Thomas Yocum > Recent Status Updates

Chapter 2: Characters
Still on lyrical poems and their pursuit of the human condition. If a poem is a pursuit of the human condition, then it is obvious that there would be some humanizing and characterization throughout. How could we best understand characters posed in poems? Like feelings, it is difficult to put into words which results in the lovely creativity poetry demands.

Chapter 1: Feelings communicates a fundamental pursuit in poetry. To convey feeling. It is different in other media forms in that it is often shorter in form. Length is not a distinction but common amongst "poems". A direct glint into the human condition.

There are many things that make up poetry, book will likely look into this. Lyrical poetry is used to convey into putting complex emotions into words.

Chapters 1 & 2:
My basic understanding is that Aristotle is saying we do things for their own sake. Doing things for another end goes into a "first mover" infinity fallacy. So we do things, and want to do "good". How do we define such a thing? Most taks can be divided into subtasks are they all for that end? Or those tasks sake? We got questions gimmie answers Aristotle.

The book goes along Donne's life. I found one section particularly interesting. It goes into his misogynistic poems dissing lady kind. Then it proceeds to go right into his wife. They married for love, and in secret. The discovery of which tanked his career and got him in prison. His wife was pregnant for most of their time together. I forget that is the lifestyle for women of that culture. Yikes.

Interestingly the author gets into Donne's work on women. He roasts the ladies with the eloquence that could ignite a high minded incel revolution. The author tries to give him defense.

I noticed that Donne's poems are rife with references. He thinks tangentially, I can relate to that. Find relationships where non should belong. Paradox was popular at the time. Then after the lady hate session it talks of his wife.

Reconciliation amongst families can be difficult. Everyone involved likely have the same interpersonal faults which can cause compounding. When young people decide to not be like their parents, only to then go do exactly that. Recognize you are a continuation of your parents, and that their habits will emerge.

Speak with loving language to family. It's cheesy, and necessary.

Mantra 1: "I am here for you"
Mantra 2: "I know you are here, and it makes me happy"
Mantra 3: "I know you suffer, and that is why I am here for you"
Mantra 4: "I suffer, please help"
Mantra 5: "This is a happy moment"
Mantra 6: "You are partly right" (For when you're criticized) It's also mentioned to maybe just say 6 to yourself

Personal note: this book is much more systemitized than "Peace in every step" another book from the author I read. There are an outline of numbered lists that I will not be memorizing. I will keep them in mind, try to gather overall themes and reoccuring wisdoms from this buddhist boy

1.) Speak the language of the world, speak within the perspective of the person you're speaking with
2.) Speak differently to different people, compatible with how they could understand you
3.) Use judgement to provide guidance, and only give if it's asked for. What does this person need atm? The absolute truth may not be it
4.) Reflect on absolute truths, consider the more general truths and to not conflict with thm

Four Elements of "Right" Speech
1.) Tell the truth, don't lie or turn the truth upside down
2.) Don't Exaggerate
3.) Be consistent. This means no double-talk speaking about something in one way to one person and a different way to another person.
4.) Use peaceful language. Don't use insulting, or violent words, cruel speech, verbal abuse, or condemnation

" When we are ready to listen deeply, we can listen without interrupting. If we try to interrupt or correct the other person, we will transform the session into a debate and it will ruin everything. After we have deeply listened and allowed the other person to express everything in their heart, we will have a chance later to give him information to correct their perception."

Whoops, lesson there for me.

Taking on another work from my boy Tich. He's dead now. But a Buddhist so committed to the craft he pulls of his perhaps otherwise cheesier sentiments. He walks the walk. In fact he wrote whole chapters on walking in "peace in every step" and earlier book of his I enjoyed. That's to say he embodies these sentiments so well I believe in them when I'd otherwise roll my punk eyes

No militarism w/o fortitude,
progress w/o civilization,
friendship w/o investment,
virtue w/o risk,
probability w/o ergodicity,
wealth w/o exposure,
complication w/o depth,
fluency w/o consent,
decision w/o asymmetry,
science w/o skepticism
religion w/o tolerance,

and most of all
Nothing Without Skin in the Game

No muscles w/o strength,
friendship w/o trust,
opinion w/o consequences,
change w/o aesthetics,
age w/o values,
life w/o effort,
water w/o thirst,
food w/o nourishment,
love w/o sacrifice,
power w/o fairness,
facts w/o rigor,
statistics w/o logic,
mathematics w/o proof,
teaching w/o experience,
politeness w/o warmth
, values w/o embodiment,
degrees w/o erudition,
......

Mediocristan effects on, extremistan effects many. Social sciences like economics are trained in mediocristan risk management. And apply it to extremistian systems.
One may be risk loving yet completely averse to ruin, and in a strategy that risks ruin benefits will never outweigh the risks. Rationality can be defined as avoidance of systemic ruin.

Again, people who typically use long tail risks will make money now, and bury the existential risks that they're taking and justify them by pointing out how small a chance it happens. So cool, I get it, I kind of agree I would need to hear a counter point.

On a macro level, think of running long tail risks on say, our ecosystem. Fucking it up means an end to everything. Running that on a personal level is negligible in comparison. So avoid risks that can effect larger groups of people. Wanna gamble in a Casino and lose your life savings? Risky long tail games. Wanna gamble pensions on the stock market in 2008?? Risky long tail games for SOCIETY. Gotcha.

Another emphasis on Ergodicity, if you do something with a small probability of demise over and over again it's guaranteed to happen. Simple, I am not able to immediately see how this logic fails to be applied to our current society. Well, 2008 sorta screams of that and the author uses that as an example. Or how you call people overpaying for risk aversion forgets that they're hedging against a total loss, death.

Author finally highlights the importance of survival. Imagine if you're playing Russian Roulette, living means a million dollars. Then if you play, you can say a round is worth million / 6 = $166,666 so should you play? Well, this logic gets applied across social sciences. "Well yep, it's worth a lot so play seven times." This scenario is called ergodicity, where past probabilities applies to future processes.

"Survival comes first, truth, understanding, and science later." You do not need science to survive, but you must survive to do science. So a superstition based on nothing, that can help you survive? It has utility. No belief is irrational, only action can be irrational. So again, skin in the game risk taking in an environment that destroys what doesn't work. Religion enforces tail risk management across generations.

Skin in the game for religion, sacrifice. A big reason you burn sacrifices is to ensure that they cannot be used. Truly spent out of devotion. Belief without sacrifice is a new practice. And that is not skin in the game for gods.

Author critiques historians by documenting history through wars, and not peace. It is salacious, and misrepresentative of the past. Even in moments of geopolitical tension like the moors in spain, there was a lot of coexistance.

True to conservative ramblings (ik i'm being mean too) the book includes virtue signaling. Author compares simony, that is paying for a church to absolve, to participating in charity dinners or other visible displays of goodness, that use up resources that can be spent helping on demonstrating how great you are.

The author emphasized how centralization necessitates bureaucracy, which leads to dissociation of skin in the game and the rule of minority. He repackaged this to information. Centralizing information (journalism) also creates these issues. Author expressed this through a very personal grievance.

Author explains camera puts skin in the game. By photographing somebody doing something wrong, they lose anonymity. In the before times acting like an ass would get around in your small community. We lost that, but recording people's poor behavior brings the shame back. They got a stake in their behavior less they get the social media shaming shellacing.

*** MOST IMPORTANT POINT FOR ME ***
People can only be social friends if they don't try to upstage or outsmart one another. The classical art of conversation is to avoid any imbalance, as in BOOK OF THE COURTIER: people need to be equal in conversation, or it fails. No Hierarchy, equal in contribution.

It is about balance, and you should play off the other. Holy crap this is a revelation to me I missed this point.

"Rick people shed their skin-in-the-game driven experiential mechanism. They lose control of their preferences, substituting constructed preferences to their own, complicating their lives unnecessarily, triggering their own misery. These constructed preferences are of course, the preferences of those who want to sell them something."

Being judged by others rather than reality. You're measured by metrics, and these are inherently limited. And then applied system-wide, you have just instituted blind spots. Yuck.

Gyms are another illusion. The barbell is still the best tool for exercise, but gyms sell machines and pretty colors. Because they're selling an expected image.

CONNECTION in "Name of the Wind" There was a professor in "naming" who challenged his students to use math to predict where he will throw a ball. But then a newb came in, he tossed the ball, newb caught it. BLAM the student did the equivalent to all the calculation and better, instantly. Book refers to this. More sciency is not better science. Advising brain surgery to a headache is sciency, but its better to sleep.

Just as a Ferrari driving country clubber is not richer than a dirty centimillionaire, scientism looks more scientific than real science, and true intellect should not appear to be intellectual. That is to say as the previous updates, be real flippin careful of image. As things trying to BS rely on that, because a good idea will just be. Doesn't need to convince it will persist through time.