Perfect Flaws in Analytical Whimsy

It was another one of those seemingly endless nights, blending the remnants of the fading day with encroaching darkness. The night again lasted far longer than did darkness, finally giving in halfway into another day. I find it hard to recall where Monday ended and Tuesday began; both were firmly rooted in sleep that lasted much longer than usual. Sleep seems to have replaced fantasies and dedicated saferooms and caves—the promise of serenity in the form of unconsciousness has become a shelter from the storm…in which the consciousness represents the storm. Psychoanalyzing one’s own sleep patterns is dangerous, in that a person might begin to actually believe the stories one tells oneself. The reality, I suspect, is simple: the facts of—and the treatments for—an affliction that feels mysterious, regardless of the vast amounts of information about it that are available.

During last night’s overload of sleep, I dreamed I hired a young man to provide management for an association client I wanted but did not have time to serve, personally. I did not train the kid, reasoning that he should be able to figure it out for himself, since the client was simple and unsophisticated. The guy’s performance was a train wreck; I fired him in the middle of the new client’s annual conference, with no one available to manage the event. And I had to catch a flight to meet with another client. So I resigned from the client, leaving its board to deal with the carnage. Halfway through the flight to the next meeting, I realized my decision to resign the client at such an awkward time would almost certainly wreck my company’s reputation, so I began thinking about planning the closure of my business. And that was that. My shelter from the storm, in the form of sleep, put me in the middle of a fierce typhoon that was sure to drown me. Maybe I should force myself to stay awake and confront the wind and waves.

+++

Yesterday, driving home from the appointment with my cardiologist, a pickup truck passed us on the right. Its rear window featured graphics of an AR-15 style rifle, along with some aggressive printed statements clearly meant to tell the world that the driver was a mean S.O.B. who would immediately use the gun to eliminate anyone who threatened him. I think the display of such stuff, which I find offensive, reveals some fundamental characteristics of the person(s) who owns the vehicle. First, they are constantly vigilant about the many potential threats they believe constantly face them. Second, that vigilance is a reaction to their own deep fear of the world around them. Third, they are likely to react any perceived threats as suggested by the graphic statements—they are like frightened dogs under attack that can choose either to flee or to fight in the face of danger; they would choose to fight because their fear of injury is not as great as their fear of humiliation.  The window sticker is intended as a proclamation of machismo; in reality, though, I think it is a revelation of either fear or cowardice or both. Regardless, they may likely be dangerous.

+++

I rarely stay up to watch any of the late night talk shows, nor do I watch reruns. While I think some of them are interesting and funny, they are not sufficiently interesting to me to merit making extra efforts to see them. That having been said, I think the shows’ broadcasts should not be subject to the political whims of government officials. Censorship is, in my view, a direct attack on democracy. People who do not voice opposition to governmental censorship (whether directly or by various forms of pressure) because they do not watch the shows are, I am afraid, aiding and abetting censorship and, therefore, attacks on democracy. Apathy and lethargy can be used (even unintentionally) as powerful weapons to undermine freedom of speech.

+++

In my opinion, artificial intelligence (AI) could determine the income (or other financial resources) necessary to give every human being on earth a safe, comfortable, and fulfilling lifestyle. My guess is that the figure(s) would be considerably lower than most people might think. And the collective amount of financial resources necessary to deliver that lifestyle would almost certainly leave a considerable amount “left over” to serve as an incentive to people who want “more.” With a strict limit on how much “more” would be achievable, long-term balance should be attainable for everyone. Only after those figures are calculated and verified, though, could we expect the population of the planet to collectively agree (in sufficient proportions) to accept reductions or limits. If I had the brainpower, the information resources, and the time to work on such a project, I think that could become my life’s work. But it’s a bit late for that, anyway.