Why Apple is wrong, even if innocent

we came for profit!

I fully support the EU Commission’s decision about Apple, even if, in the end, Apple or the Irish officials will win the appeal.

There is a tremendous good and positive social message sent by the EU Commission, on making the Irish government take back from Apple the tax it itself helped to eschew.

It is absolutely abnormal and sleazy to tell your people that one company should be treated differently in regard to tax, because we want that company to be here and not there. This is demagogy first class, and the letter Tim Cook “authored” and posted is incredibly tone deaf and a true insult for the citizens of the European Union.

Nobody contests the fact that Apple pays all taxes it owes.

Nobody wants to hear sobby stories about Steve Jobs and the story of the great opportunity that Apple was for Ireland.

Dear Tim, we all know in 2016 how these deals are made. It is not like those officials who pampered your accounting worked for the people of Ireland, or if they actually did, well they did a poor job, it cost Ireland 13 billion. But there is a slight possibility that there were other gains I am sure, political gains, speech material about foreign investments, hi tech sector development, high paying jobs and, my favorite hoax in the election season, job creation.

The only real place job creation happens is in China, Tim. In Europe these jobs existed before Apple did us the grand favor of opening a sales office.

It is OK. Maybe you will win the appeal. But Tim, you keep the cash hidden in overseas accounts even from the american taxpayers, Tim. You keep the treasures away and, sure, all while respecting the law.

But, respect the law the Irish folks did not! Maybe you did respect the laws made especially for you, but that don’t make the game fair, Tim. Neither does hoarding billions to save tax, while the home of your business is having employees unable to pay rent. All that tax you “optimize” “legally” is a moral debt, one which you know you have, both to the US and to the EU.

The only problem addressed by the EU Commission, who somehow still faces successfully the lobby assault and veiled blackmail from the El Dorado business style of many American companies, is that the business of Apple in Europe was treated preferentially and Ireland was not in a position where it was able to create that preference. Sorry, these are the rules.

I am deeply amazed about the folks who side with a giant faceless corporation. I find it mind blowing that some people actually think it is bad to collect the tax that was spared on no solid grounds.

Everyone, listen up: accounting is the science of common sense.

There is no specific accounting law, only general prescriptions so that society can make sense of the books. They look like specific things, but they are all based on the high goal of forcing business to reflect reality in tables! So, if you lack common sense and send billions in profits to a shell company, a company that provides no service, does no work, pays no employees, and no tax, you then will pay the bill of your lack of common sense. Just like in society, when you’re caught lying you pay up, no matter who your friends are.

Unless, you will use your power to silence everyone who caught you.

Sure, Apple has the right and the reason to do it. I personally would not let go of 13 billion plus interest, just because a lady in the EU Commission said so. Maybe there are legal nuances, and obscure accounting practices, and possibly even the sheer fact that it is the Irish officials who made the deal, all to favor Apple’s appeal.

However this is not at stake. Apple should have kept its PR tamed in this phase of affairs. In this phase Apple is one of the many companies that uses people to find ways to game the system to steal money that should go back to the society that supports the business, all solely used to sell more stuff to the same society.

Apple is not an organization that will change the world for the better, except maybe marginally. There is no sanctity in selling hardware or cloud services. Apple is an in your face communicator that told the EU what Steve Jobs told unsatisfied iPhone buyers: don’t hold the phone that way, and in this case, don’t use the law that way. Well, Tim, I guess the EU Commission is somehow more ambitious than the fanboys like me who actually started changing how they held the phone.

Listen, I really hope the 13 billion will find their way to the governments of Europe, who rightfully should have collected them. I doubt they will reach their normal destination any time soon though. I know that maybe the whole case is broken and, in all truth, retroactive collection of money or retroactive fiscal policy is a bad idea. Yet, seriously, I and actually you too know that right now multinational corporation accounting works hard for this:

That is what this means:

Apple follows the law and we pay all the taxes we owe.

But Penny Kim sharing the company’s name is not roasting it is human behavior.

But Penny Kim sharing the company’s name is not roasting it is human behavior. That is how we humans managed the ones who broke unwritten trust bonds for thousands of years! We point an accusatory index finger and say loud and clear: he did it!

The story is great, I read it with pleasure, you write very well and can grasp an internet reader with cool idea flow, but in the end:

Michael could do to me the same thing!!

I don’t know what company, what bulldog, what address nothing. This is a mere blog post that can be fiction or reality because it is you story.

Why not make it journalism and put out real names not just data?

Later edit: HN saved me :D, but then so did your peppered clues, so yea thank you for sharing everything actually!

What and how

Can you see the forest?

In our universe the how dwarves the what

At about 300 million light years away lies the Dragonfly 44 galaxy. This galaxy is as massive as the Milky Way but so, so, so empty that we had to figure out that it must be made of, get ready, … badum tsss: dark matter! Hang on. “Dark” matter?

You see, dark matter and dark energy are great metaphors for the fact that we humans never run out of great names.

We are all a species of suckers for naming and descriptions. Whatever it is, no matter, we’ll find it a name and fill an atlas with data about it. The atlas in our head. Most of our brain is busy with the unsexy art of classification. When I hear accountant jokes, I laugh on the innocence of the one telling the joke. Accountants are ideal humans, folks.

That is why, I say: the answer to “what” is weak. We all know it.

Take more niceties from physics: the strange quark, the weak force which is actually not that weak, the strong force which could be very weak, the color property that has no color. These people who study quantum physics are completely submersed in the knowledge that:

The question “what” can have anything as an answer!

Because, if your field of study opens things which are completely unexplainable, with every single venture forward you make, you start to not care anymore. And it is for the best, because, most of the time, “what” doesn’t matter.

What matters is how.

Say, you could memorize the whole Standard Model, all the types of celestial bodies, every element on Earth. All this data will not give you a single clue on what can we humans do with it. It is dark data. You will not know physics, astronomy or chemistry by the way of answers to “what”.

The spark of light, the comprehension, the learning, is always, always the bland answer to “how”. But, well, there is a catch: what is easy, how is hard.

The too much “what” and too little “how” is in fact all over the place. As a society we devised all kinds of theories, systems, philosophies that describe at length all kinds of “whats”:

  • Libertarianism, what is a society where we ignore all problems with spite?
  • Social justice, what is a society where we don’t ignore not even the smallest of problems?
  • Objectivism, what is a society where we can discard the weak?
  • Marxism, what is a society where we ignore all problems with hubris?

About any system that explores “what” more than “how” is an anti-system.

Anti-systems have two major problems:

  • they are laser focused on the present
  • they always elicit revolutions

Shouldn’t we use our brains to find out the “how” more than the “what”?

Social Justice is such a problem. If it weren’t for the stubbornness of the conservatives, who are cemented in their religious values, there would be no social justice theory.

Libertarianism is another similar problem. If it weren’t for the progressives’ enthusiasm in bureaucracy, we’d lack the reason for a libertarian dream.

Marxism. Had we have anything close to an actual revolution ever in our history, instead of the same tens of lineages hoarding wealth, then marxism would have made even less sense.

Nationalism is a similar problem. I can’t even. — What is wrong with this species that we require so badly to be called names, some names, not other names? To me “nationality” is a superb example of “how” put at work, but a good idea for a bad finality: how to make a moral jail of the mind.

As a note, regarding Marx, I lived what people make of marxism first hand, it was called “advanced marxism”. It made of a bureaucratic nanny state, that supervised entire “nations” with the goal to make the “new man” so we can enter the “golden age”. Marxism in practice becomes nazism first class. I am left with stupor every time people talk about any antagonism between communism and nazism. I literally learned in school about the ideal man of the future and how we worked to make it a reality. My uni, back in the day was the propaganda uni, we had such a thing.

Objectivism. So much what! So little how. I am one who likes Ms. Rand. I like her personally, as a personality. I like how she spoke and how she explained. But I am stunned that one such as mr. Greenspan actually applied objectivism by the letter. And look, there is a compiled list of people “influenced” by Ayn:

Which is OK, I guess. You can be influenced by anything actually, it is just that influence means a belief in another person’s answers to “what”.

The fact that we call Utopia a utopia, makes it a utopia.

Isn’t it funny how real, tangible social and political progress is utopia, but presidents swear on the Bible, that Bible where we’re promised exactly the Utopia? It applies to all religious nations.

I believe that because we believe Utopia to be utopia, we miss the possibilities. Because utopias talk more about “how”. Actually, in the book that gave us the concept, Thomas More takes a lot of time to explain a lot of “hows”, actually the whole thing is “a how to”. Not a correct one, sure, not even Thomas believed better of his work, although for 1516 it was pretty radical, that is why it named the perfect place Utopia — unreachable.

But we should consider utopias to be the bullseye of our future targets.

For ages humanity is led by people whose position didn’t change, no matter the historical events. Whenever people started to question the way things were going, the solution was to start and explain that all evil is the people’s fault, borrowing from religion heavily: poverty, disenfranchisement, segregation, ignorance, and the idiocracy we work so hard to achieve. We have this self blame ingrained in all the systems of law and economy that are presently running on Earth.

However, mission and vision comes top down, in a business as well as in a society. So the state of things are never the fault of the bottom layers. Yet, whenever a business person moves from business to politics, suddenly they ask the people to make the society’s mission and vision on their own. The hypocrisy is astounding. So we wonder if hordes of scared uneducated people can govern themselves. Of course, we answer no. Then, bam!, utopia!

No folks. The branches at the top get the most sun. You cannot ask the roots to make the leaves! The roots suck the life out of the wormful ground and strive to hold the whole shebang pointing up, under immense pressure from the khaki thing it is stuck into.

Since we cannot conceive a society where a person cleaning toilets can earn as much as a brain surgeon, maybe we should stop paying people for work and instead pay them for learning. But no, in some countries people start their life in debt because they used their brain. This has chilling effects later on when politicians discuss taxes and welfare.

Since we know bureaucracy is bad and systems ran by the state eventually fail to progress technologically, perhaps states should be involved in other things. After all there are two basic things we require: energy and food. If you supply these for free productivity is million fold.

So far we know red tape is bad. Yet, deregulation is for profit. What do lobbyists have that other people don’t have? Time. Maybe more free time for everyone is a societies way to protect itself against being gamed into voting its own decapitation.

But these ideas belong to those who actually go nine to five to think of and about them. What do they do instead? They infuse the world with “what”, dark data, things of low value, with heavy news make up.

What is a killer question. How is a life saver question.

We constantly ask what happened and we get the news. How many cafes should be blown to pieces, before anybody stops and wonders, how is the world doing, instead of what happened? We look at innovation and ask what is it, and we get products to buy. How low must we go into mass escapism, before we ask how innovation can help the world do better?

At least some people still ask “how are you?”, right. How are you? Ha, the hope question, the one bad instance of “how” which we hold so dear! I’d switch any day to asking,

what are you?

… and ask only myself: how am I?

P.S. thanks jaden violet for the bringing utopia back on my radar, thanks BHD for writing this, true inspiration!

… … …

… following a mention notification I started reading and continued to read this whole thing, and I think a couple of times I actually said, mother of god. I just had so many moments of

… because not sure if offended or funny. At times I felt like

… because I don’t always flirt but when I do I use the most obscure way possible — Medium’s private messaging, and then sure, I thought

… a man does not simply get away with friendliness in a patriarchic man’s world.

Scrolled so far? Great, now the serious parts.

Part 1: the thanks

  • thank you for telling me I am Matthew Broderick level hot, compliment taken, my wife agrees with you, I am having a good day
  • thank you for appreciating my work here on Medium
  • thank you for reaching out

Part 2: the explanation

  • I was not flirting with you, I was being sloppy in private messaging people because I use private messages instead of short responses when all I want to say is a joke or kudos or a particular question.
  • I private message a lot of people, including SF Ali, so it looks like we’re competing on him, according to your meaning of Medium’s private messages, a couple of days ago afaik, and sometimes, especially in responses I do not check in my mind wether that author had any contact with me before, because I send a quick unfiltered snippet of my thoughts
  • This is not Facebook? I mean, poor explanation, but still … it should give one a hint

Part 3: the important part

See, Jules, there is you and there is your style. I love it, first person everything, powerful flow, incisive depictions of ideas where reality and imagination braid together.

But the problem is, this style is very, very impractical, when calling out people! Imagine the girls above playing beach volleyball in that situation; that level of impractical.

As one of the responses explained, you are a Tasmanian Devil with words, but this settling out requires a bit of cool. Not as in cool, you are cool girl, as in cool of the mind.

Because, you see, I am required to write this thing. You ended with an optional invite to public interaction, but it is not optional. This is the internet and things stick and have real life consequences. So, had you at the very least explained in one sentence exactly what is going on, maybe I could have moved ahead with whatever I was doing, but no.

Andrei — why are you leaving me private messages still, when you know I don’t like it? Didn’t we clear things up in this?

[…]

Am I overreacting here? Maybe. But I’m not the one private messaging when I’ve been asked not to.

Of course you are not overreacting. But just to clear things up, here goes the boring part which you made me do as a punishment:

  • I have a flurry of orphan posts because this block thing Medium implemented has people I follow respond to people who blocked them. I ask to understand what this is about.
  • I get a nice and polite reply with an introduction worded like this
  • in all seriousness, I am sorry that I did not keep that in mind, especially the second part
  • and then I make this mistake
  • a sad attempt for a joke based on a true fact.

That’s it. But I had to screenshot and annotate for freakin’ posterity because I felt some weird vibes reading this:

But listen, Ferris, you need to just be up-front and start interacting with me in public if you want to interact at all. I’m not good with private messaging people I don’t know, particularly guys,

and this

And some people take advantage of that. Some people, here on Medium, have taken advantage of that. A girl has to protect herself.

or this

So let’s say it out in the open, eh? Main takeaway? Safest for both of us to keep it public.

And in case you wonder why, here is the reason splattered in a quote:

people skim the shit out of the things they read

A 22 and counting recommend story has quite some reach, how many of those people ever read something of mine? For how many people will I be:

a woman stalker, a weirdo, polluting their clean designed reading community with unsolicited flirty private messages

How many of the people you tagged (mentioned) know me? Those are people I admire too. Holly Wood banned me for less than being called out as a stalker sexting women on Medium.

And how about, ya know, da job! Internet stuff matters, a lot, a freaking whole lot. And undiscerning searches turn out a lot of things with no context attached, but a lot of strings attached.

Me personally, I think twice before I am too artistic for one’s own good because I know sometimes men and women got too little time to figure out exactly what is going on, without the facts.

So I had to. I had to screenshot my way to this point in the article, making an entrance for,

Part 4: to whom it may concern

Medium, particularly elizabeth tobey, you know, me, the one from my Medium for the reader personna thingie, anyway, if you have the time and the resources, see the whole thing with this response and clear up the following two features of the platform, as I am 100% sure Jules and I are not the only ones misunderstanding each other over software.

What does this mean?

Private is not really private if the article is in a publication, because it is not meant as a real private one on one communication, such as Facebook Messenger is. But what is the recommended level of familiarity between two users for this feature to be just there? Maybe some kind of “I follow you, you follow me” rule would activate it? IDK.

Then, why is this the only option we have:

We have followers, people we follow, people we know from other platforms. Could this be more granular?

I am having doubts this above will have any effect on the functionality of Medium, but hey, one can dream and ask why the world is not like one dreams it.

Epilogue:

It is OK to let the muse type in your place and hose away your personality upon your creation, but when you involve other people you might take a minute to consider this: the muse is from a world where judgement and labeling and bulling and opportunity cost, well all these Earthly garbage things, they don’t exist for the muse. The muse cares not about no one. Our muses care not, even when we die of exhaustion trying to catch up with them, enslaved in their domination. So, we need to make “OTHERS” our safe word, our way to make the muse hand over the keys which unlock us and let us ponder on wether we are doing collateral damage with the best of intentions.

We’ll stay friends and I take my lack of attention seriously, and will consider this weird response filled with justification as paid karma. Paid. With all due seriousness, sorry for any rage or fear caused, no intention whatsoever,

A

The dollhouse life

This is why we can’t have beautiful things

Every four years we get elections. Every once in a while we have some technological break through. Every week or so I get into some argument about normality and people call me a socialist.

I am not a socialist, I am a person striving for complete individualization, so socialism is a mood killer for me. But at the same time, this accommodation to the doll house is killing my spirit, so my mood gets second place.

My wife and I have this saying:

Humans get used to anything.

Our adaptability is never ending, and this will be our doom.

Where is the grand scheme? Where is the end goal?

We inherited a future-less world from our religious perspective on existence and we’re paralyzed in it. Stuck in a mode where we only look for immediate solutions to near problems, because, hey, God takes care of the far future, His Kingdom shall come, Allah shall save us all, Brahma will eventually wake up.

Except that we’re all alone in this dark void place governed by impossible. What if problems will not take care of themselves? Why do we always look for happy endings, even when it only means one more delayed crisis?

Here is the future I want:

  • I never want to work for a wage, but to work for self growth
  • I want be free of shame for rapture
  • I don’t want to pay for basic existence
  • I want the notion of basic existence to be upgraded every year
  • I want to have 80% free time and 20% busy time
  • I want to have complete geographical mobility
  • I want social mobility to be seen as a retarded primitive caste system
  • I want my children to not take on loans
  • I want my children to not be trapped in value extraction systems
  • I want to live as long as biologically possible and more if possible
  • I want a world free of superstition
  • I want a world devoid of arbitrary morality
  • I want a world with no incarceration
  • I want a world where all people understand both philosophy and math
  • I want everything and I believe the world owes me a good life

Is this socialist or leftist? Isn’t this normal human desire or life, joy, happiness and unbridled existence? Why do we focus on how to end this next war?

I often wonder, maybe it’s just me, where are we going and what are we doing to get there? I feel so distanced from this army of powerful people who stir our collective ship.

It’s called a life of struggle by those who don’t struggle!

Superb lucid thinking!

So bad only trauma appears to open our eyes completely.

I wish Emma Lindsay that the world would be in such way that you’d require no such traumatic event to have this deep understanding. But your article is, in my view, golden. Not only because it is written in a tone of voice that imposes no superior attitude (something I have a hard time doing), but it is also swinging from theme to theme seamlessly, showing how interconnected problems are to one of the most basic things we have: our sexuality.

The starting theme about the wide acceptance of lesbianism puzzled me too for twenty years or so. No matter where you look, its all the same: look at Tantric texts and see how homosexuality is deeply despised and lesbianism encouraged and risen to ritual. Look at the Biblical texts, I bet there were women mating with women in Sodom and Gomorrah, but hey no word on those girls. Sure, no female deity … because religion is for men only. Which is another problem on its own.

And the replies are golden too, look at Elliot Nichols shouting the biggest problem: men are not taught to be desirable so we spend our life assuming women make a compromise settling on men. We are ugly because we are taught that we are ugly. True story. The common hot guys? OMG. Unreachable ideals, just like the female beauty standards.

And gosh look at Dustin Briscoe how we must keep explaining himself in a long thread, and at Jack Harrow failing to cut him some slack.

Jack, maybe if Dustin is aware of his shortcomings his children will be better than him. But to ask one to make a sudden change in his fundamental ways of expression, is a form of dictatorship. All this talk about the right way to talk Emma Lindsay uses her own convictions all over this article Jack. Read it:

it’s assumed women don’t want to see sexualized men.

[…]

straight women learn that what they do doesn’t matter. Straight women suffer from an excessive focus on their beauty rather than their behavior, so it might not occur to them to tell a man how beautiful they find him, because they try to please men by “being” pleasing rather than “doing” pleasing things. Their own shame over never being beautiful enough prevents them from externalizing their inner world. Yet, I’m sure most women have rich inner worlds they keep hidden perhaps even from themselves.

See Jack Harrow, it is fucked up to pepper you writing with apologies and mentions and “my opinion” and “my experience”. We as readers need to be able to discern what influences us, and our perspectives about everybody else are just as valuable as our subjective experiences and personal convictions. Had this been a school manual, I’d have been completely on “your side” 😀 but we’re adults, right?

It is important to be aware of how individuals perceive the whole group they’re part of and censoring that will lead to even more deviation.

We need people like you Jack to point out our generalizations. The problem I saw was that later in the thread Dustin Briscoe tried to protect his ego but at the same time let you know he understands your point of view and did his best to let you know he didn’t mean no harm. Intent is still an aggravating factor in all trials Jack, cut people slack, life is short.

Edward L Platt is spot on about killing rape culture by acknowledging bilateral desire, but then, Edward, the other men’s intimidation is not their problem it’s their experience. If we tell men who are intimidated by sexually aware women that they have a problem, we’re creating a new broken social identity, which in time will byte us back.

Michael Tudda even read the WHOLE thing, imagine that. I then clearly say this must be a top story, if he read it whole. Sorry Michael, I just found your response hilarious.

Dave Williams hits the nail on the head about equality, even though we men do tend to suffer less from the problem of being objectified by women because we have dicks. If and only if the problem would be women rating men exclusively on dick’s properties, then we’d get the same kind and intensity of suffering as women get from our man type of rating system. (on which the broken idea of male gaze is based on).

sky2fall raises the problem of usefulness as sexual attractor which is perfectly normal, right? Being the linchpin of society will always make you more desirable, it is replacing beauty with usefulness that makes us men ugly apes looking for constant feedback, and yes Hugo Aguirre Herrainz the first step, in my opinion too, is exactly accepting that we men crave sexualization. I mean surely a lot of men feel a warm fuzzy feeling reading Hildegerd Haugen’s response:

I have always wanted men for their bodies. 😉

… but I wish I’d live in a world where the wink is not needed anymore :P, neither my tongue out.

All in all, this article touches so many subjects, including this, noted by Daan Spijer:

12 year olds don’t get hurt because of how pedophiles feel, they get hurt because of how pedophiles behave. So, feelings are never wrong. Only behaviors are wrong.

… except that if you have constant interaction with said 12 year old you will inadvertently send mixed signals to children who don’t yet know how to handle them, because we have behaviors we’re not aware of. So, the problem with pedophilia is much more complex, e.g. should even self aware pedophiles have children?

So, if you read this response first, go read the article, it is very, very good. I wish articles like this about sexuality would make it to top just as the ones about relationships do every week, because:

a relationship is the double helix of two sexualities

Wow, now that is some useful advice.

Wow, now that is some useful advice. It is just that us people, me included, we love to be stubborn about the things we’re certain about. Certainty is when we feel we have the right to be stubborn.

Add to that that we’re certain only about certain things and the thing gets even more complex. Amirite?

My impression is we’re inclined to mistakenly believe the exact opposite: that certainty is eternal, and stubbornness ephemeral. And this is because we treat stubbornness as a mood, instead of the behaviour which it is. And then we put the equal sign between truth and certainty; things I’m certain about must be true, or else I’m wrong, a false assumption of uncertainty.

Actually, uncertainty is to blame for all our stubbornness. This black sheep cousin of reason.

No man ever had all the blow jobs he wanted — some may have all they can handle, but will never…

No man ever had all the blow jobs he wanted — 
some may have all they can handle, but will never admit it.

Lauren, you sure have the funny! 😀

Soooo, are you enjoying it or not?

Yes I am. But the thing is you cannot conflate the two things. The bad effect of living a life ripped off any possibility to make a dent in the great scheme of things has little to do with feeling good about being pampered and automatically assigned a mate.

Think of the ol’ Al Bundy in Love and Marriage. He was sank in a situation he heavily disliked but did enjoy the status quo. Sure, now I’ve taken the argument a bit too close to the edge of insult 🙂 few people like being compared to the guy. But he was a victim of the system who liked his side of the bargain just enough.

In more general terms, if the victim likes it, the victim is still the victim.

There is no such thing as nature versus nurture

The grand canyon of reflexive beings

So I wanted to comment on the highlight above, but then this comment thing got my attention:

There is also no evolutionary purpose to the in love feeling lasting longer than it takes to produce offspring, Sara Lynn Michener said in her article.

And raise them, and provide for them, and protect them. There is an evolutionary reason, thnidu appropiated swiftly the idea of Sara’s love

Pretty sure that comes from the “nurture” side of things rather than nature, and sociology statistics back me up on that. But the nature/nurture argument is obviously a bigger debate 😉 Sara Lynn Michener replied

Here is the thing, if there are any aliens in space and they also have brains and conscious phenomenons like we do in those brains, I bet there is a nature versus nurture debate on other planets as we speak.

Maybe their subjects are different: do we love to invade less evolved civilizations because it is in our nature or because we’ve been nurtured into it, might such an alien astronomer wonder, while gazing at the star map showing the bounds of their galactic empire. But the theme is the same if they are self reflective creatures like us, also known as beings.

Unlike creatures, beings have a very weird geography of knowledge, like: mountains of misunderstandings, valleys of ignorance, plateaus of facts, rivers of ideas, seas of wonder and canyons of identity.

Canyons of identity are the saddest and, at the same time, magnificent part of a being’s geography of knowledge.

The recursiveness inside our heads makes us have ourselves perceiving ourselves, this creating the ego. We have one personality. The personality is real. There are two mirror reflections of our personality one inside, the ego and the other outside, the identity.

Identity is the internal representation of an external personality. Thus, the others create one’s identity and the experiences create one’s personality. Hence the conflict: socially you are what other people make of your personality, aka your experience, while they have had none of your experience. You’re defined by noobs. [Evolving, god! I am citing myself, the shame]

A canyon is the erosive effect rivers have on rock during huge periods of time.

A time limited being, such as a human, does not have huge periods of time as a direct experience, but we get them as an indirect experience from society through education and entertainment. So we feel as if we’ve been here forever. Sadly we also feel like we will be here forever. It is often perceived as if we’d be moved back one thousand years ago we’d feel weird but quickly we’ll be like home, especially if one likes to read up on history. It is a continuity sensation that ties our small flicker in the universe’s timeline with the past we never lived and the future we’ll never live.

At the same time we are idea factories. Our brains make all these ideas, that all flow together, like rivers do, into our seas of wonder. The more ideas we make, the more fresh water our wonder will get. But because of the continuity our social behavior creates, we get connected to rivers of ideas that belong to our entire species’s history: humanity! We inherit this geography of humanity’s entire knowledge from the human peers that groom us for the life among the living

Some rivers of ideas are so old, much older than one human will ever be, they dug huge canyons in the plateaus of facts and in the the mountains of misunderstandings. Some of these canyons are dry, no ideas flow through them for centuries but they still are deep cracks in the way we see the facts and connect the misunderstandings.

The there is one such canyon that is so deep and so long it basically allows one to live off intellectual tourism to it: the nature versus nurture debate. It was once a river of ideas, fast and swift in its flow, with frothy little cascades here and there, ever since we’ve moved our eyes towards the heavens at night and wondered what does that twinkling light could be, or that blue gem sitting proudly next to the shiny circle that kept us safe at night. So we began to create culture, because that is what we do when take sail on our inner seas of wonder.

In essence, what we call nurture is our mirrored selves, our mirrored creation, the effort we make to rise as high as required to be the giants our future generations will stay on. What we call nurture is the collective reliance on our ancestor’s best guess, which we call wisdom, but which is seldom so. Nurture is the the screen saver that shows up in our minds where we’re not working on it consciously. Alas, we can only think about nurture like this, just like I am doing here, writing this.

But we feel nurture differently.

We feel as if it is our creation, our brainchild, the thing which we “teach” others to be, or the thing they are “taught” to be by their experience. We separate it and cherish it so dearly. But this separation is false.

Nurture is a mere side effect of nature.

Nature is the all encompassing circle of effects of existing as a living aware being, including nurture. You cannot have a score board between the two, because nurture is nature, just retrofitted with the models our brains require to predict what’s next. Nurture is nature with bells and whistles. We sure like bells and whistles. But take them out and nurture is just plain old nature.

See the paragraphs of words above all written as metaphors? As you see you need not talent to make metaphors, we all do it.

Metaphors are the maps we use to navigate the geography of our knowledge.

Bam, another one. If you liked any you’ve been exposed to nurture.

Everything is natural, including things we don’t like. This is the reason that the single valid moral argument is the golden rule. Everything else is debatable, specifically because everything is natural. Once we acknowledge nurture as a simple side effect of nature at work, we’ll stop taking refuge in arbitrary moral rules to selectively approve worthy humans that are having experiences we know nothing about.

It is natural to raise a child to be adapted to the society they enter into, the act is natural and the result is natural. It is natural for social beings to groom others for stability, it is natural to behave according to your models about your experience (which include sexuality, the big bugaboo) and some of all the natural effects of your existing and of the other’s existing intertwine in a common timeline, which help us thrive as long as we don’t fill up the atmosphere with too much crap, or kill off all the bees who have no way to moralize us and ask if our ruthless expansion of habitat is nature or nurture ….

At this point I feel like Fabiana Cecin said some place, pouring ideas out like notes to self. Yet, I couldn’t skip again laying out my dislike for this concept that is so common and dry: nature versus nurture.

So, back to the main theme.

Now, my question was: isn’t polygamy about monogamy, relationship exclusivity, and polyamory about sexual exclusivity? I mean all this mixup is confusing. You can be monogamous and polyamorous at the same time. You can be ploygamous and you’ll NOT be ployamorous by default, ask Suleiman the Magnificent who despite a great opportunity at polyamory chose monoamory 🙂 Is monoamory a thing?

If you are that person, who has ended a long-term relationship over not feeling the magic, then you owe it to yourself and others to become a polyamorist.

This should be the most highlighted sentence,

A

P.S. For the folk to read this and have an ad literam background process that skews their metaphor perception so that all roads lead to Rome:

  • I used the word “our” about 21 times in this and yet I don’t mean to generalize but to involve the reader in my worldview
  • I don’t endorse generalizations and labeling, but we must trust and / or train our (22) billions of neurons to discern when that happens