One person with a stereo can ruin a peaceful evening in many nearby gardens, but one person at peace in the quiet of their garden cannot spoil the evening of anyone else. It is relatively easy to appeal to somebody when they are inconveniencing in other ways, and likely that people normally know that they are doing something that does this, yet very difficult to stop another person from doing what they enjoy and think also you should enjoy, else you are some sort of killjoy. Public music is imposed on people in shops, particularly at xmas time, and is unavoidable in most cases.
We believe in equality, but when tested we would favour our own circle of family or friends in any endeavour, and we accept inequality when it benefits us particularly, often calling it the luck of the draw sometimes. So we want more for ourselves even if this means less for others, so not equality.
One slow driver can slow an entire road of traffic, or one asshole stopping to let other cars out of a junction can hold up the people behind themselves, yet a person wanting to drive the speed limit cannot make others speed up when they end up behind somebody who is doing way below it, they cannot compel them to go faster, nor can they make somebody stop favouring other traffic over them in some sort of skewed idea of niceness; the niceness that holds you up to favour someone else that does not have the right of way but has been granted it by an asshole.
A price is not a value, a glass of water is cheaper than a gold brick, but in a desert you might swap one for the other….
The partner that desires more sexual activity is the one that is dissatisfied, the one that wants the least is of course fully satisfied, so one partner is always sexually dissatisfied. The most daring partner is the one always disappointed and unfulfilled. There is in truth no equilibrium between adult partners that respect the autonomy of each other, as the one with the lowest satisfaction level in this comparison could never force or manipulate the other to change their behaviour.
Someone can ruin your day by being unnecessarily difficult, the anger and frustration you take away from whatever situation that occurred cannot harm them in any way, but it may further ruin things for you. There is no utility to the anger we bear towards others unless they are aware and affected by it, so anger only has purpose in proximity, but we retain it anyway.
In a group that is ordering food by telephone you will eat the type of food that is the most acceptable choice for all persons, only getting lucky if that happens to be your first preference. A group of people ordering food will opt for the choice that is least exclusionary of all the members in the group regardless of if the choice fulfils no primary preference.
In a relationship we value the happiness of the other person, but not if it doesn’t lead them on a path to fulfilling our happiness, so what we really value is their participation in our happiness not theirs.
The general acceptable conduct regarding aspects of the workplace among co-workers matches the sensitivity of the most sensitive person present, not an average of the group, not even the lower end of the spectrum, the lowest end always. So each and every workspace is ruined for all but one person who enjoys the lower bar set, that is up until the point where another, even more sensitive individual, is introduced. This process repeats, only going the other way in gradual steps through attrition if ever, but the introduction of highly tolerant (to gallows humour) individuals, regardless of numbers, has no effect at all on the situation, and does not increase the tolerance. In this way any group is only at a level of tolerance of the least tolerant person, and that hardly seems fair if you are tolerant?
All life that creates life, by implication, is responsible for all the suffering that that life will know, and the eventual death of that life. So, in life, you will create an equal amount of death as you do life, and a lot more pain than would have existed if you had bothered.
Democracy dictates that even people who know nothing about the subject at hand have equal voting power to those that have bothered to take an interest, therefore it is always the case that each democratic decision is voted for based on motivations other than information. So majorities of mostly ignorant persons decide the fate of a minority of enlightened ones simply because of numbers. Those persons savvy enough to know this put entertainment in place of news and foster an anti-intellectual society so as to better manipulate the hive mind, therefore getting away with whatever it is they need to slip past the public consciousness.
Stress and worry do not in any way contribute to solving a problem, they are left overs from our caveman days, evolutionarily imperative but useless in the modern setting. Your son borrows the car just after passing his driving test to take his pals to the coast, in what way will the fretting you may do about his safety help him to better navigate the busy roads? What you worry about will not happen, the things that actually do happen, and are bad, will take you by surprise, and you will not have worried about them in the slightest. Yet still we worry and we hope and we pray (some do, prayer is the air guitar of helping). They say there is are no atheists on a plane that is about to crash, but no amount of prayer has ever kept a plane in the air…
Other people’s children are dicks, not yours, yours are great…..
Dogma is a belief in the truth of a preposition that other important life-related things rely upon, yet it is always a barrier to progress. The brain is too small, and time is too short, to know everything, so we are all dogmatic necessarily. This is a paradoxical situation even to argue with the preposterous nature of a subject, even let’s say religion, because the other interlocutor may challenge the first principal of the arguments you make as if they are themselves assumption. Of course the argument against a thing merely needs to chip enough away from the claim of the thing, rather than to establish anything truthful itself it simply establishes the falsehood of the subject and shows its implications to be out of line with its conclusions.
Every single innovation came from dissatisfaction, every person who improved anything was being rebellious, every new idea is in part a revolution. Yet, in schools we teach conformity to canons of knowledge, we discourage challenging the “correct” ideas like the genius of Shakespeare or Dickens. We discourage revision of history even though this is the very most necessary thing when considering knowledge, that tomorrow we might encounter data that makes us think differently about how we have looked at and assumed the truth of a time a place and a people. We used to think the Vikings were all bad warriors with a blood lust but now we know they were predominantly farmers that did not have horned hats, we used to think the Romans invented lots of stuff but now we know they assimilated it in capture of others that invented it, we were taught that Galileo was the first to claim heliocentricity but now we know that the Greeks knew that the sun was the centre of our solar system.
All the problems in the world would be almost cured if the population of the world was decreasing instead of increasing, yet it increases every year, and those less able to financially support children are the ones that most often have the most.
Charity keeps people in need in need by treating the symptoms without curing the disease, no charity has ever cured the problem they address, and often the charity becomes reliant on the continuation of the problem because it needs it to continue to exist to provide revenue and virtue to the persons involved in providing the thing that masquerades as the solution.
No item is as easy to build as it is to dismantle…..
pinkfloydpsw's Blog 
Leave a comment