-->

Pages

Internal Escalation

It would seem that a small but significant number of my friends have been engaged in something I have come to call internal escalation. For anyone familiar with customer service, I am not referring to the flowchartable concept of the same name that is used to bump complaining customers up the chain of command. No, I am referring to a tendency of some individuals to engage in an often self-defeating mode of overthinking. Personally I have been jousting with just such a concept in my writing the last week or so, prompted by a fictional Tibetan monk suggesting:

"An excess of reason is itself a form of madness."

Internal escalation is a process wherein a single individual, on their own, without consultation nor confirmation takes a piece of information, an impression, a snippet of reality or not and mentates on that singular iota of interiority and expands it to the brink of implosion, explosion or madness. More than simply overthinking, internal escalation adds facts, scenes, dialog and potentially wild outcomes to what to others might have been a mere tangent or passing phrase.

The problem with simply stamping out such behavior is that internal escalation lies very close to magical thinking. Again, let me make a distinction. I am not talking here about the definition of magical thinking which says that it involves the belief that thought is the same as action; that can be the stuff of madness and Prozac. I refer rather to the realm of magical thinking where it is believed the sentient thinking does have an effect on the natural world. Interesting how many scientific people "know" that the natural world affects our rational processes but they cannot conceive that it works in the other direction.

So to my many internally escalating friends. Go forth and ponder the world, all these worlds. However, show caution. Stay moderately in touch both with ordinary reality and with other adventurers in the realms of magic. Beyond here there be dragons, so proceed with the Audubon guide to basilisks, hydras and wyverns. And call if you get lost.

[It seems every time I attempted to type escalation, I thumbed out excalation. So I thought I had better look it up. Excalation: The absence, suppression, or failure to develop one member of a series, such as a finger or vertebra. Who knew?]
-------
photo credit: archives
Labels: , ,

Fuzzy, Oily, Windy Math

I ran across an article from December 2007 that sought to compare the cost of energy from eight sources. Here are those results, which should be taken with the grain of salt I will provide below.

For the amount of energy you receive from one gallon of gasoline (115,400 Btu), here are the purported relative costs based on gas at the pump selling for three bucks:

Hydropower $0.96
Wind $1.74
Geothermal $1.78
Biofuel $2.84
Gasoline $3.00     
Nuclear $3.92
Natural Gas $5.64*     
Solar $15.16    

I am already always skeptical of any study that tosses out numbers without a detailed sourcing of the data behind the numbers or conclusions. So I attempt to update these numbers for September 2009.  My source was the interweb.

First some caveats and only of few of the many I found. This comparison is the cost of an equivalent amount of energy and does not deal fairly well with delivering that energy. As in "cost of gas at the pump" or "electricity at the wall socket". The base value of gasoline is the at-the-pump price of $3 a gallon However, all of these energy sources have different distribution issues not the least of which is whether the producer or the utility company builds and maintains the delivery system (grid). Also there is no factoring for governmental price supports which influence some of these sources very favorably. One study suggested that gas for your car is government subsidize by as much as $1.80 a gallon, another pointed out that if the U.S. government put as much money behind wind and solar as it does for petroleum based energy sources, the relative cost of wind and solar would be immediately cut by more than 50%.

Clearly a question worth asking is: Who is paying for the study? Remembering, of course, that the Department of Energy is part of the same government that gives massive tax breaks to Big Oil. But that same U.S. government also has an Environmental Protection Agency and a National Science Foundation. Let's leave it at this, for each U.S. government agency that had relevant data available, there was conflicting data from another agency.

The best manipulation came from the natural gas industry. They have this very interesting formula for calculating the Btu output of natural gas that quite amazingly lowers the costs of natural gas against all other energy sources. I found three studies that used this formula to put out comparisons that have natural gas costing less than gasoline and one had the cost as low as hydropower.     

*[It has been pointed out to me that natural gas prices have fallen dramatically, which is good for the consumer and would change the '07 comparison above. Natural gas would now be less than $2 in that first ranking. However, when you use the formula mentioned above it appears that natural gas may actually be free . . . Be careful with your math, it endures.]  

Speaking of the seemingly inexpensive hydropower option (less than a dollar in our original study), why not use more hydro? Well, first you need water. Lots and lots of water. Then you need to control the water (dams). Then you need or you should deal with the reduced flow of water to those downstream. Hydroelectric plants tend to enrich the area around the dam and diminish the areas downstream. Perhaps the prime U.S. example is the Colorado River, which begins in the Rockies in Colorado. Well actually it begins even further north and at that it really begins with snow fall. The moisture in the snow comes mostly from the Pacific Ocean, well you get the whole Gaia interconnectedness thing.  

The Colorado River flows from the upper reaches of Colorado thru Utah, Arizona, very southern Nevada, back into Arizona and California. The Colorado is basically the boundary line between Arizona, Nevada and California. Eventually, the river flows into northwest Mexico and out into the Gulf of California between the Mexican mainland and Baja. Except that the river is dry now in most of Mexico and reaches the Pacific only in very wet years.

The problem? Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City and all of the agriculture along the way. Oh, right and the dams that make hydroelectric power and in the process public policy on who gets the water and the power and for how much.

Hmm, I seem to have gotten a long way from the original study comparing the cost of energy. But, of course, my real point is: Be careful what you read, be careful what you quote as evidence and don't forget to turn out the lights when you leave. Don't worry about the faucet, the well is already dry.
---
Image credit: www.ehow.com
Labels:

Feedback Please

Now that my blog has almost completely shed its poker origins and therefore about 50% of my readership as well. I have a request for those of you still seeking out my ponderings here. I have heard in the past that my writing at times sacrifices explanatory content for pithy brevity. Recently I have also had some private feedback that my current writing project (book) may be suffering from the same malady. So I ask you:

Is the blog too brief?

Am I too blunt, breviloquent, brusque, compendious, concise, preemptory, pithy, short, succinct, summary, tart, terse or unceremonious?    

Has this become just a running diary of miscellaneous content drifting towards a miasmic mishmash?

Would you prefer more detail, more bulk, more anything?

Do I leave too much dangling with vague references or the promise of future revelations?

Is the only purpose of life to ask the question: What is the purpose of life?

I have noticed that my readers tend to favor private emails over leaving a public comment. Either or any way you choose to communicate, please do. I am soliciting feedback for the future of Keeping Your Head in All the Games. I am not even vaguely considering abandoning this blog but I may racket it up a notch or simply drift in a different direction. What do you think?
Labels: ,

Partially Darken Moon Arisin'

Still a few days from full, a hazy moon rose over Mt. Shasta last evening. My friend was outside outfitting his mini-motor home for a late night departure to begin a long labor day weekend. The rising moon and a big black cat kept us company, while we caught up on the last year or so of our existence. The moon drifting behind the mountain clouds reminded me that my reading from a Bay area astrologer last week had two mentions of a coming lunar eclipses.

This New Year's Eve (2009) there will be a full moon and a partial eclipse, unfortunately not visible where I (or most of you) will be. Not being seeable does not mean the effects of an eclipse on a arithmetically significant day will not trouble, plague or reward you. So for those of my readers who delve into such realms, this NYE could be cautionarily significant. I have been told (or is that foretold?) that it will be a perfect confluence to both end and begin one long term development in my journey. So be wary of the question: 'What are you doing new year's eve?'

More significantly, for all, will be the total lunar eclipse on the winter solstice next year. December 21, 2010 will have a complete eclipse of the moon with totality visible throughout most of North and South America. So plan your solstice celebration early. Change she be acomin' whether you are ready or not. Even in the realms of the absurd or the mystical, depending on your perspective, the advantage goes to the prepared soul.
Labels: ,

On the Radio Road Again

Today was traveling day as I shifted my location from San Francisco to Weed. For those who have not been keeping up, Weed is just slightly northwest of Mt. Shasta in north central California about 50 miles south of the Oregon border. I have been coming up here to visit my friends since 1989. From San Francisco to Weed is almost exactly 300 miles and also today about 30 degrees Fahrenheit from cool, moist 55 to bright, sunny and too damn hot. I know, I know; how the hell did I live in Vegas.

I forgot to restock my books on tape catalog, so I decided to try the trip with just radio. NPR got me through the first hour but then the mid central station drifted away. I usually travel with favorite music CDs and recently have done some longer trips with easy to follow semi-mindless books on tape; the auto equivalent of beach books. So it has been a very long time since I have experienced AM talk radio. Those people are raving maniacs and thems is just the hosts.

I got Sean Hannity first. Now I consider most political commentators right or left to be pond scum but this guy not only is right of right but he likes to have liberal dustheads on to pummel like its the first night of American Idol. I really was hoping to find Glen Beck because he must be so far round the bend on his show that he could be channeling Torquemada.

Second stop along the raving loon airways as Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Now I have heard the good doctor before (by the way, she still is not an actual Dr. but then Kermit wasn't really a frog; but you know -- show biz). On this day, amongst the wilds and hinterlands of talk radio, Dr. Laura was a ray of rationality. No, she has not changed but the competition has gotten so low that she appears to be nearly normal. Appearances can, of course, be deceiving particularly with my limited sampling. She did get on some subversive point about a judgmental attitude being good when in the service of the sacred.

Then I ran into a phenomenon, I did not in my limited view comprehend -- Christian talk radio. Not a preachin' show but social commentary with a twist of bible. Apparently, in answering his health reform critics, President Barack has said that some of them were: "Bearing false witness." The Christian host was offended by the use of "religious language" in the service of a social or political agenda. This, of course, coming from someone who has a Christian talk show that advocates for, well not to put too fine of a point on it but a political and social agenda. That double standard nearly sent me back down the dial to Dr. Laura, when I stumbled onto this next missive of right thinking on another faith based show.

Seems Bob Bookee's wife is spending too much time on the internet. Bob thinks good Christians should "get of the facebook and get off the twitter." 

Upon questioning about his wife's social networking tastes; Bob said she was at it one or two hours a day! When asked what she was talking about.... Bob replied and I quote:

"All those people are talking about this and that to each other."

The host probed for more juice and asked Bob, if there was profanity or perhaps sexual overtones to the conversation. Bob was flabbergasted by this suggestion and said:

"No these people are just talking about their lives and trying to use the internet to be friends with strangers."

Imagine that -- being friends with strangers. Which of the seven deadlies does that fall under?

"She should be talking with her husband about those things," Bob went on.

"So you want your wife to share her day with you in conversation?" the host asked.

Bob appeared appalled by that suggestion: "No, I want to watch my tv shows at night. I just don't think she should be wasting her time on the computer."

Just when I thought the host was with me in our analysis of this high functioning marriage; he suggested: "Have the two of you considered a bible study class for couples?"

Bob was speechless, not a good situation on a radio talk show. I was laughing so hard my eyes started to tear up, not a good situation for freeway travel. So I went back to FM, you know there is some real high quality static you can get in the lower bandwidths.
Labels: ,

What's in a Word?

Since I began referring to my current status as undomiciled, I have received suggestions that there were perhaps other ways to describe my status. Two of my commentators have used the term - peripatetic. One said: "you appear to be peripatetic once again".

Strictly speaking, peripatetic means walking from place to place. It has come to imply the act of traveling about in some kind of itinerant manner. In that respect the word does seem fitting to my current endeavours. But it was further pointed out that the word also refers to followers of Aristotle, who it is believed were given his teachings whilst they walked with him about the Lyceum in Athens. And while I am not in a particularly Aristotlean frame of mind, I am pondering a few philosophical avenues that appear to be influencing my life these days.

Another reader wondered if this wander might be some sort of "automobilized walkabout". Interesting thought that. I think the major difference is that a true aboriginal walkabout is meant to be taken on foot in order for the individual to be close to the land. I am seeking most of my wisdom from people and the highway travel allows me to seek them out over some far scattered distances. But the element of seeking or searching is certainly foregrounded in my current journeys.

The final vocabulary selection for today is mine - panoptic. By definition, panoptic refers to everything that is visible in one view. Often it usage leans towards a totality of view, that which one might have from on high, like in an aerial view. I am seeking some perspective on my current place in a transitory world. So I am looking at my recent past and asking myself how the last few years will inform and influence my near future. What I am discovering thus far is that I may indeed be going back to the future. Here come the nineties all over again.

Another geographical shift appears imminent. 
Labels: ,

Sensing a Theme?


A recent NBC News poll found that 45% of Americans believed that health care reform would involve pulling the plug on grandma in some form. Leaving aside for a moment my often expressed distrust of how such poll questions are phrased, I bow to Stephen Colbert, who in response to this revelation said:
"Remember kids, in order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."
This goes along with my quote dump from a few days ago:
"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way."
and from my 100 Things About Me:
99. I have one prejudice; I abhor voluntary stupidity.
So on the Health Care Reform issue, I offer three thoughts: 
Consider that thought should usually precede talk.
and
No, really. Medicare is a government program.
and
Your elected representative is lying about health care.
Thus ends today's well reasoned and heavily disguised rant. Fox and CNN may resume their regularly scheduled propaganda.
Addendum: The suggestion has been made that I am confusing stupidity and ignorance. Worth pondering.

            
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)