often vote against their own self and class interests’. The answer is desire.
As a commonly misattributed reads,
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
— Not John Steinbeck
Ultimately, these voters do not identify themselves with the working class. They’ve likely bought into the myth of upward mobility and want to preemptively protect themselves from the horrors of taxation and such. Money is their object of desire. Interestingly, except for the most pious, religious belief and views toward idolatry don’t alter the calculus here. I’d blame Calvinism again, but why bother?

These workers, whose probability of being the next Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, or Bill Gates, are nil to none, nonetheless are blinded by their desire to be the next millionaire, billionaire, or trillionaire—or perhaps just better off than a hundredaire. In the end, they become class traitors, undercutting their own livelihoods to protect a future that’s unlikely ever to manifest.
They may (or may not) participate in other dimensions of social justice, but acquisitiveness trumps class consciousness.
* la production désirante est multiplicité pure, c’est-à-dire affirmation irréductible à l’unité