At our last meeting, I let you know that there was something new
posted on my “site” at The Well: a short piece called
“Why Do Anything?”  And now there's another new
document there; this one's called “How to Decide What to
Do.”

More precisely, all that's newly available is the first little
piece of “How to Decide What to Do”: its
Introduction.

As you might expect from the titles, telling the
reader how to decide what to do is a bigger
undertaking than just explaining why one ought
to do anything at all.  (It might even amount to a whole
book.)  That's why I decided to post it in pieces, rather
than make you wait until I've completed the whole thing.

Now here's the part where I tell you where to go.  This
link

https://people.well.com/user/edelsont/philosophy/phil-index.html

will take you to my newly expanded “index” of
philosophical writings.  From there, one more click will
procure you the Introduction.

You remember that I have a "home page" at The Well,
right?  Just in case the URL is not at your fingertips, here
it is:

https://people.well.com/user/edelsont/index.html

There've been some changes there.

There's a whole new Category, called "Philosophy".

And there's more!  Therein, you will find a file, in PDF
format, titled "Why Do Anything?".

And what's that about?  It's about a page long.

Oh, you meant "What is its subject matter?"  Well, see
now, its title is ambiguous.  If you read it quite literally,
you might expect the subject matter to be something like "What
counts as a good reason for doing anything?"  (Well, you might
expect that if you had a philosophy degree.)

Okay, so what's the other meaning for the title "Why Do
Anything?"  That would be something like
"Why do we do anything?"

But I'm not going to recap the whole content here; this is only
a teaser.  Its purpose is to motivate you to go read the PDF
file itself.  If you want to jump directly to it, here's a
link for that:

https://people.well.com/user/edelsont/philosophy/why-do-anything.pdf

"You don't own me."  Those are the words I submitted to Craiyon; it gave me back nine pictures, as usual; and together, the words and the pictures make up the artifact shown below.  Take a look.

You don't own me.

These are the darkest Craiyon pictures I've posted yet.  Literally; and also, ain't nobody looks happy here.

This didn't surprise me: at an intuitive, emotional level, the pictures seemed a good match for the words.  But the "logical" part of my brain begged to differ.  It spake thus:

"If Person X doesn't own Person Y, isn't that a good thing, not a bad one?  Nobody should own anybody, right?  So when interpersonal non-ownership is asserted, one would expect the feelings inspired by this to be happy, not sad."

So why aren't they?

This is a real question.  I invite you to think about it.

No, "Craiyon" isn't a misspelling.  It's a Web site, which you can find at https://www.craiyon.com/.  And what's it for?  It draws pictures for you.

There's a text entry box, which prompts you with "What do you want to see?"  Whatever you type there, Craiyon will ruminate for up to two minutes, then present you with a picture "of" what you typed.  Of course, if what you typed doesn't make any sense to it, then there will be no clear relationship between your input and its graphical output.  It does the best that it can.

If you play with it some, your own answer to the question, "What is Craiyon?" may turn out to be "It's a time-waster."  I don't have any problem with that; different strokes for different folks.  Besides, it's understandable; it takes practice, plus plain old trial and error, to come up with anything interesting.

So why am I even talking to you about this?  Because I'm one of those "different folks" who have gotten hooked on playing with it.  And sometimes I do come up with something "interesting" — to me, anyway.  Maybe funny, maybe sad(!), maybe it even looks, to me, like art.

So I thought I'd throw some of "my creations" up here on Dreamwidth, in case some of y'all like them too.

Here's one to start with.

I'm getting ready to move.  That's going to take a while; It's not at all certain that I'll even be ready by spring.  There's a serious need to lighten my load: you know, get rid of stuff.

Move … where?  My most recent truly personal journal entry, posted on September 11, was shortly after my return from a trip to New Mexico, which trip was undertaken because I was thinking of moving there.  In that entry, I expressed some uncertainty as to whether I was going to go through with that plan.

Now?  I'm leaning towards it.  Does that mean that all of my doubts and concerns have been completely overcome?  No.  But I've come around, pretty much, to the view that the only way to be certain that it's the right place for me is to try it and see.

About the "pretty much" part: my view of the decision-making process is that you can't claim to have finished it — to have truly decided — until you've taken some action that commits you to the plan.  And, for better and for worse, there's really no occasion for that now: the process of getting ready is not yet at the stage where anything I need to do depends on the destination.

That earlier journal entry didn't give a clear and complete picture of what the "doubts and concerns" — the uncertainties about New Mexico as my new home — actually were.  And I still can't do that.  But if I say a few words about one of them, that may give you more of the flavor of what the overall decision process is like.

So, let's talk about the weather.

A big part of my motivation for wanting to move, somewhere, is that I really don't like the hot and humid summer weather in North Carolina.  I knew, before the trip, that in New Mexico, you almost never get the "humid" part … and that, as a result, it tends to cool down more, and faster, in the evenings.  But it still can get hot in the daytime.

I deliberately made the trip around the hottest time of year, in order to see whether I could be comfortable with that weather pattern.  And that, indeed, was my first, and biggest, source of doubt, when the trip was over.  No question that I prefer the weather in New Mexico to that in North Carolina.  But I asked myself: if I'm going to go to the trouble of moving, should I perhaps refuse to compromise, and instead pick a destination which fits my weather preferences more exactly?

Maybe I should.  But, as I indicated earlier, I now lean in the other direction: toward acting on the assumption that I can't really know the answer to that question unless I actually do go and live there for a year or so.

Why?

If I answered that question thoroughly, it would take so long that you'd fall asleep before you finished reading this (if you haven't already).  One obvious piece of the answer, and a clue as to why it would take so long to be thorough, is that weather isn't everything.

But even confining ourselves to the subject of weather, I just don't think that I have enough data to make a final decision.  Another factor quite relevant to how I'll feel about it after a whole year: how long is the period when it's too hot for me?  If it's not too long, then maybe I'll be happy with just making behavioral adjustments during that period: slow down some, overall.  Take a siesta: already a somehat attractive idea, and the more so the older I get (right now, I'm seventy-three).  And, during the hottest few weeks, don't spend too much time outdoors in the middle of the day.

That last bit can get tricky.  It will help a lot … provided that you can spend those hours in the right kind of indoor space, in which the heat doesn't affect you too much.  (And, to make it more difficult, I strongly prefer that this be accomplished by means other than air conditioning.)

In other words, a lot depends on the sort of building in which you live.

You want to close the windows in the heat of day, and open them in the evening and overnight.  And for this to be effective, you need "through ventilation": openable windows on (at least) two opposite sides of the building.  Electric fans are important, too, during both parts of the daily cycle.

A further note on through ventilation: this is so important that it (or, rather, the lack of it) almost single-handedly ruins the chances of making an informed decision on the basis of a trip like the one I made last summer: a two-week visit to the state … in which one is staying at hotels.  Because, you see, "through ventilation" is something that American hotel rooms hardly ever have.  (This may have some relation to the fact that they almost always do have air conditioning.)

One additional important architectural feature: thick walls, made of a material with a considerable capacity to store heat.  When combined with the sizeable difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures, these give you the ability to fine-tune the indoor temperature, by learning when to open and close the windows.

There's more than one way to design a building with those properties.  One of the most effective ways, though, "just happens" to be the building method that's also the most long-established in New Mexico.  It's called adobe.

It has to be real adobe, though.  Santa Fe, specifically, has a building code which requires that practically all buildings look like they're made of adobe.  But the great majority of the resulting buildings are what is known as "fauxdobe" … and that isn't worth squat when it comes to keeping the indoors cool without AC.

And that — surprise! — is a good place for me to switch topics, at least partially.  The new focus: assuming that I do move to New Mexico, then where, more specifically?  To what local area within the state?

The previous post listed the three towns that I spent time in, during last summer's trip: Santa Fe, Las Vegas, and Taos.  Each of those is roughly in the northeast quarter of the state.  And I am still operating on the assumption that I will choose one of those three.

(A reminder: if you've only heard of one place called Las Vegas, it's probably the one in Nevada.  That's not the one I'm referring to here.)

And now I'm in a position to tell you that Santa Fe, probably the best known (and largest) of the three, has fallen to the bottom of my list.

One major reason for this is that Santa Fe — and, specifically, housing in Santa Fe — is a lot more expensive.  But there's more to it than that.

The new leading candidate is Las Vegas, which is probably the least expensive of the three.  But more importantly, I think: it seems more like a community.

(Taos, definitely still a possibility, is somewhere in the middle, in several respects.)

Why does Las Vegas feel more like a community?  I can't say for sure; I just felt that way, hanging out there.  Here are a couple of things that may have something to do with it.

The distribution of the population by age seems to be wider, and more balanced.  I saw proportionately more teenagers and young adults.  Santa Fe skews older: a lot of people have gone there to retire.  (Yes, I would count as one of those.  But still.)

Santa Fe also skews richer, and that, too, feels like a point in Las Vegas' favor.  I'm pretty sure I could afford to live in Santa Fe; I just no longer feel so much as if I would want to.  It's as if people in Santa Fe are into striving to be special, while people in Las Vegas are … just folks.

And now I can circle back to the matter of weather, and the housing best adapted to it.  Of the places under consideration, Las Vegas (or so I perceive) is the one where it would be easiest to find and rent a dwelling made of real adobe.  (Partly because I wouldn't have to sift through all those fake ones.)

In fact, the distinction between real and fake adobe could stand as a symbol for the broader cultural differences between Las Vegas and Santa Fe.  If I wanted to be snarky, I could say: If you live in Las Vegas, you live in New Mexico.  If you live in Santa Fe, you live in a theme park about New Mexico.

And there's more!  According to one of my Las Vegas informants, most of the city's real adobe houses are in that part of town which has the largest proportion of Spanish-surnamed residents.  (Not surprising: those folks would be more aware of the advantages, since their people have lived in New Mexico much longer than the Anglos have.)

So, as a bonus, I might pick up a little more of the language.  If one wants to become a New Mexican, that has to count for something, verdad?


A week ago today (May 29) Robert Mueller made the first appearance in his farewell tour as Special Counsel.  He also made clear that, if he had his way, it would be the last such appearance.

It was the biggest cliffhanger since the ending of "The Sopranos."  Across America and around the world, people were left wondering, "What happens next?"


For some, notably members of Congress, the question (or complaint) took a different form: "Wait, weren't you supposed to tell us what we should do next?"  I think many of them were counting on that, but he didn't deliver.  So now they, and lots of the rest of us, want to know: "Why didn't he?"


I don't know why he didn't.  (Surely you're not surprised: you've already heard that "I don't know" are my favorite three little words.)  But seeing how disconcerted folks are, I have decided to offer my readers a theory about it.


The actual theory isn't part of this journal entry; it's elsewhere on the Web.  It takes the form of a short piece of speculative fiction. Or more exactly, a short fictional piece of nonfiction: an article which, I ask you to imagine, will appear in The New York Times, [redacted] years in the future.


Even more specifically, it's an interview.  Mr. Mueller sits down with Robert De Niro, whom I have cast as both his interviewer and his anger translator.  By working together, and with the advantage of hindsight, they come to a resolution which makes things clearer to them.  And to me. And I hope that it will do so for you, as well.


Here's where you will find it:


   https://people.well.com/user/edelsont/politics/mueller-speaks.pdf

 
 

Back on April 12 (https://edelsont.dreamwidth.org/7050.html), I said that I was tentatively planning to travel to Iceland this summer.


Well, um, I've changed my mind.  I'm going to New Mexico instead. In early August, and I plan to be there just over two weeks (not counting the time it will take me to get there and back).  This is relatively definite, since this time I've actually made the main travel reservations.


Why the change?  Two main reasons.


One: I'm going there by train, and I miss the long-distance rail experience.  (Which makes me an eccentric, so perhaps an unconscious reason is a desire to maintain my weirdness cred.)


Two: There's a possibility that, after this visit, I may decide to move there for good.


 

Pencils down, boys and girls.  I asked you for your opinions on whether it is useful to call attention to threats of violence by Trump supporters.  I held back on expressing my own opinion on the subject, so as not to bias yours. But that grace period has now ended.


So, do I think it is useful?  A little. Not as much so as I thought as recently as yesterday.


The small amount of usefulness that I still perceive comes from this: if these threats of violence ever do turn into real violence, on a large scale, I think most people will find it easier to cope with this if it isn't a complete surprise.  But that is, at most, a good reason to bring it up occasionally; to keep harping on it would be counterproductive.


I had another kind of alleged usefulness in mind, when I made the original journal entry which contained samples of threats.  I thought that the existence of these threats was relevant, somehow, to a question currently facing us: whether to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump.


I've changed my mind about that.  I no longer think it is relevant, one way or the other.


If you disagree, I would [still] welcome your input on the subject.  But otherwise ....


We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.


 

Yesterday, I shared with you some reader comments that I found on Breitbart, on the subject of what would happen (according to the commenters) if President Trump is impeached.  What did they think would happen? In a word, violence.


I also said I "might" follow up with some comments and/or questions of my own, about those Breitbart comments.  And today, I shall, in a baby-step sort of way. All I have for you today is one question ... and I'm only going to ask it, not answer it.


The question is one which, I imagine, you might have voiced after reading yesterday's entry.  Namely: "Why is he telling us this?"


What I said was true: those comments were, in fact, posted on Breitbart.  But not everything that is true is worth saying. If I reported the comments to you, I must have had some point I wanted to make.  What was it?


But like I said, I'm not going to answer that -- not today.  Instead, I'm going to turn around and ask you the same question.  Well, not exactly the same question: I'm not asking you to try to guess what was in my mind.


What I want to ask you is this: do you think that there's any good reason to do what I did: to take selected violence-oriented comments that were posted on a right-wing site like Breitbart, and copy them here, for what will presumably be a different audience?

Or even more simply: rather than asking you whether you think there's a good reason to do it, let me just ask you whether you think it's a good idea to do it.  And why or why not?


I'd really like to hear from you on this.  Ideally, by posting a reply right here on Dreamwidth.  You don't have to be a Dreamwidth member in order to do that.  Just click on "Reply", below.


January 2025

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
1920 2122232425
262728293031 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 11th, 2025 07:08 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios