Numb and number

“Numbers are but a poor exchange for a true friend”

The number 47 has, in the past perhaps year, perhaps a bit more, perhaps (although this latter possibility is less likely than the others) less, made many appearances in various spheres of human life. The general reaction, however, seems to be of everyone noticing it, but few mentioning it. Having said that, it is probably not true that everyone notices it, but the number seems sufficiently large. The number seems to have the characteristic of upside-downness (perhaps similarly to how a foetus would be placed in the womb) and would, in Levi-Strauss’s terms, be closer to the poles of nature (instead of culture) and living in the bush (instead of in the village). Perhaps it is a way in which instincts, whenever they are near total repression, come back to remind the person that whatever he or she is doing is unacceptable to them (this does, however, not mean that if one’s instincts fail to grant one their auspices, that that is necessarily a basis for forfeiting one’s intentions). This would also explain why 47 seems to have the characteristic of upside-downness – whenever one is repressed one regresses to earlier stages of libido development, and a regression of a large degree supposes a repression of a large degree also.

Here is a list of some lesser mentioned appearances of the number 47:

Boeing 747
Is probably operative in some people’s suggestion (which I do not support) to shorten the work week to 4 working days
Albert Camus was editor-in-chief of a publication titled Combat from 1944 to 1947, lived to almost 47 years of age and published “The Plague” in 1947
This article
The band l7 is said to have acquired its name from slang for calling someone a square. This is also probably a form of 47
The 4th of July
Is mentioned in The Connels’ song “’74-’75”
Independence day of Lithuania falls on the 47th day of the year

Energy afforded towards meeting same and differing sex family members’ needs as cause of political ideology one adopts or creates

To the extent that a person uses more or less of his or her energy towards meeting the needs of his or her same or differing (“differing”, because the use of the word “opposite” would exclude intersex people) sex family members, he or she will be more or less likely to adopt or create certain kinds of political ideologies. If he or she uses more energy towards meeting the needs of same sex family members, he or she will be “to the right”; if more energy is expended towards meeting the needs of differing sex family members, then the person will be “to the left”.
This is so because the attitudes – even if people’s egos have a remarkable capacity to override such inherent-in-a-person’s-nature attitudes – inherent in same or differing sex family interaction are the things that cause a person to hold more favorably or create and express positions that make up the different political ideologies; when in their political-ideology form they are sublimated positions which have as their origins that which exists, primarily, between the person and his or her family members or others to whom he or she is significantly attached. In the same way as same sex family members are competitors for differing sex family members, so do right-wing ideologies, as a sublimated attitude of obedience, call for respect towards traditions and protection of authority and that which has been given to the present generations by their forebearers. The leftists call for “revolution” and “disobedience towards authority”, but these are matricidal and patricidal tendencies sublimated, and, in their extreme form – such as in what Karl Marx has written, – should be extremely condemned. And in the same way as sexual attraction is an important feature of differing sex family interaction, so do communists call for “communism”, fulfilment of “man’s needs” and so on, while those on the right voice their opposition to those in the family of a different sex than they are by using such metaphors as “the Nanny state”, adopt an unfavorable position towards taxes etc.
This is also evidenced by certain expressions of a more or less personal nature by proponents of various ideologies. Friedrich Engels, for example, believed in the abolition of the family in favor of basing all of social organisation on the romantic couple. “If I had an income of 5,000 francs, I would do nothing but work and amuse myself with women until I went to pieces” he is said to have once told Marx.
Marx contributed, in part, to his father’s death, when, around the age of 23, he made the decision to become a political radical. The Communist Manifesto reads “[l]et the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution”, but these are the depths of the Oedipus complex. His radicalism seems to have been in large part an outcome of the fact that he was under extreme control of his malevolent wife, although he himself bears part of the responsibility for it too. Aside from having fathered an illegitimate child with the family maid, one aspect of Marx and Jenny von Westphalen’s marriage was the fact that four of Marx’s children died very young. Of the three that survived beyond their teens, all were girls, while of the four that died three were boys. This is why one of the meanings of “classless society” is “childless marriage”, childless, at least, in the sense of eliminating one’s same sex competitors.
Richard Weikart’s article, which is refefenced above, states that “[a]lthough he probably fathered an illegitimate child, otherwise he was apparently a model husband and remained faithful to his wife.” It is only a marxist that could say that – as if those things are not contradictory or Marx’s non-disclosure of this to his wife could not have influenced his views.
The distinction between communism and anarchism has its origins in the psychological distinction between more and less awareness which further arises, probably, out of the distinction between an open and tight sphincter. Anarchism corresponds to the less awareness end of the pole. The psychological distinction is also the same as that referred to when the words “sacred” (less awareness) and “profane” (more awareness) are used; indeed, these are but different words for the same thing. The same holds true for the distinction between right-wing libertarianism and fascism.
Based on the above considerations, one can construct a square of family-interaction attitudes which correspond to positions on the level of politics. The grouping of political ideologies that I use in my thinking is that which is provided by the site. Based on their distinctions, political ideologies are categorised into four categories: communism, anarchism, right-wing libertarianism and fascism. The distinction between right and left corresponds to the distinction that suicide and matricide have with incest and parricide. When one is more or less aware of one’s motivations that corresponds to the distinctions that left and right wing categories have within them – communism is thus differentiated from anarchism, and right-wing libertarianism from fascism.



The fall towards incest, rise of fascism and a human constructed “god” as a possibility of the future development of the Universe

The rise of fascism which occured over the last, perhaps year, perhaps a bit more, is something which, it is very likely, exists concurrently, both in today’s society and in principle as an instance of people adopting reciprocal positions which is an expression of wanting to stabilise one’s relationships, with the fall of western society towards a derestriction of incestuous desires.

But the rise of fascism is also something which is poorly suited to counteract the problem since none of the policies proposed by the likes of Donald Trump – such as cracking down on immigrants, women, black people and others – are directed at addressing the behaviour which is very likely the source of a lot of tension in today’s world.

Many developments of recent times, such as UKIP campaigning for Britain to leave the EU, an Austrian right winger’s tight grip during the electoral race (which, after the overturning of the vote, is not yet ended), the rise of Donald Trump, and others, are very rightward, some reaching a fascist extreme.

Another part of the Western population, however, are behaving in a way to behave in which is to do something of the extreme opposite end, namely, they are engaging in incest. Someone posted a thread to the social networking site Reddit with the title “[B/S] How I (19) came inside of my sister (21) while we were 5 feet away from my parents”. This is almost as extreme as it gets, although one might doubt whether it is not something that was written by a person hired and tasked with creating demand by a pornography company. Whatever the case, it is only one of large numbers of posts and is not an example from the only source. If one goes to a pornography website, one notices that a large amount of videos depict “step sisters” engaging in sex with their “step brothers”, or “step sons” engaging in sex with their “step mothers”. This tendency has not, at least in as marked a way as it is now, been present 10 years ago.

If one would forbid, in a way the severity of which would be similar to what China is now doing to some of its lawyers, human rights activists and foreign non-governmental organisations, people to engage in incest, it would likely have a very strong stabilising influence on society.

I do, however, want to make another point. Almost incomparably more desirable as it is to a society that is unstable, weak and prone to extremes, a well-functioning society is a goal limited in a humanity-as-itself-imperfect sense. If one accepts the dual nature of human beings, the conflict between the ego and the id, which, in turn, is connected, in its origins and nature, to the different, at least at a low, essential level, influence that one’s same and differing sex family members have on one during early development, one is still stuck in a life of – even if people are able, sometimes in ways the achievement of which requires an extraordinary amount of effort, to manage this – a never-ending juggling of the different forces impacting one. A possible route out of all of this, in my opinion, is to heed the ideas of some of the leading scientists of current times who – even if their predictions are such that they do not speak of the continuation of human society, at least in the form in which it exists now, over the long term – predict that “god” might be something that humans themselves might construct and that this is one possible scenario of where the development of the Universe – and humanity along with it – might be going.

The questionableness of cemeteries and the cockroach that turned left

What I will say in this post is very likely to have a negative effect on Chomsky, and this is – in part, – why I first want to mention another thing.

The thing is the very urgent yet addressed only in an extremely limited way need, characteristic of the moment in history in which I and everyone else now exist, to not let the deceased decompose by burying them underground.

The possibility that it will become possible – within a timeframe of anything between a few and perhaps thirty, forty or – at the maximum – fifty years – to revive these people is by now of such magnitude that not making a decision to seriously consider some large scale implementation – although not in a way which would impinge on a person’s right to not have this done to him or her if there is an absence of his or her own consent – of cryonics would be a mistake of a very large magnitude.

The only counterargument to giving this serious consideration is that there is some possibility – which is not a possibility that I can with certainty claim doesn’t exist, although in my opinion it is something the likelihood of which is very low – that human beings are beings who are by nature impermanent, that is, that the very condition of a person being alive somehow depends on the fact that he or she will have to die. I do not hold to this belief, although I cannot prove otherwise.

Anyway, what I wanted to say was this:

A New York Times interviewer once asked Chomsky whether he ever was psychoanalyzed. His response was:

“I do not think psychoanalysis has a scientific basis. If we can’t explain why a cockroach decides to turn left, how can we explain why a human being decides to do something?”

When Chomsky spoke of the cockroach, what he expressed, rather remotely, was an inner interaction between a person and an internalized image of another, that shows a high level of inequality between the two (and, by extension, between the person and the actual other). One is so high up that the other starts to feel, in relation, as a cockroach, the one taking the high position in this case probably being Chomsky’s father.

The words cock and roach also point to a fear that his father might castrate him.

But what Chomsky is also communicating is a particular kind of answer to the problem of how to manage the influence of one’s same and differing sex family members, usually first thought of as one’s father and mother, although it does not necessarily have to be only one’s father and/or one’s mother. Chomsky holds – and is in part led to hold – (which is the source of all of his political work) that the right way to answer the question is that, even if one’s father was or is very strict, one should still choose to be closer (“turn left”) to one’s mother. He further adds that, in his case, he does so because his mother – or, rather, the inner image of her that is present in his psyche – (“human being”) is very strong (the meaning of the word “decides” should not be understood as that it actually decides, its meaning is something like “influences” or “strongly influences”).

Chomsky is an epitome of having gone in the direction into which he has gone but what he said when he said that sentence is, in my mind, enough to know that it is not the right direction.

One is most likely to achieve good results in one’s attempts to find ways to relate to others when both oneself and other people wish for that which is incompatible when one takes moderate positions.

A comment on the decision to call the referendum in Britain over its EU membership and a proposed solution to the problem

The decision to call a referendum in Britain over whether it should stay in or leave the European Union was a threat of punishment which induced a rather high degree of confusion among the British people.

The reason it is properly regarded as a threat of punishment is because no one, except for marginal numbers of people, wanted to leave the EU. People in Britain might have had differing opinions about the appropriateness of particular requirements the EU set on Britain, but almost no one wanted to leave the Union itself.

It is also the case that people did not only regard it as an unnecessary step, the degree of undesirability of this decision – the decision to exit the EU – was extreme.

The reason for this, first and foremost, is that the EU was and – even though the decisions of British politicians can, in a way which is likely not to result in negative consequences of too great an extent, weaken this role – is an ensurer of peace and stability both among the countries of Europe but also on an international level.

If one considers doing something to you that you do not want to an extreme extent and makes known to you that he or she is considering this – then this is a threat of punishment.

Some people, now that the referendum has passed and a larger number of British citizens voted to “leave” (which in my opinion is not what they wanted when they chose this option), might shift over to a preference to leave the EU, but if given a genuine opportunity to not exit the Union, most, in my opinion, would want to avoid the decision to make any such change to the relationship between the EU and their country.

But another aspect of the decision to put forth the question to the British people was that David Cameron, the person who made the decision, – even if he was unaware of the nature of the decision that he was taking – did not have the right to ask such a question by means of calling a referendum, nor in many other forms (it would not be right to say that, for example, a conducting of an opinion poll on the part of the government with the purpose of asking this question would always and necessarily be inappropriate, although I do not see how it could be justified on more than rare occasions, and even then it would not necessarily be obvious or easy to determine whether it, that is, the act of asking, is appropriate or not). It is also the case that, given the very high level of not wanting to leave the EU that was (and, to a large extent, in my opinion, still is) characteristic of British people, not only did the former Prime Minister not have a right to call the referendum, no one else would have had such a right as well. The fact that almost no one wanted it and it was still called explains why it produced a rather high degree of confusion among the British people.

The question that was asked in the referendum was akin to asking the British people whether they would like to be punished or no. This is a kind of question that one cannot answer except for either remaining silent and not responding at all or challenging the question itself. If one responds by saying that he or she does not want to be punished – which, in the case of the Brexit referendum, was the same as voting that one wants Britain to stay in the EU – one accepts the other person’s right to have asked the question, which is incoherent with the response that the person conveys on a higher level. When one is entangled into such an interaction – where one’s attempt to protect one’s interests on one level necessarily results in an affliction on another level – this has the effect of, which is an effect which can produce a significant amount of fear, limiting a person’s awareness of what his or her own wishes actually are. That is, one is entangled into a situation where one thinks that one resists a threat – and hence, is acting in accordance with one’s wishes – but is at the same time negatively affected by the other person on another, lower, level (that is, lower level of interaction). It is not true that a person cannot become more aware of this, nor that such an increase in awareness cannot have a beneficial effect, including a beneficial effect immediately, but it is true that, by itself, an increased level of awareness cannot remove whatever negative effect one already sustained. The negative effect can be countered by challenging the negative interaction, or, by simply waiting, since it tends to dissipate over time, although this latter option, in my opinion, would be less desirable in the case of the Brexit referendum.

The fact that many – more than those who did otherwise – people chose to vote to leave, is somewhat difficult to explain, although it is likely that this choice was to a significant extent influenced by the politicians who called for Britain to exit the EU. It seems that the actions of the politicians were to a large extent an expression of something in their personal lives, such as a wish to oppose family members or others to whom they have or have had significant attachments who were also people of a differing sex than they were, and not an expression of a genuine, pre-meditated wish for Britain to secede from the EU. It is also not impossible that a choice to vote to leave was less threatening because people regarded it as less likely to confuse them, that is, if one actually changes one’s wishes and accepts that the other person has a right to punish, one is at least not responding to the person in a way which is incoherent with one’s wishes, and does not become, to a rather strong degree, if at all, confused.

The kind of interaction under discussion is also something that was described, in general terms, by Gregory Bateson and colleagues in their 1956 paper, titled “Toward a theory of [word omitted]”. The reason I omitted a word from its title would not be appropriate to discuss here. I also do not want to use the words, even with the omission, of the title for attaching a link to it, so I will include a link here. One thing I want to say about the paper is that the authors’ choice of name for the interaction – not the name I omitted from the title – was, in my opinion, inappropriate. A better way of proceeding would be to look for and choose a word which is such that it already refers to, even if most people do not have a good understanding of it, the interaction in common language use, such as the word “curse”. A more academic phrase is “false dichotomy”. Although the approach I would most prefer would be to use simple general words, such as (since it is my impression that this kind of influence is almost always inflicted inadvertently) inadvertently concealed punishment or inadvertently concealed requirement, although the first word should be dropped in cases where it is inflicted consciously. Another option could be multi-layered punishment. However, even these options, while better than the one chosen by Gregory Bateson and his colleagues, are not such that I would regard them as satisfactory completely.

The way out of the situation is to simply not exit. It is a decision that is not very easy to take since it would appear to disregard the interests of the British people and to disregard them in a rather brazen way – that is, by not not heeding an opinion poll or a petition, but by not accepting a result of a referendum, which is an instrument the use of which is – usually – a highly democratic undertaking.

But in this case it is not true that a decision on the part of one person – the Prime Minister – not to leave the EU would disregard the interests of the people of Britain.