Thoughts on Piketty's "Capital in the 21st Century...

I think I gotta read this.

Doctorow's paraphrase of one idea seems pretty insightful:

Indeed, an unwillingness to tax creates all kinds of evils. For starters, if a state can't fund its core programs out of tax, it has to borrow. And when it borrows, it borrows from the rich. So instead of taxation -- which weakens the fortunes and political influence of the wealthy -- we get bonds, through which the wealthy are paid interest out of the funds extracted from those who lack the political clout to escape taxation. The wealthy get more wealthy, and exert more political pressure.

So, one question I wrote about a few years ago: why do so many people conflate "openness" and "vulnerability", when to me they seem diametrically opposed - like, because I'm so resilient, and so not vulnerable, I am able to be fully open and candid about myself.

Talking with my sweetie L. - she desperately wants me have a more gushing kind of way, to be a good return the lift force on the seesaw of romance, and to live less gated, both for my sake and the sake of the viability of the romance. But during one conversation it hit me that there's confusion when people talk about "openness".

One sense, the one I was running with before, is "openness to inspection" - candor, fearlessness in introspection. I have that in spades.

But there's another sense: "openness to change", flexibility, the possibility of growth. And sure, in that case I have a lot more work to do.

(And ironically, being good at the first kind of openness can make you worse at the second; you give reasons and justifications and explanations but then it sounds like you're digging in your heels. I mean growth and change ISN'T easy, and you also have to trust that the changes being asked for are ultimately a good kind of growth, but hopefully understanding why things are they are doesn't become an excuse for leaving them that way.)

So. L lives more viscerally, I live more gated. The example that I keep coming back to was when we were watching "Alien: Romulus" with her boys. Her reaction to the jump scares was almost comic... like REALLY jumping along with it. And I was enjoying the movie's thrills, but I wasn't really that MOVED (literally) by them.

In other conversations L has framed my way of living as a "control thing" - a description on one level I kind of hate and reject, but on another level I have to admit has some truth to it...if I'm not careful I'd always live gated and never going for the gusto.

So why do I resist the "control thing" phrasing? Two things: one is, my "control" is not so much a conscious choice- it's just the way I've subconsciously shaped myself. So I'm "controlled" yeah, but like.. I'm not *controlling* the control, not deciding to control. And to me, "control" is more an act of will. (In fact, going forward I'll have to use a higher level of willful control in order to live LESS controlled, less gated...)

The second objection is... "control" for me is a means, not an end. I'm not in control for the sake of control, it's to serve the greater purpose of my sense of obligation to the world. Like, I can't live up to what the world needs from me if I'm not reliable, and I guess over the years I found raw driving emotions to be unreliable. I get worried about letting an unruly inner child run the place.

That's a place for growth that I am still dealing with. My subconscious self, the hubbub of internal parts that make up me? It's a rowdy bunch. I don't know if years living with a level of "rational" control means my internal family is less grown up than others? But between, like, the angst and anxiety I get around work and what not, my inability to make good eating decisions in the moment (if delicious food is available at hand, it's pretty much game over for me, willpower wise), the ferocious anger that sometimes comes out, just rage at malfunctioning programs or unreasonable greedy people? I admit it feels like a reason to be worried about living more viscerally and directly.

But, "gated, uptight, and implacable is no way to go through life, son". Going through my 70-80s years here on the planet without sucking more marrow out of life seems like a loss, and that's some of why it's worth pushing on this. And also for the sake of L.

Pairs well with:

I'm almost 50, and here is the best thing I have learned so far: every strange thing you've ever been into, every failed hobby or forgotten instrument, everything you have ever learned will come back to you, will serve you when you need it. No love, however brief, is wasted.

---

This is beyond stupid. FDA to limit COVID boosters to over 65s

Why on God's Green Earth would you want more COVID?

COVID, while not as blatantly menacing and death producing as the first waves, still has long term effects in a way flu, say, doesn't.

Links in there are open to public comment. "but her EMAILS"
meanwhile

---

i am disappointed that of all the ice cream varieties at my local supermarket none of them seem to be Apple Pie or similar.

---

via - really cool stuff!

"I loved Sarah, Charles. It was mine, that love. I owned it. Even Sarah didn't have the right to take it away. I can love whoever I want."
"But she thought you were pathetic."
"That was her business, not mine. You are what you love, not what loves you."

---

We're all one thing, Lieutenant. That's what I've come to realize. Like cells in a body. 'Cept we can't see the body. The way fish can't see the ocean. And so we envy each other. Hurt each other. Hate each other. How silly is that? A heart cell hating a lung cell.

It's interesting that what might be some of the better lines the actual Charlie Kaufman gives to his alter-ego "twin". Or maybe they're not better lines, they're meant to be a little corny or at least facile. Or not! I think the movie promotes that ambiguity. It so incredibly meta. Almost two far eating its own tail for even my taste, but maybe it bears more examination or rewatch.

---

Basically, every piece of information you add multiplies the odds of you getting blindsided by some vector of misunderstanding you didn't anticipate, even as it addresses the ones you did anticipate. The point of diminishing returns where continuing to elaborate increases the odds of unexpected miscommunication more than it decreases the odds of expected miscommunication is much nearer than you'd like.

The most effective act of communication is not the one which contains the most possible information, but the one which contains the *smallest* amount of information it possibly can while still getting its point across. It sucks, but it's the reality of the situation. People far more autistic than you have been trying for hundreds of years to invent a way of communicating which doesn't work this way, without success.

All of which is to say that "getting to the damn point" is legitimately a communication skill, not just an accommodation for people who aren't paying attention.

I know I am terrible at this- I often start with the counterpoint to my main idea, so as to acknowledge the debate or just show how smart I am for understanding both sides.