God, homosexuality, and the problem of H. sapiens.

Homosexuality is one of those things like war and poverty that men have looked at uncomprehendingly since the beginning.

It is my feeling that my own language, based on sixteen characters I cannot share because I haven't the stamina to research how to get a computer to produce them, is responsible for certain positions I have taken on the frontiers of civilization, one of them my position that homosexuality is best eliminated, with as much care as possible not to cause the individual comfort of these people to be encroached on. That homosexuality is a sign of a dysfunctional civilization, even a dysfunctional species, is easy to see for those who also see that there is no God. Unfortunately there are billions of people who don't see that about God, and this makes it a demanding task to have a reasonable discussion about homosexuality, even speaking alone as a writer does.

So here is my position:

This species is subject to universal substitution of sufficiency, as a valid motive of comment, for progress in argument. If a comment has some way in which it can be taken immediately as sufficiently motivated, with a threshold of sufficiency on the order of what allows people to remain unmoved, to fit where it does into a discussion, then that comment is justifiable under the universal consensus of the species. Thus outfitted, the members of this species propagate their status gotten by the generosity of others far away and perhaps long ago, without having to do any Goddam thing of their own to progress beyond war, poverty, and homosexuality. As a state of species motivation, this amounts to an enormous bulk of material precious to each person that commands attention only because some or other rule of order allows it, and thus the beast is so arrayed for being out at pasture.

The species is proud of its self-image. It associates that image with God. In fact, there is no argument in it. Modern appliances in a civilization that has no argument preventing the occurrence of war and panic seems to me what we expect of children. "Don't worry about learning how to earn a living now. It's time to play and have fun. Worry about earning a living when you're older."

The argument is harder than this. So far I have dealt in plausibilities. These are closer to argument than sufficiency, but still not as argumentative as what the best science demands. I am not arguing with a prototypical individual, but with what I can make out to be a statistical description of the whole population, without depending on the existence of some who agree with me. Those who agree with me will have their battles but until progress is made in the discussion with the whole population there is no solace from being not alone.

Truth is fine. Navigating points of argument is considerably wider in scope. It cannot be done by professing commitment to truth. What is in common with all H. sapiens? What frequency are its other characteristics, not in common? Those who have seen the greatest variation in these characteristics are confined by the things in common. There knowledge is blocked.

Let me rest. Call it be-ers block.

Life poor

Resource distribution is the central conundrum of economics. It has one character amidst wealth and a different one amidst poverty.

I live a poor man among the mentally ill, who are unable to beat stigma and therefore can at best command a living on social security. I have observed life among these people and found it rampant with larceny and indolence. These fester because they are not improved over time by life experience. Furthermore, they tend to cloister themselves out of reach of policing, with the result that injustice becomes normal, and this lowers expectations all around.

I more or less expected this when I decided to become poor when I was a freshman at Yale.

The only hope for the poor is in nobles who see how thoroughly immoral wealthy people are and decide to become poor instead.

life design at Yale

When I was a freshman at Yale I rapidly accumulated a sense about other students. They were almost all bent on material success. I considered their humane values poor and I wanted to pursue a more noble path by aiming to be poor.

I certainly have succeeded.

But I find that, being poor, I can't eat as well as I would like. I realized at Yale that finding a spouse would be difficult if I were poor. I didn't realize I would have trouble eating well. Knowing a spouse would be problem I have worked on that ever since. I believe that I have made progress in that matter, with my courtship of Crystal Newell. However, I have not made progress in the matter of eating well. It is bounded by income.

Being poor was a frightening prospect when I was young. I soon realized I had put myself irrevocably down a road that would prove more difficult than I desired life to be. I began to improvise ways to avoid it. I tried majoring in economics. That didn't work. I tried architecture. Here I was confused by the difference between nobility and professional ability. It drove me insane.

Insanity completed my trajectory into poverty.

Now poverty has proven to be a task master of the highest order.

English transformation art is a noble business. Nobility is profitable only at vast scale. The final vast scale is time.

The blog art sale is up. Time will hone it.