Sunday, August 2, 2026

The Narrative of Coherence.

Everyday, you remember a history that you never lived, you spend your day seeing things that may or may not be real, thinking you will remember them, and you die, every night, only to wake up as a whole new person instilled with memories you didn't have, of things you didn't see. 

Each morning the self assembles itself from fragments. The history that greets you upon waking is not a sealed archive recovered intact, but a reconstruction—stitched from residual traces, emotional residues, and the brain’s ceaseless urge to impose narrative coherence. Some of those traces may never have belonged to the body that now claims them. Suggestion, time, and the soft pressure of identity have already rewritten passages. You remember a childhood that has been gently edited, a conversation that tilted toward the version most useful to the present self, a face that has borrowed details from elsewhere. The past you inherit is real enough to orient you, yet porous enough that portions of it may never have occurred as remembered. In that narrow sense, you begin the day carrying a history you never fully lived.


Throughout the daylight hours the world arrives already interpreted. Light strikes the retina; pressure waves reach the ear; the brain, never passive, generates a best-guess model of what those signals mean. The model is constrained by the signals, yet it is the model that is experienced. Gaps are filled, expectations color the present, and the continuous field of vision is partly invented where photoreceptors are absent. What appears solid and external is, in the moment of its appearing, a controlled construction. It tracks reality closely enough for survival, yet it remains a construction. Things seen may therefore be, in some measure, things made. The distinction between the real and the merely perceived softens without vanishing.


At night the construction falters. Consciousness withdraws. The continuous stream of experience ceases. In the classical sense of subjective continuity, something like death occurs: the thread is cut, the witness gone. Dreams may flicker, but they do not preserve the daylight self intact. Then, hours later, a self reconstitutes. It inherits the body, the name, the bulk of the previous day’s narrative, and the slow accretions of memory consolidated in sleep. Yet the inheritance is never perfect. New consolidations have occurred; subtle reweightings of emotion and priority have taken place; the self-model has been updated in ways the previous day’s consciousness cannot fully claim. You awaken continuous enough to recognize yourself, discontinuous enough that the person who closed their eyes is not, in every particular sense, the one who opens them. And they, or you, never will be.


Each human eye has a physiological blind spot (also called the optic disc or punctum caecum) where the optic nerve exits the retina. In that small area there are no photoreceptors (rods or cones), so no visual information is detected there. Instead the brain uses binocular cues, and perceptual fill in to guide you away from a 5-7° area of complete visual darkness you never noticed, by hallucinating away the two dark spots we should all see.


Memory does not work like a video camera that stores and plays back exact recordings. Instead, it is an active, reconstructive process. When you remember an event, your brain rebuilds it from stored fragments, general knowledge (schemas), expectations, emotions, and current context. Gaps are filled in, details can shift, and the memory can change slightly each time it is retrieved. This was demonstrated classically by Frederic Bartlett’s “War of the Ghosts” studies in the 1930s and has been confirmed extensively since.


You will fall asleep, and if you are lucky, a different you will wake up tomorrow. Do something you might not forget, if you even saw it happen.

Saturday, September 13, 2025

Don't kill me for having an opinion.

I am not a right wing extremist. I tow no party line. The assassination of Charlie Kirk, however, has made me realize that I tend to look over my shoulder, or stay quiet, during political discussion, because, I, am "a nice guy" and "don't really want to offend anyone." That's done. You removed that option when you justified and celebrated the cowardly murder of a man that did nothing but reach out to others, primarily impressionable youth, for an honest discussion. 



Here are my opinions regarding Charlie Kirks so called offensive points:


Yes, gun violence does exist, but all good people deserve the right to self defense to protect their families, the actions of bad people does not negate that right. The gun never made anything more or less dangerous. Just as he asked about cars, "they kill people, yes, but isn't that better to have than not?" That is correct.


Immigration: it is a fact that several million people, 11 million from 2020 to 2025, 3 million in 2023 alone, emigrated to the United States. Many of which had their trips paid for or subsidized by various charities or NGOs in the pursuit of demographic and voter replacement. The additional incentives of illegal immigrant resources that far out value the resources available to american homeless and veterans underscores the point that this was an intentioned agenda to diminish the voice of the American voter. This, to me isn't really debatable regardless of your position on the morality of free movement.


Abortion: I disagree strongly with Charlie's stance on abortion, as while I appreciate life as gift, as he did, I don't think anyone's life is your obligation at the expense of your own health or autonomy. It would be illegal to force you to give up your kidney to save another life, it shouldn't be any different for a uterus. Charlie referenced Exodus 21:22-25 a few times, saying that a murderer killing a pregnant mother has killed two people, which isn't wrong, and already the law in the United States. Abortion is never mentioned in the Bible, and mostly brought up by evangelicals. I am not one, and stand on my own principles.


The civil rights act of 1964:  This was a moderately debatable mistake, not because it granted marginalized people freer access to formerly segregated spaces, but because it had the side effect of eroding the wealth primarily built up by African American entrepreneurs. The African American community suffered, lost generational wealth and shifted to a welfare system, which, generationally, has done them no favors. When Charlie quoted racial violence statistics he wasn't wrong, but was seeking to debunk the idea that bad things only happen to African Americans because of white people. That idea is ridiculous and easily debunked.


The real hotbed, and most likely why he was killed: There are only two genders. This isn't to say I'm offended by how you want to dress, how you want to act, or how you present your sexuality. I am not. I am opposed to to the policing of someone else's speech, demanding of your own beliefs to be echoed by myself regardless of my reality, and the replacement of women in their spaces or sports. This is not hate, this is a refusal to accept fantasy as reality due to threats of force.


RFK spoke, shortly after MLK's assassination that the country could be filled with “a desire for revenge.” Or, he said, the nation could try to replace violence “with an effort to understand.” 


I don't want to hide anymore, these are my opinions, please, try to make an effort to understand, try to change my mind even, but don't kill me just for having an opinion.

Friday, February 21, 2014

Still a Question of Power





Those who argue that Wind and Solar are much cleaner, forget the cost of mining the materials needed, and the amount of energy (and in fact the petroleum they are trying to move away from) it takes to produce a turbine or solar panel.

The energy requirements of this planet are about 20 trillion Kilowatt hours annually last time I looked. The average large commercial solar array setup packaged for sale in extremely sunny areas produces, again, the last time I looked, about, 1750kWh a year, going down to  less than 7-800kWh a year in places like Europe. With our Sunny figure, we are still looking at like 12 billion such arrays, at a huge cost in both real estate, and actual cost to the environment.

Solar panels = strip mining. The production of poly-silicates is expensive, energy intensive, and requires large amounts of materials mined from the earth, and a large amount of waste to be produced. A good indicator of the actual cost of these products is to look directly at the cost of producing them. These commercial setups run a bit over 10 grand a piece in USD, this is the result of the energy and material requirements to produce them, and since solar panels don't grow on trees, we can go back to the old truism "If it can't be grown, someone mined it"

With the optimistic life cycle of a solar array at about 30 years, when someone says whimsically "wouldn't it be great if the whole earth was powered by solar panels" what they are really saying is that we should spend $400,000,000,000 every year ([cost of array] x [number of arrays needed] / [30 years])  to continually strip mine the planet so we can continue to build and replace solar panels. This is overly simplified, of course there are economic savings in systems of scale, but you get the idea. I'm not even touching on the idea that planetary energy consumption is growing at an enormous rate every year and you would continually have to be adding capacity to the grid. A grid that now covers huge portions of the planet, blocking light we could use for things like growing crops.

This may be an improvement over coal, but its hardly sustainable energy the way it is packaged and sold. The primary reason I can see that there is a large push for it (and countries like Germany have shown this), is because it is energy and labor intensive. It may not ever meet planetary requirements for power, it may drastically increase the cost of energy for everyone, it may change the landscape of the planet forever, but hey, at least everyone can have a job.

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Dear Media, your malicious misappropriation of terms without offering new definition is seeping in and destroying the collective consciousness and creating a generation of twatwaffles who dont know who they are, but know who they are against, even if they dont know what those people stand for either. Here, try this, and see how well your stories work with defined terms. What? They don't make sense? Makes you sound like a moronic asshole?

Left = Those members of the French post revolutionary system who believed that the privileges of the state were provided by the inherent rights of man, could not exceed those rights, and had a duty to protect them, for the good of all. Liberal, from liberalis, those gracious with the liberties of man

Right = Those members of the French post revolutionary system who believed that the privileges of man were provided by the inherent rights of the state, could not exceed those rights, and had a duty to protect them, for the good of all. Conservative, from conservativus, those who retain those liberties within the state.




Thursday, March 29, 2012

Thursday, June 3, 2010

When War Ceases to be Fought Against Armies.


Jennifer III has an excellent article about the growing shift in international defense systems in a world that becomes increasingly interdependent and increasingly unstable. Once the only fear the nations of the world had was that they might be invaded by another nation, but today the major concern playing out on the geopolitical stage is that nations themselves might simply cease to be viable, lose legitimacy, obedience, respect, and the support they require to exist. Around the world, the boogieman of historical national rivalries, for which every nation must be militarily prepared to defend themselves against, are being replaced with a new boogieman, a new target, the real threat. The people.

The wars of the future will not be fought against armies of different flags, they will be fought, desperately, against people, ideas, and systems. We have seen it before, from reconstruction to the civil rights movement through the 70's to the two concurrent wars currently being waged by the US Commander in (Nobel) Peace, but we can only expect such a trend to continue, and expand. As Tomas Ries pointed out in a 2009 ISS paper on the future ambitions of an EU military, the number one threat to EU stability is growing intrasocietal tensions between the global wealthy and the problems of the poor.

"Technology is shrinking the world into a global village, but it is a global village on the verge of revolution"

I applaud Jennifer III for the clarity with which she explains whats going on, today, and what you should know about it.

Read it here:
http://www.itakeliberty.com/2010/05/attention-shifts-to-4gw/

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Ending the Debate on Due Process at the Point of a Missile.

Nat Hentoff wrote an article for CATO on Targeted Killings, a worrying trend in the ultimate extralegal power of government to decide who lives and dies, giving a much needed update on the potential situations arising that I warned about about in April of last year in an article called Targeted For Termination - Assassination in the 21st Century.




During a Feb. 3 hearing before the House Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair testified that the U.S. intelligence community, when dealing with direct terrorist threats to the United States, does "take direct action against terrorists" (Washington Post, Feb. 4).

And "if we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that."

Glenn Greenwald, a former constitutional lawyer turned news analyst, avoids euphemisms. "Special permissions" without judicial authorization, says Greenwald, amounts to "basically giving the president the power to impose death sentences on his own citizens without any charges or trial" (Salon.com, Feb. 4)


Read the rest here: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11259

H/T Renae

Tempus Fugit