September 2019

There were 6 posts published in September 2019 (this is page 1 of 1).

Authoring

Social media and news site talkbacks have ushered in an age where everyone feels a need to comment, discuss, and venture their opinions. A few years ago, one had to be quite upset or sure of one’s authority to go to the trouble of writing “a letter to the editor”, and till today, when we read a book, it’s very unlikely that we will be able to enter into a discussion with the writer. Well-known authors often cherish anonymity, writing under pen-names. Many refuse all public appearances. In any case, the most we can expect is to learn about them through the intermediary of a journalist, who, we hope, will ask the same questions that we have.

Writing a blog, there are certain decisions to be made about how much interaction to encourage. One can permit comments, publish an email address, cross-post to social media etc. There are possible trade-offs with all of these.

In the latest incarnation of this blog, I decided to cross-post to one or more public timelines of the Fediverse. Blog posts may then be seen by those (I think few) people who bother to wade through public timelines. But I’ve stopped using social media as a platform for discussion and don’t “follow” anyone personally. I read through timelines, subscribe to feeds, and watch blogs and microblogs without personal interaction with the authors. If I find something interesting I re-share it or take it into account when composing something of my own. Meaningful exchanges do not always require direct interaction. Otherwise, there would be little to gain from reading ancient classics or the writings of any dead or inaccessible author.

Our lives are quite short – perhaps too short for superfluous discussions.

the web itself

We had a discussion with Christopher Titmuss the other day, in which he talked about community. Someone raised the issue of “virtual community”, implying that his focus on real community might be a little backward-looking in the light of the advent of virtual communities. They gave the example of people in need being helped by crowd-funding. Titmus in his response focused on the surveillance capitalism aspects of Facebook and popular platforms. He said this was a poor substitute for real community, and that we should not delude ourselves into believing that there is any real community to be found in platforms intended only for the gain of their owners. He said that if he uses these platforms it is only to send announcements.

I found myself asking whether this applied to alternative internet social networks that lack profit motivation. I think he probably is not aware of such possibilities but that it is just as likely that he would still think them a poor substitute for real community.

I personally haven’t found in the alternative social networks a solution but would not discount the possibility that they might provide a fair solution to develop a planet wide community. But actually I’m beginning to think that the internet itself, or the web that lives on it, is our best and widest social network, rather than limit oneself to little islands. We should develop tools that harness the power of the whole web, rather than encampments. The Indie Web movement probably has the best ideas about how to do that. Because the problem is, on the vastness of the web, how do we find each other? Right now only spambots seem to manage to find my web page. And probably there are also bots and spiders operated by government security services that search for keywords. And other bad actors.

The internet is the closest we have come to networking human consciousness. It contains our worst and finest human traits, ideas, potential, everything. There is a wonderful opportunity there to contribute to raising our collective consciousness, just as there are opportunities to degrading it.

Richard Stallman’s site

I’ve been checking Stallman’s site to see what he will say about his resignation from the Free Software Foundation, as I think it is curious that on the site he mentions his resignation from CSAIL at MIT but nowhere mentions his resignation from FSF. That’s true till today, though a week has passed. I suppose he’ll get around to mentioning it eventually, but it does seem a little odd. For now, there is only the notice on the FSF website to rely upon.

What is new on Stallman.org is an explanation of his talk at Microsoft, which is interesting.

It’s amusing that some people are only now noticing his “Political Notes” and the topics that concern him, and have concerned him for years. I don’t know whether he composes all of those notes himself, but I have always found that work impressive and helpful, a kind of compendium of news stories that we should be paying attention to; as concise as one could wish for. I think at least some of the people who scorn his “embarrassing behavior” and obvious sexism are actually made more uncomfortable by his unyielding positions and radical politics.

“Long Day’s Journey into Night”

I saw the Chinese film “Long Day’s Journey into Night” (2018) the other day. It’s very long, and I only just managed to stay awake till the end (my partner didn’t). But still I’m glad I saw it. Visually, it’s among the most beautiful films I’ve ever seen. Every frame is stunning. In terms of the plot, you just have to accept that it’s all a jumble – it’s deliberately so. Only the 2nd part of the film creates a coherence – but it’s the coherence of a dream, where the brain takes many disconnected elements and somehow weaves them into a story. After the film, it’s helpful to read what the critics say, in this case. The most helpful essay I found was Roderick Heath’s on Film Freedonia.  Seeing this film, and thinking about it more deeply, is sure to offer a lot.

The stuff I use

I’ve been using MX Linux the last couple of years; before that AntiX; before that Puppy Linux and a variety of other distributions.

I find MX to be quite stable and nice. I’m 63 years old, not a computer whizz, not a programmer and don’t spend a lot of money on computers. MX Linux isn’t too heavy for my aging computers: I currently use a 2012 Dell Vostro laptop and a slightly newer no-brand Pentium desktop.

Right now, I’m using the following on a regular basis:
Desktop environment: Xfce
Internet: Waterfox, Tor, Telegram Desktop, Torrent, NextCloud, Transmission, Filezilla
Office programs: Libre Office Writer and Calc, Scribus, gscan2pdf
Editors and note-takers: Featherpad, ReText, Bluefish, Cherrytree Notes
Email: webmail and Claws
Graphics: GIMP, XNView
Sound and Multimedia: Audacity, Clementine, Kodi, VLC,
Accessories: Galculator, Thunar, Catfish file search, Dictionary, Keepass XC password manager
Software management: Synaptic, MX updater
Book manager: Calibr
Stuff that runs in the background like CUPS, Alsa, seahorse, Clipit clipboard manager, and whatever performs the USB connection to my Samsung Android phone.
Games: only Mahjongg
Video editing: I don’t do this often – I think I’ve had most success with KDENLIVE

I also run a number of online programs: the office uses the Google Apps suite. I don’t have a Google Drive synchronizer that I like, so I mainly use Nextcloud to sync between my computers, and occasionally upload files and directories manually to Google Drive. Previously I used Insync.

I still read allegations that GNU Linux is hard, that Apple is easier and “just works”, etc.
I’ve never used an Apple computer – besides the ideological considerations, the hardware and the software would be too expensive for me. GNU-Linux is entirely adequate for my needs. When I tinker with my system and experiment with new things, it’s mainly because I sometimes like to do that – not because there is anything unstable or unreliable about what I’m using.

Regarding Stallman

I once went to a Buddhist meditation workshop where the teacher pointed out that if we were there in the room, it meant that we had not attained perfection, and that we still had something to learn. It’s also true that if we still believe ourselves to be here on the planet, living a separate existence, we have something to learn. And what we have to learn is basically that there is an underlying unity upon which everything depends. Our world is an illusion because our perception is false. It is false because it fails to include awareness of the unseen unity that gives life to all that we see. Including ourselves. There are many ways to express this truth, and none of them are going to do it very well, because we are attempting to express the inexpressible. When we do so, contradictions emerge – a Buddhist will say this in a certain way; an Adwaita Vedantin will say it in another way, a shaman in a third way, and to our minds they seem to be contradicting one another. When it comes down to words, there are always going to be contradictions. Words are a vehicle for our thoughts, and thought cannot capture the reality that underlies the thinker and her thoughts.

At one and the same time we are imperfect beings caught in an imperfect, illusory world and we are also perfect, because that upon which we and our world depends is perfect and indivisible. Our world is going to be populated by imperfect beings for the same reason that we ourselves are imperfect. We look at others and separate them in multiple ways. We check whether they belong to our group, whether we can trust them, whether we should admire or shun them, whether we can get something from them like knowledge, money, sanction, sexual gratification, whatever.

Somewhere among these divisions we place an Epstein or an Einstein, a Polanski or a Stallman. We decide whether, on the basis of their deeds and statements, we approve of them. Our approval rating depends on ever-changing standards. Behavior that was permissible a few years ago may not be permissible now. Some behavior was never considered permissible, true. Sometimes we can acknowledge that a person has been a great artist or programmer or teacher, but that their behavior has been reprehensible in other ways.

It is better not to elevate any person to a place that is beyond reproach. In so far as they walk the earth they carry its imperfections. At the same time, no one deserves to be demonized, because they simultaneously embody perfection. Behavior can be angelic or demonic; and can be lauded or castigated. Human beings can be vehicles for both, but not consistently. There are no demons or saints in human form, and everyone is a mixture of traits.

Because we too are not perfect, we should neither demonize nor sanctify persons. We can aspire to and praise good behaviors, and should do so, even if we sometimes fall down from them. We should call out bad action when we see it.

Stallman is not just a good programmer, but is also a clear voice drawing attention to many kinds of injustice. Most of us can only wish for his earnest vigilance in doing so. I hope he will continue to write his political notes, and will continue to read them even with the knowledge that his own behavior* is not above reproach.

 

*I should have written “and statements” or something similar, because the recent controversy was not about what he did, but what he said.  I have previously heard criticism of his own behavior, though nothing authoritative.  Anyway, in terms of behavior, he has now resigned from MIT and the Free Software Foundation.  The latter say that they “welcome the decision.”