2013
● 1-1-2013: Here’s the New Year’s edition of my biannual retrospective (of my life). My health is still excellent, except for a significant deterioration in the condition of my lower back, for which I’m now getting physical therapy. The arthritis (or at least the arthritis symptoms) in my hands has significantly improved.
Creatively, it’s been a somewhat below-average year; I wrote a number of excellent pieces, but fewer than usual. I wish that my “On Happiness and Well-being” had been written in 2012, as that would have been a wonderful accomplishment for the year. But, alas, a review of the above diary entries for the past twelve months or so reveals that I actually completed the work in 2011, though at the end of the year.
. . . No, I need to revise the foregoing paragraph. On further examination, I think it was only a rough draft of “On Happiness and Well-being” that I completed in 2011. The final version was done in 2012. Another final version completed in 2012 was that of my great essay “Some Reasons Not to Use Drugs” (which—also in 2012—I posted on the World Wide Web, on a website linked to my commercial websites). So, creatively it was a very fine year indeed.
The big news, however, continues to be my financial situation. It turns out that the bankruptcy law practice (1-888-Debt-End) was a failure. I spent considerable money and time and creative energy on it, all for naught (I got not a single client). So I’ve abandoned that effort for now. The action is with my 1-800-Sue-Them. Attorney David Berns (for whom I’ve handled workers’ compensation depositions for several years and, in 2011, worked full time for three months) has proposed a partnership concerning the mark (1-800-Sue-Them). I would have to give him some ownership of it, but I would immediately start receiving half the income of his law practice, and he says he has the money to advertise 1-800-Sue-Them. I’ve always been unwilling to relinquish any ownership of the mark, but I’m thinking that it might be in my best interest to abandon that requirement (full ownership is worthless if, as has been the case for twenty years, and continuing, it’s producing no money). I have another 1-800-Sue-Them proposal out to Girardi | Keese. If they reject this one, too, I’ll begin actively exploring a possible partnership with David Berns. My bequest from my father has greatly dwindled in less than a year, and it keeps falling. I think I should explore the partnership option while I still have some money left, so that I’ll be in a better bargaining position (I won’t be forced to accept a disadvantageous bargain because I’m in desperate need of money).
[Later note (6-6-2022): Whether a piece was written in 2011 or 2012 is of interest to me only close to that time. Ten years later, in 2022, it seems utterly inconsequential. All that matters to me now is that I wrote it, whenever it was; I’m still quite proud of that piece.]
● 1-5-2013: If someone were to imply that my avoidance of dangerous recreational activities, like motorcycle riding, which I used to love, stems from fear, I would reply: It’s not fear, per se, but my drive to maximize my body of work—my sense that I’m too valuable an asset to risk.
● 1-10-2013: To speak of evidence of, or for, a certain fact . . . is redundant, or at all events a strange locution: if it’s a fact, it doesn’t need evidence . . .. It would probably make more sense to speak of evidence for a certain proposition.
● 1-11-2013: Some politicians insist that the “pain” of paying down the national debt must be shared by both the rich and the poor. It seems to me, however, that to impair the social safety net so as to be able to limit the tax increases for the rich, is like forcing on the poor an amputation to spare the rich a manicure.
● 1-14-2013: Humans are expected to prevent injury, if possible, rather than merely provide remedies afterward. In this respect, we hold ourselves to a higher standard than God, who’s expected, not to prevent evil, but merely to punish people after it’s done.
● 1-19-2013: The modern physicists’ notion that time, every moment of time, is in some sense eternal, cannot be true, because my experience lasts only from this moment to the next; and when it’s over, it’s over. When I die, my experience ends; it doesn’t exist, anywhere, and never will again. A similar point (perhaps the same point in different words): A dimension of experience is its length. Surely, of two equally enjoyable experiences, but one twice as long as the other, you’d rather have the longer one. But the eternal-time theory would vitiate, or contradict, that difference, because, according to that theory, those two experiences would be of the same length: namely, infinite (eternal).
● 1-26-2013: I heard a debate on the nature of genius. One man contended that the essence of genius is ability; the other, that it’s love. I tend to think the former is closer to the truth. Consider mere talent. I’m not aware of anyone having linked talent and love, and presumably those (talent and love) are distinct. Now, genius can be considered a heightened form of talent. It would seem that genius’ essence should be the same as talent’s essence, namely, an unusual ability in some intellectual or artistic realm; and that love should be no more central to genius than it is to talent. From a simpler aspect, I suppose that far more persons have, or potentially have, great love, than are geniuses. Of course, love is probably an element of it. To begin with, you’re more likely to go into a sphere of activity or study that appeals to you than into one that doesn’t. Moreover, it takes considerable, sustained time and energy to do all the labor involved in producing great work; and it seems unlikely that a person, no matter how talented, would expend that sort of energy without some sort of love. And yet, the better your results, the more you’ll love attaining them, and the more motivated you’ll be to do the work necessary to generate them and to enhance them. The main point, however, is that, in a sense, the question is academic. Ultimately, genius is a rare, innate human characteristic. If genius is love, it’s a love granted to very few; and if a man is not among them, there’s nothing he can do to acquire it. Thomas Edison said, “Genius is one percent inspiration, 99 percent perspiration.” And I said, “Ah, but that one percent!”
● Sunday, 1-27-2013: Forged (almost by accident) the new plastic-glove-sound weapon against my neighbor. It’s turning out to be most effective!
● Sunday, 2-3-2013: Instituted new fan-generated white noise bedroom defense against neighbors (on both sides). Unlike prior similar defenses, this one seems to work—a real coup!
[Later note (2021): No, it didn’t work.]
● 2-6-2013: I’ve heard the evocative phrase “dark night of the soul.” I finally looked it up just now and discovered that it has a rather specific religious meaning. Before I knew what it meant, I used to apply it to myself, to describe an emotional crisis or anxiety, or even just worry, which I’m experiencing now. I hit some road debris while driving my car, which has caused an oil leak. The car is old; many of its parts are no longer made, and I’m worried that it might be un-repairable. This would be a significant blow to my finances and my convenience. I tend to set myself up for such crises by my laziness and complacency. I lack a sense of urgency about improving my situation. This has always been one of my worst character flaws.
● Philosophy Club meeting. Topic: “Hypocrisy.”
● 2-8-2013: The reason why hypocrisy is bad is that it makes the conduct in question morally culpable by implying, or suggesting, that the actor knew his action was wrong. Of course, the actor’s speech regarding the badness of the conduct may be illuminating, such that the value of the speech outweighs the disvalue of the act (but this situation is rare). In such unusual cases, the speaker’s authority as a moral teacher is undermined by his apparent insincerity—how could he believe his teaching if he violates it himself? Or perhaps it’s merely our instinctual emotional reaction: We dislike a hypocrite, and so are therefore unwilling to give his teachings as much credit as they might intrinsically warrant. And yet, at some level we’re all hypocrites. Inwardly, we’re a swirling mass of nasty, brutish id. But we meet the world with the moderate, controlled, reasonable, civilized face of the superego. We like to think we’re helping others, when we’re really just satisfying our own needs and wants.
[Later note (2021): That’s probably true for most people most of the time. But it’s not necessarily true, nor always true.]
● 2-9-2013: The concept of an ideal world is inherently problematic. How many beings would an ideal world contain? Any beings?Which beings? Would the ideal world have to include you? Would the set of existent beings continually change? Would they all be equally happy? How happy would they be? Would there be a procedure to resolve conflicts between the creatures? Or would there simply be no conflict? . . . Ah, there’s no such thing as an ideal world.
Is our interest in mankind’s welfare unselfish? Well, would you be interested in the well-being of some race superior to humans, on a planet billions of light years away from Earth? Would you be interested in man’s welfare if your existence were metaphysically stricken from the history of humanity? What if you were an utterly inferior person, scorned or ignored by everyone else? The answer in each case, I think, would be no. I’m interested in mankind only because I consider it somehow my own group—and, indeed, because I feel good about my (present and posthumous) place in it.
● 2-10-2013: The last election didn’t show that the American people are intelligent. It showed merely that there’s a limit to their stupidity.
[Later note (1-15-2022): It may not have shown even that. If you play Russian roulette and the gun doesn’t fire when you pull the trigger, does that (the gun not firing) show a limit to your stupidity?]
[Later note (2-20-2022): Perhaps it doesn’t make sense to speak of the intelligence or stupidity of people collectively. Even in the 2016 U.S. presidential election (which put Trump in office), more than half of those who voted, voted for Trump’s political opponent (Hillary Clinton). Presumably, I wouldn’t mean to call them stupid . . ..]
● Yesterday my dentist found another decayed tooth, which will probably have to be extracted. This keeps happening. I’m finally going to take his advice to drastically cut my sugar intake to try to save my teeth. To which end, I’m going to stop sweetening my coffee and tea. That sugar is a luxury I can no longer afford.
● 2-22-2013: Several weeks ago an idea came to me that I thought was a very important one; and I thought I should write it down promptly, to preserve it. But I neglected to do so. And, sure enough, by the time I thought about it again, I’d forgotten what the idea was, and was unable to recollect it. But I thought I’d write this, a sort of consolation prize. I didn’t get the big idea, but I got this little story about it, an epitaph for an idea. And I thought I’d better write this down, before I forgot it, too.
● 2-26-2013: What do I really want? I want to create great work that’s greater than anyone else’s, and that will remain so and be recognized as such by the world forever. Failing that, I want to do the best work I can (assuming that the best of it is great), and have it live and be recognized for as long as possible, even though it will someday perish. And, meanwhile, during the brief remainder of my life, I’d also like to have as much wealth and pleasure as possible (consistent with my maximizing my body of work).
● I received an email with the subject, “Study shows wealthy are paying more than their fair share.” The body of the email was as follows:
“With Washington gridlocked again over whether to raise their taxes, it turns out wealthy families already are paying some of their biggest federal tax bills in decades even as the rest of the population continues to pay at historically low rates.
“President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress say the wealthy must pay their fair share if the federal government is ever going to fix its finances and reduce the budget deficit to a manageable level.”
I sent the following reply:
“So long as many others are poor, the wealthy, ipso facto, are not paying their fair share.”
● 3-10-2013: Many persons, I suppose, would imagine that having a grand philosophical view of things is effortless, like calmly smoking a pipe and casting your eyes over the panorama. This is an accurate description of my own experience (without the pipe), at times. But the characterization is deficient in two important respects. First, such a state is the product of a long, arduous process, beginning perhaps with certain opinions or conclusions, constantly subjecting them to rigorous examination and argument, discarding what proves unsound, and finding suitable replacements, until a coherent, comprehensive picture at last begins to emerge. You don’t simply wake up one morning on the summit of a great mountain, enjoying the view. You first have to climb the mountain. There’s no designated route. You have to find your own way, as if groping in the dark. Indeed, there’s no guarantee that you’re even climbing a significant mountain; you could struggle for years, only finally to realize that you’re in a desolate lowland. At best, it’s a protracted, strenuous, uncertain journey, with many frustrations and setbacks along the way. The second omission is that, at least speaking for myself, even after having reached a pinnacle, the process may slow, but it doesn’t cease. I seem to spend far more time struggling, than just sitting on the mountaintop. New elements constantly vie for addition to the picture. To determine whether they should be included, and, if so, where they fit, and whether and how existing elements must be rearranged or reworked to accommodate them, requires, as it ever did, toil, straining ever farther upward to try to gain a still clearer, broader perspective. For me, the effort has paid off. What I value in it is not so much my enjoyment of the view, magnificent though it is, but rather the photographs I’ve taken, or the paintings I’ve created, of what I’ve seen, which I hope might enlighten other minds, and cause them to favorably remember me.
● 3-13-2013: Why do we lose socks in the dryer? It’s mainly because they’re smaller and lighter than the other pieces of clothing. Thus it’s easier to miss them in removing the contents of the dryer, and they’re more likely to fall through the batch of dried clothes we carry away, landing on the ground; or, during drying, they can work their way into the arms or legs of other pieces, where we miss them until we next wear the other garment. Finally, as most of us use socks in pairs, we very readily notice a sock’s absence (on any given occasion, we’re most likely to lose just one sock . . . and finding a missing sock doesn’t necessarily cancel the memory or the impression of having lost it).
● 3-15-2013: I highly value originality in my own work. But I don’t strive for it. I’ve been blessed with so great a degree of originality that I don’t have to focus on it in doing my work, any more than, if I were writing with a red pen, I would have to focus on the ink on the page being red—it just comes out that way, automatically, even despite myself. I concentrate on other elements of my work, but not on that one.
● 3-30-2013: (From a 4-29-2001 Diary-Journal entry.) A personal motto, one that I wouldn’t propose for anyone else, might be: Work when you can; rest or play when you can’t work. Of course, your work can be your play as well, if you enjoy your work—the ideal situation.
[Later note (11-11-2023): Why, in some entries, do I say that it was from my Diary-Journal?—all of these entries are from the Diary-Journal. If I originally had a reason for the note, I don’t remember it now. But I won’t delete those notes: perhaps I’ll remember the reason later.]
● 3-31-2013: I must learn to give as good as I get, at least in certain situations.
● 4-6-2013: I made a ton of money. Unfortunately, it was in pennies.
● 4-7-2013: In speaking about religious belief, I’ve said that belief is not a choice, but a fact. Describing belief as a fact may suggest that belief is a passive, easy affair: you go about mindlessly until, suddenly, some belief or disbelief alights on you. But that’s not accurate. Even when a person knows facts that would seem to enable him to form a belief on a certain question, he may have no belief; he may be confused; or he may lack the acumen needed to infer the conclusion (the belief), from his other beliefs that imply it. Coming to mental clarity (so as to be able to acquire a belief) can involve considerable mental effort.
And yet, choosing not to make that mental effort, choosing to remain ignorant, is not choosing a belief. For example, say there’s a hat on the table in front of you. You know that under the hat is either a pen, or nothing, but you don’t know which. If you choose not to lift the hat to find out what’s under it, you’ve chosen not to find out the fact of the matter—you haven’t formed a belief about it. Whereas, if you lifted the hat and found a pen there, but decided that you’d rather believe that nothing was there, and you succeeded in so believing, that would be a belief acquired by choice.
● 4-8-2013: I’ve heard people proclaim that truth and beauty are one and the same (as in “Truth is Beauty; and Beauty, Truth”). It seems to me, however, that they can’t be the same because beauty is subjective, but truth is objective. (I suppose that this criticism implies that if two entities have different qualities, attributes, or characteristics, the entities are different.)
. . . If truth is beauty, is falsehood ugliness? But can’t that which is false nonetheless be beautiful? And what about the truth of something ugly? . . . “The ugly truth”?
● I’m a very flawed human being.
● 4-14-2013: The reason why we shouldn’t commit suicide is this: The man in the moon possesses supreme knowledge of what’s right and wrong, good and bad, for humans; he (the man in the moon) wants just what’s right and good for us; and he wants us not to commit suicide. I can’t prove this; I don’t even know how I know it. But I know it, I feel it, very deeply, in my heart, in my soul—through faith.
● 4-19-2013: On the Boston Marathon bombing (in response to a discussion): Does the violence committed by Christians during the Crusades make all Christians bad? (Of course not.) Does the Holocaust make all Germans bad? (Of course not.) Does Israel’s brutal oppression of the Palestinians make all Jews bad? (Of course not.) Why should it be any different with Muslims?
● Motive is relevant. But not for criticizing Muslims generally (in other words, Muslims—as Muslims—don’t have bad intentions). In this connection, there’s a significant difference between Muslims and, say, Nazis. To the extent that Nazis have a characteristic creed, or attitude, it’s one that’s intrinsically antisocial, malevolent. Thus, there are no “good Nazis”; all of them are bad (or at least misguided). Whereas, Islam (the Muslim religion) is essentially neutral. There are good and bad Muslims, just as there are good and bad Christians, Jews, Americans, Russians . . ..
● Sunday, 4-21-2013: Philosophy Club meeting. Topic: “moral responsibility.” Perhaps it’s true that there’s no single, unified concept of moral responsibility. Perhaps every serious theory or observation that has historically been made about the phenomenon has some truth to it; and the truth is a conglomeration of all of them, each having its place in an interwoven whole, different ones coming more prominently into play in different circumstances. There’s a sense in which this, and another sense in which that . . .. Generally, however, I agree with P. F. Strawson
[Later note (2020): That’s how the paragraph ends in my Diary-Journal. Presumably, there was more—I’m not in the habit of ending sentences in midair, so to speak—but what happened to it, is a mystery. And I have no memory of my thought, so I can’t reconstruct it. . . . I included it here because what there was of it sounded pretty good. I wish I had the rest of it.]
● Effective thinking requires both intelligence and intellectual honesty.
● Intellectual honesty is important to intellectual originality. Discovery of a new idea often arises from a struggle to resolve your puzzlement or confusion on a subject, which can’t happen if you’re unable or unwilling to admit, at least to yourself, that you don’t understand it.
● Science doesn’t determine philosophy. For example, neither Newtonian physics nor quantum mechanics affects my opinion about determinism; and brain science appears to shed no light on the nature of my experience. But philosophy must at least be consistent with fact, of which science is an important source of discovery.
● Philosophy is not based on (or determined by) science; but philosophy must be consistent with science.
● Philosophy need not be based on physical reality; but it must be consistent with it.
● 4-29-2013: Science discovers fact; philosophy, truth. (But Truth must be consistent with fact.)
● 5-5-2013: I just now awoke from (what I considered) a very interesting dream. I dreamt that my death was imminent, and I realized that I had made no provision for disposition of my property. So I hurriedly made a will, or more accurately, numerous wills, each a separate little document, almost like a check, giving money, in the form of a large piece of gold wrapped in paper, to some person or group of persons. The largest such bequest was $900,000. I was committing suicide. But then I decided not to die, and I watched the recipients of my wealth clamor to scoop it up. I was determined to succeed, to continue from where I had left off in my life, and regretted giving away my capital, as it could have been useful seed money. I interpret the dream as a recognition that I’ve underappreciated my wealth and my potential (the paper-wrapped gold symbolizes artistic and monetary riches); that it’s too soon to give up, or to rest, and that I should redouble my efforts to advance.
● Resolution of the moment: Be more intense, determined, in retaliation for neighbor attacks.
● 5-7-2013: Why is the mosquito so called? It’s because its toe looks like a mosque (its toe is mosque-y, or mosque-like). In ancient times, the insect’s toe more closely resembled a church, and it was called churchyto, or churchy-toe.
● 5-18-2013: Today at a gas station I saw a scruffily dressed man riding a loud chopped motorcycle and wearing a black leather jacket emblazoned, in large letters, on the back, with: “BIKERS FOR CHRIST”. I resisted the temptation to make either of the following comments to him: One, “I’m sure Christ appreciates all the help you guys give him” or, two, “Do you guys get into many fights with the Bikers Against Christ?”
● 5-19-2013: Philosophy club meeting. Topic: “thought experiments.”
● A thought experiment is an example, a counterexample, or an analogy with moving parts.
● If we have a thought experiment that seems to conflict with a prevailing view, we should not dismiss the former (or the latter) out of hand. Rather, we should keep it in the background of our mind and continue to try to resolve the conflict. Inconsistency indicates the presence of error in the system, and a conflict we have trouble resolving is often the prelude to a new theory.
● Thought experiments are on a par with argumentation generally. There are no definite rules to tell us how or when to use thought experiments, or whether they’re good or bad. The judgment is an ad hoc one and involves the same process we would apply to any argument. We think about it, and at length we form a judgment—this argument is good; this other, poor. Moreover, we don’t possess unlimited mental resources. We make our points the best way we can. If the best case we can make in a given instance comes to our mind in the form of a thought experiment, we express it thus. I suspect that a philosopher who condemns thought experiments—if a great and original thought experiment occurred to him, he’d use it.
● Regarding thought experiments, the question has been asked: “How can we gain new knowledge about reality just by thinking about it, without any new data?” Here, too, thought experiments are on a par with argumentation generally. In the classical argument, the information in the premises is known, or stipulated to. The conclusion, which the premises prove, is, in a strict sense, not new information, since it arises out of, is contained within, the suppositions, and yet that proposition is one we didn’t know before; it allows us to see things differently, gives us a new perspective.
● 5-27-2013: Having just passed a birthday (my sixty-second), I shall set forth a semiannual outlook on my life situation, picking up more or less where the 1-1-2013 entry, above, leaves off. I’ve been less productive creatively, but not because of a conscious choice on my part. In any event, the great push remains at the financial front. Girardi | Keese rejected my latest 1-800-Sue-Them proposal. I had drawn up a proposed contract to share ownership of 1-800-Sue-Them with Attorney David Berns. While I was awaiting feedback on the contract, before presenting it to Berns, he (Berns) asked me to meet with him. We met and he told me we could suspend the 1-800-Sue-Them issue, but that he had an immediate need for an attorney to come into his practice to work with him, and he asked me to give him a proposal for such an arrangement. I gave him a proposal; we were supposed to meet again soon thereafter, but we never did. The upshot is that working with Berns no longer seems to me a viable option. I see too many disadvantages in working with him, and, for now, at least, I’m unwilling to relinquish any ownership of 1-800-Sue-Them.
A significant new development here is this. The night before one of my meetings with Berns, I discovered the California Applicants’ Attorneys Association, which organization is a source of education and fellowship for workers’ compensation lawyers, and I’ve resumed my effort to learn that area of law. My strategy has changed from attempting immediately to make money from my advertising (either by paying for the advertising myself or inducing another lawyer to pay for it—the first requires more money than I have, and the second has been a losing battle) to, instead, getting a job with a workers’ compensation law firm, and introducing my advertising from that position. The financial bequest from my father is to be used, not to start a business directly, but rather as a cushion to facilitate my transition to productive, sustainable employment, and thence to launch my advertising. But I can use my ownership of 1-800-Sue-Them as an added inducement with prospective employers. I feel fortunate to have found this new road while I still have a substantial portion of my financial inheritance.
● Wanting something to be so, does not make it so.
[Later note (1-15-2022): That’s magical thinking.]
● If we dishonor the war, why should we honor the warrior (other than to be able to feel vaguely patriotic)? Do we honor the German soldiers who fought for Nazi Germany? No. Why should it be any different when it comes to one’s own country? Indeed, shame on the soldier for fighting for the aggressor nation.
● 5-30-2013: Last night (or this morning), I had the most fascinating dream. In it, I was involved with (perhaps I was a member of) a monastery. At one point I was proposed for a high position within the organization, perhaps as its leader; one requirement of which position was that I be able to adopt a certain mental outlook (so as, perhaps, to determine what was consistent with or in furtherance of the monastery’s interests or creed). It was a perspective that went against my natural mental inclination. But I attempted to adopt the new frame of reference, and I succeeded. I was amazed at my ability to see things in this new way; it was a magical feeling, on a par with the delight of finding that you can fly.
● 6-3-2013: Being underemployed is bad for your money, good for your time.
● Unemployment: less money, more time.
● 6-5-2013: The supposition of an endless heavenly afterlife, would entail that life, practically infinitesimal in relation thereto, is virtually insignificant. Under such an assumption, even to ponder the import of life would be ridiculous. It would be like a philosopher considering, not life generally, but one certain day, selected at random, perhaps 23 June 1975. “Man must deeply meditate on the meaning of June 23. What could be the significance of June 23? This is the most profound subject; we must devote ourselves to finding the answer to 23 June 1975.” (Who cares?!)
● The question has been asked, How can the Republican Party attract more members? My answer: By becoming more liberal.
[Later note (2-20-2022): Or they could pay people to join.]
● 6-7-2013: It’s absolutely true that porcupines are half human and half snake . . . or they’re not.
● 6-9-2013: Philosophy Club meeting. Topic: “Limits of Law.”
● 6-12-2013: I aim for greatness, not goodness.
● 6-13-2013: I was amorously precocious, from a very young age attracted to girls. When I was five or six, I had a crush on a little playmate of mine; I fantasized that I was a king and that she was my queen.
● 6-17-2013: Freedom is not all it’s cracked up to be. I’d rather be forced to accomplish my goal, than be free to do it or not, and not do it.
● A man tends to shape his idea of what makes life meaningful in such a way as to be able to find his life meaningful. The conception expands or contracts commensurate with our station in life. Thus, if you’re fortunate enough to possess great genius, you may think that what’s important is to do great work that leaves a mark; whereas, if you have no special talent, or position, you may feel that what’s important is love, or family, or integrity (desiderata that almost anyone can acquire if he so desires). A lack of this mental adaptation can cause misery and mayhem.
● Having two low-paying jobs is not almost as good as having one well-paying job; indeed, having two lousy jobs is more like twice as bad as having just one lousy job.
● 6-18-2013: Long-term/short-term calculations vary with a person’s age. For example, sacrificing present enjoyment for later benefits makes more sense for a young person than for a very old one.
● 6-22-2013: Today I posted on the Philosophy Club website my thought experiment regarding Olbers’s paradox, excerpted from my essay on the Big Bang theory. I feel a great sense of accomplishment, as I’m quite proud of the argument, and of my Big Bang essay. I think people will be quite favorably impressed with the argument, and they’ll know that I wrote an essay on the Big Bang theory, as I so note in the editorial introduction to the entry.
● 6-30-2013: We’re in the midst of a heat wave, and I use no air conditioning in the apartment (I use only an electric fan). I’m hot and I have a headache. The headache is worse. I’d rather be hot without a headache than not be hot but have a headache.
● 7-5-2013: If it’s true that there are no free lunches, yet not everyone pays the same price, or, for that matter, gets the same food.
● 7-8-2013: Today I made another small (yet significant) revision to my masterpiece, “Ethics.” I didn’t find the need for the amendment in the usual way, by reading through the work and discovering something that needed changing. Rather, the problem simply came to my mind, as I was thinking about the piece. It’s as if I had been thinking about the problem, working on it, carrying it around in my head, for a year and a half, since I made the other changes, in November 2011. Armed with this awareness and the careful notes I’d made for the 2011 changes, I was able to pinpoint the problem and solve it within what seemed like minutes, but which no doubt was a somewhat longer time (but not much longer). It was a subtle, purely artistic point. This strikes me as a rather impressive mental feat, which makes me feel as if I “still have it.” But I get that feeling often. In truth, I never cease to amaze myself.
● Since I’m a totally unrecognized writer, and my works are not published (except, some of them, on my own websites), they would be totally lost to posterity were I to die now. Therefore, I’m not only my works’ author, but also their custodian. In which regard, I’m in a very precarious position.
● Sunday, 7-14-2013: Philosophy Club; topic: “shorthand abstractions.”
● At the meeting this evening, someone said, “Something once seen can never be unseen.” And I amended it thus: “Something once seen can never be unseen, but it can be seen in a different light.”
[Later note (2020): The original statement is not true: memory is fragile; you can forget even your deepest, strongest insights—even while you’re alive.]
● Playwright Richard Foreman summarizes Keats’s notion of negative capability as the ability to exist with lucidity and calm amidst uncertainty, mystery, and doubt, without “irritable (and always premature) reaching out” after fact and reason. A counterpoint to Keats’s notion (this is my comment) is that we should not let uncertainty prevent us from forming beliefs and reasoning to conclusions—we should not, in a word, let uncertainty prevent us from thinking. We may disbelieve in the possibility of knowledge. But we reason thus: I can’t know, but meanwhile, I (provisionally) believe this or that to be true.
● 7-22-2013: In response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin shooting case, and in response to the so-called stand-your-ground laws (which permit a person to use deadly force against an attacker without first having to retreat); I would propose the following law: A person is guilty of murder or manslaughter if he carries a concealed deadly weapon and baits an unarmed person into a fight wherein he (the armed person) uses the weapon to kill the other.
● 7-28-2013: Schmucky Guppets. (. . . Mister Guppets, to you.)
● 8-1-2013: In reply to Robert’s comment on my 6-22-2013 item on Olbers in the “Thought Experiments” topic on the Philosophy Club website, I’m tempted to write this:
In his 7-8-2013 entry, above, Robert writes, “We now know (as Eisner notes) that the universe is expanding, . . .” Is that what I said? Robert must have read my piece more carefully than I did, because I missed that. Perhaps I should reread it.
But, again, I’ll probably forgo it. If I reply to every slight of my work, I risk implying that, if I don’t respond, I don’t disagree with the other person’s comment, obliging me to respond to every such remark.
● Sunday, 8-4-2013: It has been a very productive and creative month-and-a-half. I wrote my short piece on Infinite Repetition, and have revised my essay “Eternal Recurrence”; I’m very proud of both pieces.
● Wednesday, 8-7-2013: Interesting day. I had an intense emotional reaction to (and interaction with) a defense attorney in a deposition today; I was more emotional than I’d been in a very long time. Several hours later, while I was shopping in a grocery store, I had a brief (several seconds) glimpse of my “perceptual impairment” (the depersonalization / derealization) lifting, perhaps more so than ever before. That’s a good sign.
[Later note (4-15-2024): It would have been a good sign had the condition eventually resolved. It hasn’t.]
● Friday, 8-9-2013: I feel compelled to say . . . Thank you, Richard!
● 8-10-2013: “The medium is the message.” . . . But, the message is the message.
● Professor Daniel Cohen says there are several purposes/types of argument: Argument as war; argument as proof; and argument as performance. I make arguments, not as war, but as proof and performance. The performance is, however, not for a live audience, but for an audience of readers. I would say that my purpose is argument as art.
● Sunday, 8-11-2013: I took my usual (Mojave) desert drive today, about two hundred miles. It was a beautiful trip. During the first half, I worked on and solved in my head a compositional problem with my essay on Eternal Recurrence. And so, during the approximate second half of the drive, I was able to savor my creative triumph, on top of the continuing afterglow of my sense of accomplishment in my 7-27-2013 item, “Infinite Repetition: Reply to Raveen.”
● If Christ returned to the world, he’d probably be crucified again.
[Later note (2020): “If Christ returned to the world” . . . where is he now?]
[Still later note (2021): If Christ’s returning to the world would benefit man, why does Christ not return to the world now? Doesn’t he want to benefit man?]
● Sunday, 8-18-2013: Last week I had occasion to buy new earphones (earbuds). And for the first time in many decades, I listened to the radio with an earphone in both ears, instead of in just the left (my “good”) ear. The new earphones are excellent; and that, together with the use of both ears, has made for a marvelous new audio experience.
● Tuesday, 8-20-2013: In my 2009 argument titled “The Impossibility of Knowledge, Free Well, and God”; I use the very concept of God to prove its impossibility.
● 8-23-2013: I just awoke from a very colorful dream. I dreamed that I had severed my arms, but that somehow they were still attached to my body and more or less functioning, though I would need time for them to heal. I was also in the process of round-the-world travel for pleasure. I had just taken a jetliner flight to Europe and back; the trip was so quick (less than an hour), it didn’t seem like real travel. So I decided I would travel across the United States, stopping overnight in each state. My arms were healing, and I regretted cutting them off.
● 8-28-2013: My father and I had a somewhat troubled relationship. He would at times render a backhanded complement of me. These two come to mind. He once proclaimed that I was “one in a hundred.” Another time he said something to the effect that my writing was so good that it didn’t much matter what I had to say, because, whatever it was, I could make it sound good. As I now put those words down on paper (or on the computer screen); with the passage of time, it provokes laughter; but when he said it, about two and a quarter years ago, my reaction (when the comment’s real meaning finally dawned on me) was anger.
● 9-5-2013: A new resident has moved into a long-vacant apartment in the complex where I live; she’s a cigarette smoker, and her smoke drifts into my apartment, making my life quite miserable. I wish I had enough money to move, to a house, not an apartment.
● Russia is to Syria very much as the United States is to Israel, supporting the country in such a way that enables it to continue its brutal violations of international law, and vetoing the world’s efforts to deal with it.
● 9-6-2013: Philosophy Club, this Sunday (9-8-2013); topic, “Loyalty.”
● Many actions dictated by our professed morality also happen to be in our self-interest. For example, a man’s committing murder, whatever personal moral precepts it might contravene, also jeopardizes his freedom (because it’s against the law). A true test of your morality would involve a situation wherein the act in question could be done with (legal) impunity. In my own case . . . [I’ve omitted the rest of this entry].
● Is loyalty a virtue? I don’t know. It’s simply part of our human nature. A trait’s being essential to human nature makes it impossible to say whether the trait is good for us, because we can’t contrast the situation in which we possess the trait (the current situation) with a situation in which we exist without the trait, in order to compare the two states to judge whether we’re better off with the trait or without it.
● If loyalty is not necessarily a virtue, how does one account for the negative connotation of the opposite term, disloyalty?
● At the broadest, most abstract level, loyalty exemplifies the universal principle that things interact more, and more strongly, with things that are closer to them.
● 9-13-2013: I’ve just completed, in record time, a short essay, rebutting a piece by Stephen T. Asma, one of the readings for last week’s Philosophy Club meeting. I’m quite proud of my work. It feels like found money. It fell into my lap, with seemingly very little effort, unlike the usual struggle. Of course, I’ve learned to be suspicious of pieces of work that seem to come quickly and easily. We’ll see. . . .
● Coincidentally, several nights in a row this week I had a similar dream in which I composed works at great speed, each taking just a few minutes. The works were perfectly composed. The process felt very good. Strangely, the pieces of writing were supposedly advertisements; I don’t recall their content.
● Chris Papple. Crisp Apple.
● 9-18-2013: Typically, I rewrite a work many times before I’m satisfied with it (or until I can think of no further improvements). Often, the last hurdle to finishing the piece is the rhythm; and I find that improving the rhythm tends to bring other improvements to the writing, even the logic. Conversely, fixing a problem with the logic often improves the piece’s rhythm. It seems magical, almost miraculous. I don’t understand it, but I like it! . . . I’ve just made such a revision (to improve the rhythm) to my reply to Stephen Asma (see the 9-13-2013 entry, above).
● 9-21-2013: When you find yourself angry or annoyed with someone, remember that he’ll soon be dead, which may enable you to muster some compassion.
[Later note (2021): Of course, you know that you, too, will soon be dead, which awareness may nullify that suggested compassion for your enemy.]
● 9-23-2013: At the risk of simply stating an inelegant version of the Serenity Prayer . . . Certain problems (like hostile neighbors) can’t realistically be resolved. The focus should be, not on solving them, but merely on getting through them, getting on with your life as best you can in spite of them, without letting them sap your energy or alter your activities more than necessary. Sail by without allowing yourself to be sucked into the vortex. Paradoxically, if you can succeed in doing this, you’ll have achieved a victory over your enemy (“Living well is the best revenge”)—though it will be difficult to so succeed if triumph over him is your goal.
● 9-25-2013: However much you may like the way this sentence starts, don’t judge it till you get to the end. (. . . Okay—now, how did you like it?)
● Sunday, 9-29-2013: The Friday evening before last, 9-20-2013, I first noticed Robert’s 9-15-2013 attack on my 7-28-2013 item on the Philosophy Club website, regarding infinite repetition. I immediately set out to reply to his attack. And I finished it exactly one week later, Friday evening, 9-27-2013. It was one of my faster pieces of writing (taking me the least time to complete), even though it was only two paragraphs long. And yet that week was solid time. I did little else during the one-week span besides work on that piece of writing. I feel a little guilty for having indulged myself, but I think it was worth it, for the result. Curiously, though the subject and the argument were complicated, I spent at least as much time getting the composition and the rhythm right as I spent working out the argument. . . . I’d amend the foregoing comment by extending the period of composition by some two days. But perhaps thinking of a new version that you ultimately decide not to use, doesn’t count.
● 9-30-2013: A temporary destination is a place to which the journey is away from home; and away from which the journey is back home. An ultimate destination is one that we’re always going toward (until we reach it).
● 10-5-2013: Let it be known that at exactly 11:00 a.m., on Saturday, 5 October 2013, I, Richard J. Eisner, while reading for the second time the 2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disability, finally understood the process for rating permanent disability for California Workers’ Compensation. I’ve been frustratedly groping toward this understanding for years, and in earnest over the past few years, especially this year. This is a most encouraging development! I’ve thought of this as the point at which I could and would transition from studying Workers’ Compensation, to finding more or less full-time work as a lawyer in this field. It won’t be long now; my deliverance is at hand!
● 10-6-2013: All men are created equal . . . we are all equal . . . equal in what?, in terms of what?, equal in what way? . . . If it means equal in value, then how much value does each of us have?
● 10-15-2013: In my late teens, I described marijuana intoxication this way (I began using marijuana when I was 17): When you’re high, everything is candy.
● 10-18-2013: Sometimes we ask a question in order to know the simple or immediate answer. Other times, we ask a question in order to know the rationale or explanation for the answer, or even to know how our interlocutor would articulate the answer. In these latter cases, the person to whom we pose the question may think the question is impertinent.
● Sunday, 10-20-2013: How drunk are skunks? How well do we know the back of our hand?
● Philosophy Club meeting; topic: “consequentialism.”
● It seems to me that many, perhaps all, deontological claims can be converted to consequentialist ones. For example, “It’s morally wrong to lie” can be expressed as: “A world in which people habitually speak truthfully is better than one in which people habitually lie.”
● It strikes me that many of the attempts to avoid criticism of classic utilitarianism, as by dropping some of its requirements, or formulating variations like “agent-relative utilitarianism,” could be more simply handled by just taking account of the agent’s own happiness or unhappiness in the calculation of consequences. Of course, more fundamentally, the problem in such efforts is the assumption that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action is an objective matter, and that moral decisions can be reduced to precise formulas.
● The notion that time doesn’t exist, that there’s only a continuous present, is belied by the emotions of regret, which pertains to the past, and hope, which pertains to the future.
● Philosophy must be constrained by the facts.
● 10-22-2013: When I was getting psychotherapy in my late teens and my twenties, I envisioned my role in the therapy as passively allowing the therapist to somehow manipulate me, perhaps as a surgeon would work on an anesthetized patient. I think I was wrong. If we analogize psychotherapy to physical therapy, note that there are two sorts of physical therapy: one, like massage, in which the patient is passive—he just lies there—while the therapist actively performs the therapy. The other kind is where the therapist is a guide, but the patient does the bulk of the work, as where the therapist instructs the patient in home exercises. I think talk psychotherapy is more analogous to the latter kind of physical therapy, and I see my misconception there as a lost opportunity to make progress in my development as a person. I wonder how I and how my life would be different now had I better understood this back then.
[Later note (2021): Unlike doing home exercises for physical therapy, psychotherapy does not require you to do any specific psychotherapeutic tasks; you would probably continue to do mainly what you’re doing already, which are your tasks of living.]
● 11-12-2013: I live my life alternately (and at times simultaneously) focused on short-term and long-term concerns. An example of the longer-term focus, I determined, more or less this year, to learn (California) workers’ compensation law, and I’ve essentially succeeded. I feel I’ve now learned the basics (if only a smattering of them). And I continue to write. Which (the writing) I suppose exemplifies both kinds of concerns: short-term, because I enjoy it (or at least feel driven to do it); and long-term, because building my oeuvre is my ultimate goal. Examples of short-term activities are frequently taking long pleasure drives; watching entertaining, non-educational television programs; and endlessly polishing legal briefs, beyond what’s necessary and prudent, because they’re probably ultimately trivial, non-literary pieces of writing. I must do more of the long-term work. Which means generally working harder, and with greater determination, less concerned with immediate comfort. I must keep my eyes on the prize, and remember: Concentration, Persistence, and Pace.
● 11-16-2013: In a significant sense, to try to be good, is to be good.
● Sunday, 11-17-2013: Philosophy Club meeting; topic: “The True Self.”
● One difference between personal identity and the true self (whatever that may be) is that the fundamental part of personal identity (consciousness) remains the same through time; whereas, the true self (whatever that is) can change considerably. And yet, if the true self appears to change, how do we know that it’s not the same true self simply reacting to changing circumstances? . . . and some true selves are more flexible than others?
[Later note (2020): If I don’t know what the true self is, how can I know that it can change considerably? . . . Or perhaps I don’t know exactly what it is, but I know that much about it?]
● 11-19-2013: If you have nothing to say, but insist on speaking, at least say it with style.
● 11-24-2013: Choice, or selection, is often lauded, as a virtue of capitalism. A moment’s reflection, however, will dispel the notion that choice is necessarily a virtue. Imagine that you have three cars to choose from. One is smooth, quiet, and comfortable, yet also reliable, gasoline-conserving, and inexpensive to operate and maintain; it’s generally perfect for your needs. The other two are loud, uncomfortable, unreliable gas-guzzlers. Now, if instead you had a hundred cars to choose from, but they were all like the latter two in the first scenario, except all in different color schemes, you would have a greater number of choices, but less satisfaction.
● Thursday, 11-28-2013, Thanksgiving Day: I have just today reached completion on two fronts. One, I’ve finally finished my self-study of Workers’ Compensation, which has occupied me over most of this year, and sporadically going back over the last decade. I’ve covered certain of the subject’s basics that I had set as a goal for myself. It took me far too long, and I think my knowledge and understanding of the topic remain rudimentary; but I’ve finished it. The next step is to seek greater employment in the field, the ultimate goal being to use my advertising and thus become independently wealthy. The other completion is of my piece “Eternal Recurrence.” I may still think of ways to improve it, but I’m very pleased with it as it now is. When done (when I can no longer improve it), I’ll submit it to the LawProse people (Bryan A. Garner) as a writing sample, accepting their invitation (in a course I took through that organization). For both of these accomplishments I feel very thankful.
● 12-6-2013: In my writing, I prize elegance, even over eloquence.
● 12-8-2013: I had a strange dream: I caught a large roach in my bedroom. I was in the process of killing it, or torturing it to death, when it began to talk to me, and plead for its life. I intended to disregard its entreaties. But I let my friends know what was happening, and they seemed critical of my course of action. I eventually concluded that, because the insect had sufficient intelligence to verbally communicate with me, it would be wrong to kill it, and so I let it go, or at least planned to do so.
● Friday, 12-13-2013: I recently took Bryan A. Garner’s seminar Advanced Legal Writing and Editing, and have purchased one of his many books, Garner on Language and Writing. In the book, he recommends keeping a daily journal, documenting each day’s events and thoughts. That’s to some extent what I’ve been doing in this document. But I don’t do so daily, as Garner recommends. I’ll try doing so now; we’ll see how long the practice lasts. Thus:
● I did a smattering of activities today. I did my weekly laundry; I read a few articles on unconscious biases, in preparation for this Sunday’s Philosophy Club meeting; I read a few items in Garner on Language and Writing; I finished listening to an interview with writing teacher John Trimble (whose book I’ve ordered); I called David Park to meet with him about the DentMart case . . .. I may have mis-reacted to a slammed door from the east next-door neighbors. It set off a series of retaliations from various of those neighbors, and soured my whole day. But that’s a natural result: when a sound (like door-slamming) is cultivated as an angry sound, in order to express hostility, to use as a weapon; it’s natural, to be expected, that the victim will at times interpret it as hostile, even when it’s not. Nonetheless, I aim for accuracy of perception in this regard.
Yesterday I received another check from Attorney Lyle Mink, another installment of my referral fee on the case I referred to him (he pays me as he receives his fees). It was a shot in the arm for me, not so much for the money in this installment ($600), as much as for the reassurance that he hasn’t reneged on the agreement (there’s a lot more money still coming to him on this case, and I had feared that he had stopped paying me). I tend to “catastrophize,” both negatively and positively, meaning that I tend to fear that bad changes, or to wishfully think that good ones, are the start of trends, rather than (as is usually the case) mere aberrations. This mental tendency probably accounts for many suicides: a person in great pain thinks that the pain is, not merely transient, but permanent (so that the only way to escape from it is to kill himself).
Garner advises not to edit the daily journal installments, and I’ll try to take his advice. Requiring that I edit each day’s entry (since I write so slowly) would discourage such daily writing.
On Monday of this week, I had very good news from my intellectual-property lawyer, Robert Berliner. One of the competitors for the 1-888-Su-Abogado trademark, has withdrawn its application, leaving just one rival. Just as important, to my mind, was Mr. Berliner’s response to my own argument I sent him in favor of granting the trademark to me. Mr. Berliner told me that my argument is useful. Since I thought the argument was quite good, it being usable would seem to make more probable a favorable result in the matter.
I’ll talk to Attorney Sef Krell next week about doing more work for him in workers’ compensation.
It’s been a good week.
● More Daily Journal material. Last Sunday, 12-8-2013, I took my usual drive to the desert, and, very unusually, one area I drove through was covered with snow. It was beautiful.
At the last philosophy club meeting, I had an interesting experience. After reading the suggested materials (in preparation for the meeting), I didn’t have a definite opinion or thesis on the topic (which is unusual for me—I almost always have one). I was more favorably impressed than usual with the perspicacity of the other participants’ remarks. Several possible explanations occur to me. One is that, when I do have thoughts of my own, they’re more perceptive than those of the other members; and so the others’ ideas appear weaker, by comparison with my own actually superior thoughts. A more troubling interpretation is that I have a vested interest in my own perceptions being superior to those of others, and when I have thoughts of my own on a certain subject, I subconsciously devalue those of others, to be able to consider mine superior.
● I’m going to start a list of Things that Make Sense. My first entry is the “Baby on Board” signs that some persons hang in the rear window of their cars. These are a very good safety feature. Why, just the other day, I was about to rear-end another car. But then I noticed that sign, and I thought: “Oh, better not!”
● Sunday, 12-15-2013: Philosophy Club meeting (10th anniversary). Topic: “Implicit Biases.” Everyone has implicit biases. Whatever its relevance (or lack of relevance) to the topic, this thought was at least prompted by the topic. I’ve noticed a certain inconsistency or double standard in myself: If someone else’s act hurts me, I tend to impute malice to him (even though in many cases the harm is probably unintended, or deserved), but when I (accidentally and unjustly) hurt someone else (when I’m aware of having done so), I rationalize my action.
Daily Journal: I didn’t have much to contribute to this evening’s discussion, and I didn’t go to dinner with the group afterward. I felt I lacked the mental energy to be a good guest. . . . I feel threadbare.
● 12-21-2013: I once wrote a paper for a philosophy class, in which paper I tried to practice the lessons from a book I’d been reading on writing style. I got an “F” on the paper, because I was following the book’s advice, “Don’t be afraid to use contractions,” in which I had misread “contractions” as “contradictions.” My philosophy professor did, however, comment favorably on my style.
● If you find yourself thinking that what you’re about to do is “against your better judgment,” reconsider it. (Why would you ever purposely act against your better judgment?)
● 12-22-2013: I’m now reading Writing with Style, by John R. Trimble. In it he reprints H. L. Mencken’s essay “Literature and the Schoolmarm.” It seems to me that all of Mencken’s bombastic conclusions in the piece are given the lie by its first four words: “With precious few exceptions”. In other words, all of the supposedly absolute principles Mencken espouses are not absolute at all.
● Sunday, 12-29-2013: Well, it’s been a year. Another year. Which I suppose you could say every day. Anyway, this is one of my two traditional times every year when I write an annual, or semiannual, retrospective. In my mind, 2013 will be marked by my completion of self-study of California workers’ compensation law; of my July 27th very short composition “Infinite Repetition”; and of “Eternal Recurrence.” This year I also contributed to a short legal brief submitted in support of my application for a trademark on 1-888-SU-ABOGADO. If, miraculously, I’m actually granted the trademark, I’ll remember both 2013 and 2014 for that great consummation as well. (. . . It doesn’t seem like much of an accomplishment for a whole year.)