Claims About Gods: Theirs, Yours, (as well as) Mine

 

          While I claim my god exists (and can prove it), you claim to believe your god exists (but can't prove it).  My god is very-much not what you claim yours is.  While mine's omnipotent and omnipresent—as you also claim yours to be—my god is completely incapable of any form of awareness, and you claim yours possesses omniscience.  This is the crux.  Specifically, it's the most crucial distinction between your brain and mine (which I'll come back to).

          The foremost reason I avoid talking about religion, as a topic of normal conversation, lies in the mandatory requirement to discuss and agree-upon the definitions of words and to, then, go-back-over common misunderstandings (for every 'new use' of previously defined words).

          Example:  When someone begins a conversation with "I believe god created the universe."  I have to interrupt / hit the pause button and reply:

          Wow! A six word sentence and four words require extensive definition.  Since you didn't preface the most confusing term god with the word a, I must assume you think there's only one?  So . . . first question: what's your opinion of the other religion's gods?  And, please explain what you mean when you use the term belief.  I also need to know if our understanding for the label the universe is comparable.  Finally, are you able to explain your use of the term created with more than the simple context found in the bible or quran?

         When someone begins a conversation with "I believe the massive storm was created by La Niña."  I do not have to interrupt.  Instead, my internal dialogue goes something like:

          I understand their use of the word belief was an alternative to think; the massive storm would be something empirically measurable (with human senses and machines) and I have a general understanding of the global, cyclic, climate pattern which has been labeled La Niña.

          The actual creator—which I refer to as 'god'—is the effect commonly referred to as:  Gravity.

          No scientist, no astro-theoretical-quantum-physicist, not Steven Hawking, nor Albert Einstein has yet identified the mechanics of gravity.  Nobody knows how it does what it does.  There are theories (think: conjecture, not actual scientific theory) as to the hypothetical existence of a graviton particle (similar-in-size to a quark, which makes up protons and neutrons).  So far, every experiment has failed to locate an element or particle, contained within objects with mass, which warps spacetime around those objects.  [This is Gravity's carefully-worded definition; it's no longer simply called an 'attraction force'.]

          We all know Gravity exists because we can empirically measure it with our senses and machines.  It's all powerful.  It is everywhere in the visible universe.  Thru telescopes, we can see Gravity at work 14 billion-light-years ago/40 billion-light-years away (which, because of space-expansion, is the same distance).  Without Gravity: the star we call The Sun wouldn't exist, the ball of rock we call Earth would never have formed, and oxygen and nitrogen molecules would not have collected to form our atmosphere.  All life exists because Gravity exists. 

          Gravity has no awareness, does not think, and can not communicate.  It does not plan.  It has no agenda.  It does not listen to prayers.  Anyone who prays to Gravity, does so because they don't want to become hypocrites in their own eyes.

          Your god—on the other hand—was 100% fabricated by humans.  How do those of you who label yourself, christian, or jewish, or muslim, or hindu, (etc, etc, three bags full) come to terms with the hypocritical elements in your religion's dogma?  Do you cherry pick the parts that you like and disavow the evil portions?  How do you come to terms with the inability of your religion's books to document any facts or knowledge about the world, beyond that known by those long-dead humans who claimed to merely be transcribing their god's words?   Is it hubris on your part?    

          At an unknowable time in the unforeseeable future, someone will identify Gravity's origin-particle or, specifically, they'll locate the element which, when present, permits spacetime to warp in the nearby vicinity of mass (or energy).  To prove their theory, they'll remove it from a small sample of matter.  And that tiny chunk of gravitation-less matter will either:

          ⁕ Instantly disappear from existence.

          - or -

          ⁕ Grow exponentially.  Infecting every particle/molecule/atom it comes into contact with, until everything with matter is without Gravity.  In a few short minutes the Earth will dissolve and dissipate.  In a few short millennia, the entire universe will become a quiet, dark, cooling-soup of protons, neutrons, quarks, and electrons.  (Similar-but-different to what happens with ice-nine in Cat's Cradle by Vonnegut.)

          - or -

          ⁕ Form a new type of gravitation-less category of matter.  Immediately making all transportation (especially space travel) exponentially more efficient.

          PS: It's OK to look for god, but please don't remove the glue that holds the universe together when you locate it.

          PPS: For those rare few who both read-to-the-bottom and are "science-savvy" you'll probably recognize some additional facts (not beliefs) related to my claim that Gravity is the origin of life:  Gravity is inexorably intertwined with time (there are current hypotheses that time wouldn't exist without Gravity and, obviously, vice-versa) also, time is inexorably intertwined with space (thus the term spacetime).  Extrapolation—at the same instant, Gravity is making it possible for objects with mass to experience a progression of events in Gravity's vicinity and a three-dimensional location for those objects . . . Gravity creates time and space.    

more god stuff:

proof of evolution

convo 'tween god n angel

convo 'tween me n staunch-cat

Level 1 and 2 Thinking (with Amanda Gorman)

           As summarized in Astrid Groenewegen's article on Kahneman's theory related to the human brain:  we have a fast and a slow button in our decision making process.  Fast (level 1) is our default mode.  Our brains do not want to expend the effort to slow down, focus, or pay attention (level 2).

          Want to see it at work?  *Of course you don't.*  Your brain's default mode has already begun to encourage you to not finish this essay!  It (you) scanned ahead and suggested (thought) 'this is waay too long' or 'those speed-bump words are tripping me up'.  Here's another trip wire for it . . .

          If your brain has previously, repetitively, relied on confirmation bias as one of its preferred modes of level 1 shortcut decision-making—and it's inside a body with lower-levels of melanin—it may have noticed the image of a person with high-levels of melanin in her skin and is now bringing forward ...don't prefer to associate with those people... thoughts.  

          For the 14 people who've successfully skipped over the trip wires, Amanda Gorman read her poem The Hill We Climb at the US Presidential Inauguration of President Joseph Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.  Maybe your level 1 decision maker has begun to fabricate an escape hatch for you?  Did it say 'already watched it' - or - 'click-away and find the video clip'?  

          For the nine people who made it to this point:  you should be proud your level 2 is not locked behind a unused rusty-dusty barrier.  Congrats.

          When reading Ms Gorman's poem, focus-concentrate on her intentional word choices, her rhymes, the verbal imagery.  Keep in mind:  she was sixteen-years-old when the Black Lives Matter organization was formed; nineteen when Trump was elected; and even though this poem may contain clichés (belly of the beast), utilize jargon (shade), and strikes a few too-optimistic chimes (for my taste) it was fantastically written, includes references to the insurrection of January 6th, and was beautifully delivered from the steps of the US Capitol—where hundreds of domestic terrorists attempted murder just two weeks before.  Her poem was the most memorable words spoken, or sung, by anyone that day.  Now, allow your level 2 thinking to understand the value of her words.

When day comes, we ask ourselves

Where can we find light in this never-ending shade?
The loss we carry.  A sea we must wade.
We’ve braved the belly of the beast.  We’ve learned that quiet isn’t always peace,
And the norms and notions of what “just” is,

Isn’t always justice. 

And yet, the dawn is ours before we knew it.  Somehow we do it.
Somehow we’ve weathered and witnessed a nation that isn’t broken,

But simply unfinished.
We, the successors of a country and a time,

Where a skinny Black girl descended from slaves

And raised by a single mother can dream of becoming president,

Only to find herself reciting for one.

And yes, we are far from polished, far from pristine, 

But that doesn’t mean:

We are striving to form a union that is perfect.

We are striving to forge our union with purpose.
To compose a country committed to all cultures, colors, characters, and conditions of man.
And so we lift our gazes not to what stands between us, but what stands before us.
We close the divide because we know, to put our future first, we must first put our differences aside.
We lay down our arms so we can reach out our arms to one another.
We seek harm to none and harmony for all.
Let the globe, if nothing else, say this is true:
That even as we grieved, we grew.
That even as we hurt, we hoped.
That even as we tired, we tried.
That we’ll forever be tied together, victorious.
Not because we will never again know defeat, but because we will never again sow division.

Scripture tells us to envision that everyone shall sit under their own vine and fig tree,

And no one shall make them afraid.

If we’re to live up to our own time, then victory won’t lie in the blade,

But in all the bridges we’ve made.

That is the promise to glade, the hill we climb, if only we dare.

It’s because being American is more than a pride we inherit.
It’s the past we step into and how we repair it.
We’ve seen a force that would shatter our nation rather than share it.
Would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy.
This effort very nearly succeeded.
But while democracy can be periodically delayed,
it can never be permanently defeated.
In this truth, in this faith, we trust,
for while we have our eyes on the future, history has its eyes on us.
This is the era of just redemption.
We feared it at its inception.

We did not feel prepared to be the heirs of such a terrifying hour, 

But within it, we found the power to author a new chapter,

To offer hope and laughter to ourselves.

So while once we asked, ‘How could we possibly prevail over catastrophe?’

Now we assert, ‘How could catastrophe possibly prevail over us?’

 
We will not march back to what was, but move to what shall be:

A country that is bruised but whole,

Benevolent but bold,

Fierce and free.

 

We will not be turned around or interrupted by intimidation,

Because we know our inaction and inertia,

Will be the inheritance of the next generation.

Our blunders become their burdens.

 

But one thing is certain:

If we merge mercy with might,

And might with right,

Then love becomes our legacy,

And change, our children’s birthright.

 

So let us leave behind a country better than the one we were left.

With every breath from my bronze-pounded chest,

We will raise this wounded world into a wondrous one.

We will rise from the golden hills of the west.
We will rise from the wind-swept north-east where our forefathers first realized revolution.
We will rise from the lake-rimmed cities of the mid-western states.
We will rise from the sun-baked south.
We will rebuild, reconcile, and recover.

In every known nook of our nation, in every corner called our country,
our people, diverse and beautiful, will emerge, battered and beautiful.
When day comes, we step out of the shade, aflame and unafraid.
The new dawn blooms as we free it.
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.

 more  s l o w  thinking:

 and how

de-construct a poem

Bernie Jolly Roger

 

          This is my contribution to the Internet's meme of the week.  You can now put Bernie with his bespoke mittens in front of your house using google maps.  There's an ever-growing list of him in hundreds of different locations and artwork, and, now he's the less-than-jolly roger.

Favorite Films of 2020

 

 

   1  The Hunt (darkly comedic satire; horror)

 

 

    2  Palm Springs (unpredictable 'groundhog day'; rom-com)

 

 

 

   3  My Octopus Teacher (unforgettably unique, 'tear jerker'; wildlife documentary)

 

 

   4  The Platform (suspenseful, 'closed box' survival; art-house film)

 

 

 

   5  The Forty-Year-Old Version (dramatic comedy; musical)

 

 
 

   6  The Gentlemen (fast-paced funny Guy Ritchie; heist film)

 

 

   7  The Vast of Night (suspenseful 'low-budget-high-quality'; indie film)

 

 

 

   8  Love and Monsters (CGI-heavy fantasy post-apoc-action; 'road film')

 

 

   9  The King of Staten Island ('based-on-real-life'; dramatic comedy)

 

 

 

   10 Enola Holmes (fast-paced, lighthearted, coming-of-age; who-dunnit)

Winter Wintalf-a-bet

          Living in the northern states, and enjoying the winter, takes a certain mindset.  While I do not live north of the US-Canada border, every sentiment and insight succinctly spewed (in the above Letterkenny three-minute video clip) isn't spurious and should satisfy.  Seriously.

          While 2021 has my spouse currently watching every season, I—on the other mitten—have caught a few clips and greatly appreciate its/it's amazing writing, but find some element of my brain's wiring prevents me from feeling almost all of the funny.

          I don't think my sense of humor is governed by my Asperger's, but maybe some element of qualifying membership in nefnd holds my humor sensing device hostage behind my continual attempt to concentrate on catching every quip as they blur past my slow-on-the-uptake grey matter.  This is not new to me.  My comedic radar has been on a three-to-five second delay my entire life.  I rarely am the first to get the joke and I'm absolutely never able to be quick-sarcastic or in lock-step with your double-entendres.

          If the above clip happens to tickle your funny bone in a manner you find satisfying—then, allow this to be my "you're welcome"—there are 61 episodes available for you to binge (as of Dec 2020) on hulu.

          'Don't have hulu,' you say?  We're stream-cherry-pickers.  We have (or have had) almost all of them.  BUT.  We pause, unsubscribe, and cancel them all on a rotating basis.  I cancel Amazon Prime for months at a time and then re-subscribe.  I cancel hulu every three months (3 months off / 1 month on).  You get the picture.  As soon as we spend too much time searching?  Cancel.  Paused.  Unsubscribed.  And then Uncancel/unpause/subscribe to a different "channel".   I find this saves us about a c-note/benfranky/hunnabukz a month.  Again, you are most welcome.

more:

No eye contact Asperger's

ABCD films to binge watch

Our ships—previously moored together—got severed on Jan 6th

           My conservative readers, neighbors, associates, friends and family members, 

 

          In the past, amicable respect for individual differences has been our standard operating procedure.  Like most, we successfully maintained our relationship(s) by avoiding a few controversial topics of conversation.  In my experience, this mutual behavior was a courtesy each of us bestowed on the other.

          "Deep" conversations can be risky.  Fragile egos can get seriously bruised when long-held opinions are examined using critical thinking skills.  And, unfortunately, some of us store wishes and beliefs in boxes labeled 'facts'.  So, as to avoid "getting in over our heads" or receiving bruised egos or having to sort thru facts, it's been simpler to keep conversations focused on our shared interests.

          You and I may have ended many previous political debates with a cordial "we'll have to agree to disagree."  That behavior will remain forever on the other side of the watershed of 6 Jan 2021.  I can never again, in good conscience, politely agree to disagree with your political views because people you agree with, voted for, and support committed seditious, violent acts of insurrection in-and-around the US Capitol on Jan 6^th.

          Question time:  What term would you use to describe the citizens of a foreign country—after a few thousand of that countries citizens attacked our country and a few hundred killed, injured, vandalized, and attempted to kidnap Americans?  Would you refer to them as enemy sympathizers?  Accessories before and after the fact?

          Your fellow conservative Republicans attempted a coup d'état.  As of the date of this open letter, their attempts were not successful.  From my perspective, your silence on this matter looks exactly the same as what complicity looks like.

          Are you familiar with the term 'Good German'?  It was coined to describe the millions of German citizens who didn't join the Nazi Party, kept their mouths shut, and went about their lives in a business-as-usual manner while the Nazis took over their country and murdered millions of their fellow countrymen.  Is 'Good Republican' what you're striving for?

          In 1865, no union soldier would have "agreed to disagree" when discussing Lincoln's assassination with a confederate soldier.  Nobody alive today, with a functioning moral compass, would "agree to disagree" if debating the 2001, Sep 11^th attacks with a member of Al-Qaeda.  (You're the confederate and Al-Qaeda in these metaphors.)  

          I can not help but see the mooring rope that once held our friendship together has been cut with a sharp instrument.

• The edge of that blade is comprised of hundreds of violent insurrectionists who attempted to overthrow the US Government.  Enemies of the state who are neighbors are my enemies.
• Immediately behind that edge are the thousands of active supporters who cheered-on the insurrection (carrying a myriad of different flags, banners, patches, and slogans) followed Trump's guidance, marched to the US Capitol, but stopped short of committing crimes.
• Behind them, are millions of quasi-silent Trump-supporting republicans who are sad the insurrection failed and would have been pleased if it were successful.
• The handle of that blade is supported by millions of 'Good Republicans' acting like toady's, joking, and commiserating with their equally-complicit fellow republicans.
• That entire weapon is in the hand of over 70 million conservatives who voted for Trump, donated money to him, and who (so far) lack the requisite moral courage to admit they made many errors in judgement, (have yet to) distance themselves from the growing stain-of-association and (are reluctant to) take any positive action to rectify their complicity.
  

          Everyone who's met me—or who's read a few of my essays—knows what I think about hypocrites and hypocritical behavior.  If you ever claimed to "support the rule of law" and you now diminish, attempt to rationalize, qualify, act as an insurrection-apologist, or make any excuse for all the events surrounding Jan 6^th, you're the absolute worst hypocrite it is possible to be. 

        veachglines@gmail.com

Toady's Crux: Pay Attention to Punctuation (and Spelling, too)

     Definition of crux:  The most important fulcrum-point of a complex issue on which a decision depends. 

 

     Example:  Whether a visual pun is considered funny (or not) depends on a viewer's ability to quickly re-interpret relevant images into words.  The crux of my visual pun hinges on knowing the difference between a frog and a toad, being aware stool is a synonym for poop, and what a toadstool is.

 

     2:00-3:00pm, 6 Jan 2021—immediately following lame-duck-President Trump's very carefully worded speech (excitement without incitement) which was given after Trump-toady Giuliani encouraged "trial by combat"—thousands of marching flag-waivers cheered-on a core group of hundreds as they attempted a violent coup d'état of the US Capitol building.

 

     Definition of coup d'état:  French for 'strike-hit to state-government'; violent political change.   

 

     About two hours after this lame-duck-President's insurrection began (and, clear-to-all who were watching-in-real-time it was unsuccessful) Trump posted a brief video where he said:

     I know your pain. I know your hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this, where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us. From me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election.  But we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you, you’re very special. We’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know you how feel. But go home and go home in peace.

     The crux of his message was not the 'Go Home' parts (highlights mine) but the calming: 'We Love You, You're Very Special,  Others Are...So Bad and So Evil,  Go...In Peace' larger section.

 

     The next day (after rational minds began to debate The Best Way To Remove a Leader of a Failed-Coup) Press Secretary/Toady McEnany, made a verbal statement:

     I am here to deliver this message on behalf of the entire White House (breath) Let me be clear, the violence we saw yesterday at our nation’s capitol was appalling, reprehensible and antithetical to the American way (breath) We condemn it, the President and this administration in the strongest possible terms (breath) It is unacceptable (breath) and those that broke the law should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...blah blah blah unimportant-shit blah blah...

     The crux of her message—whether it was a verbal faux pas or an outright condemnation of the President—requires a close examination of punctuation.

 

     The Press Secretary starting a statement with 'on behalf of the entire White House' is very unusual.  Initially, I thought this phrase was appended to the beginning because it wasn't a statement President Trump wanted delivered.  I no longer think that's the case.  The purpose was to set up a point-of-view switch from first-person: "I am here..." to second-person: "...the violence we saw...".  The switch in POV was necessary because, otherwise, it might sound like the president was condemning himself.   

     When searching for the official text of this 7 Jan 2021 message, you will find it is documented:

          ... the violence ... was appalling ... We condemn it — the President and this administration — in the strongest possible terms ... 

     If a speech writer wanted an explanatory phrase (contained within two m-dashes) to be understood correctly, it would have been written:

          ... the violence ... was appalling ... We—the President and this administration—condemn it in the strongest possible terms ...

     But McEnany read it as if it had been written:

          ... the violence ... was appalling ... We condemn it, the president, and the administration, in the strongest possible terms ...

     Deputy Press Secretary's write press releases.  It's unknown who wrote this wondrous kerfuffle, however, Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Matthews submitted her resignation during the turmoil of these events with her own statement:  As someone who worked in the halls of Congress I was deeply disturbed by what I saw today.  I’ll be stepping down from my role, effective immediately.

     Definition of toady:  In French, flagorneuse /-r; a sycophant; a person who grovels/attempts to please for personal gain.  Toady is also a common misspelling of the word today.

     Dear careful reader: (who might-still be holding last month's portmanteau essay in the forefront of your mind) did you wonder why I provided the french word(s) to help define toady?  If so—did you try to sound-it-out?  Flagorneuse [feminine form; drop-e-add-r for masculine form] flag or neuse, flag or noose . . . the Trump-instigated domestic terrorists carried many different flags and they built a platform with a noose on the capitol grounds (reportedly, to hang Vice President Pence).  Five people died.  One of the dead carried the Don't Tread On Me flag as she marched to the US Capitol and later died of injuries sustained by being crushed under-foot by her fellow insurrectionists (which is a much more succinct example of irony than my "I survived shirt" essay, from last month).  Allegedly, another terrorist died of a heart attack after a taser discharged in his front pants pocket while he was struggling to steal a portrait off a wall (which sounds too convoluted to be true; but self-tased testicles is funny, even though it's not irony).  

 

more vocabulary essays:

Portmanteau & Malapropism

serendipity & irony

Ataraxia & Pennsylvanian

eglaf 

Accidentally Being a Non-Conformist

 

          How many people are you face-to-face friends with (versus twit-foller or fayzebuk-friends)?  If you don't know the difference, this essay is significantly above your reading comprehension-level.  Go away.  Right now.  Click away from here.

          In the 2020s, (which I’m typing from the very bottom-edge of) each of us belongs to a unique ‘Default Society.’  Every DeSoc [say Dee-Soach]—theirs, yours, and mine—is as different from the quaint,  Mister Roger's Neighborhood  definition of society {an organized group living in close proximity} as ‘cellphones’ are from their Alexander-Graham-namesake.  DeSoc's are different from ‘Society’ not because we don’t listen to people physically near-by, like our parents and teachers (definitely not new), but because we no longer actively listen to anyone we don't choose to actively listen to.

          A generation ago, depending on how one measures a generation *whisper: 25 years*, in order to get information about any routine-anything one needed to first locate a physical collection of information (it was normally referred to as a local library), which might-probably would lead them to searching for a more comprehensive collection of information (distant university's library) and, possibly-eventually, to talking with a subject matter expert.  Unfortunately, that was determined waaay back then in the before-before times by quantity of books published and/or courses taught, in the aforementioned libraries or university (rather than quality of those books or lectures).  [If you're interested in understanding more about the reason 'quantity was valued over quality' read the 📢 paragraphs below.]

 

          Today we have total and immediate access to almost every word in every book in every library, and to millions of people willing to provide their opinion (all for the low-low price of a keyboard/screen and WiFi connection—free at local libraries).  But . . . how does one identify real subject-matter experts (with high-quality information) and not engage with the ubiquitous multitude of underwhelming attention-zombies?

 
           Allow me to go on a tangent, here, and I will - hopefully - explain (in the long run) how to efficiently sort the wheat from the chaff.

          The difference between a conformist and a non-conformist is not who they listen to, but how they choose who they might eventually actively listen to, later-on.  Which is a tricky enough sentence that it deserves its own paragraph.

          Non-conformists seek-out and carefully screen for those who they'll maybe-eventually trust with putting words into their brain; conformists almost immediately allow people who they happen-to-meet because of proximity and random chance (neighbors, coworkers, parish priests, the google or YouTube algorithm, etc) to guide their future actions.

          Deciding to be a non-conformist rarely-never leads to becoming a true non-conformist.  (Usually, it just means choosing to adhere to a slightly different set of norms.)

          Intentional Non-conformists (IN) choose to do something different because it's different.  IN's are focused—first and foremost—with what people in their DeSoc think about them; intentionally looking different/acting differently is their goal.  Being viewed (with pics/documentation) while "swimming against the current" is all that matters to an IN.  They rarely consider their own happiness, comfort, personal growth, well-being or health as the primary reason to act or not take an action.  End result: IN's just conform to a smaller slice of their specific DeSoc.  (Best example from the last generation: hipsters.)

          Accidental Non-conformists (AN) are doing something "outside their current societal norm" with no pre-thought or consideration given to how their actions will, later, be viewed by neighbors, friends, coworkers, and/or family members.  Most AN's actions/inactions are taken because the AN wants to become smarter, happier, more comfortable, or they are/were attempting to improve their well-being or health.  And then AN's discover—after time has passed—that they were, coincidentally, not conforming to an expected norm.

 

          In January of 2021—at the beginning edge of a new decade (for those who don't begin counting at zero) there are more-n-more people deciding to Leave Social Media *dun dun duunn.*  Droves of people are claiming they left Twitter, deleted their instaccount, and have chosen to close their fayzebuk forever.  Some say they're going to "only keep one" (and the one they decide to keep usually depends on their generation/DeSoc).  Because so many people say they're planning on unplugging from social media (it's unknown how many follow thru) they are all, now, joining a group of IN's.

 

          To follow this example to its logical conclusion, an AN would be someone who never joined any of the social media platforms because way-back-in-the-before-times they suspected the time-suck would be detrimental to their well-being.

 

          So.  Back to my premise of how to find actual, real, subject-matter experts (remember? that was the set-up for this essay!)  Yea, I know; that was nine paragraphs ago.  Everyone who's either intentionally or accidentally lost their ability to follow a slightly complex train of thought, or to read more than a headline, or to concentrate on more than a couple of simple sentences, have long stopped reading this essay.  Those with twit-tok-face-agram induced ADD clicked away before they looked at the above image of a hundred bland-white nearly-identical balls surrounding a single, heavily-timeworn, but still slightly spherical object with a complex surface.   

 

          The simple prerequisites for identifying a subject matter expert are two-fold:  First, one must have an ability to understand enough about the subject to recognize they want to learn more - and - a capability to read and comprehend complex sentences.  And then one must weed out the IN (who routinely claim they possess expertise on YouTube) and find an AN.

 

   📢  Someone may become a teacher if they study/practice a skill (or series of tasks) until they are so proficient they can teach others.  Highly qualified teachers may become university professors.  Because university administrators aren't experts in every subject their schools teach, they rely on book publishers to act as their gatekeepers.  Publishers invest in authors whom they believe will sell enough books for them to make a profit.

   📢 Someone may become a professional artist/musician/actor if they create works of art (or public performances) until they are so proficient (or lucky) they catch the attention of a gallery/label/agent.  Those who desire 'quality' rely on galleries/music publishers/film studios to act as their gatekeepers because they invest in artists who create works they believe will make them a profit.

 

   📢 Today, 'authors/artists' unable to make it thru the gatekeeper system, can self-publish and attempt to self-market {sell their products online}.  Or.  They can invest their own money to open a gallery, music venue, or to produce a film. 

 

more philosophy reading:

 

scroll thru these