Armchair Philosophy, July 7th, 2020
Topic: Accelerated Dissatisfaction, the key to division
I've been wondering how to approach this topic for some time. A purely anecdotal series of personal interactions have left me continually dissatisfied with some of my acquaintances, and I've been feeling more divisive with these same people as of late. Obviously, this will bias all of my analysis of this topic, but it felt relevant, both to me and to society on a greater scale. I wanted to be forward about my own biases so that everyone reading this can understand where I am approaching this topic from. This is also why I have a distinct, personal interest in hearing everyone else's thoughts on this matter.
Here is my analysis. People have a tolerance for the dissatisfaction that they are willing and able to withstand. There is the saying that time heals all wounds, but different wounds take different amounts of time to heal. Let me put it this way, someone cuts you off while you drive, you immediately get frustrated and yell in road rage, but you forget the frustration within a few moments, even if you were fuming just a moment before. This is what I call an "Explosive Incident". You have a strong and passionate immediate response and it is over nearly as quickly as it came about.
Example 2. You stub your toe when you wake up, later trip down the stairs, and then your grocery bag breaks right as you are about to bring your groceries in from your car. Each of these individual events may have hurt or annoyed you, but you generally let them go to move on with your day right away, but the feeling of annoyance lingers. It's a small annoyance but you don't immediately recover from it. This is what I call a "Match Incident". It sparks and slowly burns away. It doesn't burn too hot, but every one of them that occurs is another match to the pile, and may even rekindle the older matches that haven't entirely burned out.
Example 3. Every day at work, your boss will compliment your work from the previous day, but then immediately after mention another employee who did better and that if only you were a bit more like him you'd get to be employee of the month for once, but that's unlikely to happen as things are now. Perhaps you were even friends with that other employee, but over time, this grows an animosity towards them, and the feelings of self-dissatisfaction grows alongside this dissatisfaction with your co-workers and your boss, as you feel he is condescending complementing you and then pointing out how someone else is better. This is what I call a "Kindling Incident". Events that build dissatisfaction over time and become hard to remove from your mind with any immediacy. They require a long time to recover from, despite possibly not really seeming all that offensive to you at first.
Looking at the explosive, match, and kindling incidents, we can see that there is an inverse relationship between the strength of inciting incident and the length to which it takes to recover from that incident. Perhaps that is because people tend to not release their frustration with smaller incidents, or at least ones that would be considered emotionally healthy do not. A person who blows up at every offense would likely be considered deranged or dangerous. Still, this analysis leads me to consider that tolerance for all forms of perceived "injustice" and any form of negative interaction is limited within people. I recently read a study that showed that people have a limited tolerance for willpower, as if every instance of using willpower caused someone to fill a cup with a small hole on the bottom, so while the cup was constantly draining out the effort used, it was slow and the cup could still easily overflow. My hypothesis is that this applies to all forms of activity that people perceive as "negative". Restraining oneself from reacting to a negative event uses willpower, in its own way, so the very topic I am speaking of may simply be a subset of that very topic in and of itself. I believe that this overflowing cup or burnt explosion may be the very thing that drives people to separate themselves from people and events. Once the cup is knocked over, it will not hold any water, so to speak.
I would love to know everyone's opinions of this concept and if you think I have the right idea or if I'm just being over dramatic in my analysis. I loathe the idea of division, and yet I can see the allure of taking such a path as the best alternative available to anyone in such an uncomfortable position. Perhaps division is the inevitable result of peoples inability to understand one another, or unwillingness to do so. Is there a cure for this disease when only one party is willing to even discuss the matter? Or is the result of only one party being willing to face a matter the very thing that leads to someone inevitably walk away? I'd love to hear any and all thoughts below.
Just thought I'd share this comment I was trying to comment on a Lotus Eaters video. Btw, ya'll should follow the Podcast of the Lotus Eaters if you aren't already. Great analysis and discussion
It's been a while since I've made a video, and this time with a locals exclusive. A cherry on top that I managed to fit within the size requirements. I like making shorter form content like this, considering my tendencies to ramble. Having content exclusive for my followers here is something I'll be working on doing more and more. I'll be creating more value here for my subscribers as well, with some subscriber exclusive content in the future. No timeline promises, cause I think we know how I get when I make a ton of promises (go hardcore for a week and then fall flat on my face unable to keep up with the sprint, lol).
Anyhow, let me know your thoughts and questions below. Have a great day everyone!
A direct upload! It turns out I recorded a video just short enough to meet the minimum upload offerings that locals offers to small communities like mine. That means you guys get this exclusively on locals!
I didn't sleep much last night, so I decided this was the perfect time to mull over my confused thoughts on how businesses are viewed from a legal perspective. Businesses are somewhat legal enigmas to me. Corporations are kinda treated as persons so that they can be double taxed, but have other protections, other types of businesses aren't treated the same way. They're able to consolidate power like governments, yet aren't subject to any form of limitations in regards to violating natural rights the same way the government is, despite being treated somewhat like persons they can still buy each other. It's just very odd to me from a principled, legal, and philosophical position.
Anyhow, my ramblings here are just that, ramblings. Still, I am curious what you all think of this topic. ...
The 2020 election is over, and the battle has just begun. What do I expect to come from the end of the election? Will the legal suits turn over anything for this election, or will they mean something for later down the line? I reflect on these questions and more in this discussion, and I also reflect on some final thoughts relevant to the Rise and Fall of Empire Series, that, thus far, being episodes 8 through 10 of the Construct Cast. Let me know your thoughts, and if you have any reflections of your own from this year's political cycle or other developments that you can't seem to get off your mind in the comments below.
In this episode of the Construct Cast, I discuss my analysis of Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival, with an emphasis on my own consideration for what it would take to help an empire survive, or reboot. If immortality for an Empire is impossible, is rebirth impossible in the same way? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
Editor's Note: Returning to the podcast versions of the Construct Cast, I want to catch our content up to the videos we have had released over the past month. I apologize for this getting away from me for a bit. With the rise in content production, I had allowed this to get away from me. We will be returning to audio podcast uploads of the Construct Cast as per our original regular schedule, at 12PM EST on the day of the original upload, going forward.
In this second Crossover podcast, we are once again recording with Kevin @Eng_Politics. His channel is a bastion of political thought and analysis from the perspective of a conservative engineer. Interested in diving deeper into my concept of Progressive Traditionalism and combating the concept with his own beliefs of what it means to be Conservative, we decided to put our definitions and beliefs to task in this crossover episode!
Be sure to check out Kevin's locals community here:
https://engineeringpolitics.locals.com/
And if you're more interested in the video version, here is a direct link:
https://engineeringpolitics.locals.com/post/235260/the-engineering-politics-podcast-30-conservatism-vs-progressive-traditionalism
So I just confirmed that, after a year off of the Keto diet, my Ulcerative Colitis (a type of IBS) is still not only in remission, but seemingly cured as if it never was there, including no more polyp growth.
This self-experiment has shown me that a prolonged period on Keto, about 2 years for me, was enough to create the long lasting effects to repair and cure my gastrointestinal system to complete recovery from what was supposed to be a lifelong, incurable illness. I still have a minor level proctitus at the exit, to put it in the least gross way I can think, but with the rest actually fully cured to where my new GI doctor asked if I was misdiagnosed originally is a major accomplishment.
For those seeking a source on how to get here like I did, I recommend following Thomas Delaur's YouTube channel for general inflammation control/healthy keto/ workout advice, only eat meat that is 100% Grass fed and pasture raised (including eggs), and drink a glass of Kefir at least once a week. Good ...
Controversial capitalist take, but I personally don't think stock ownership should give any power to the stockholders over business decisions. Buyouts and ownership should be separate from stock investment. How? There are various options to discuss. Why? Theoretically an investment firm could invest ownership stakes into every major investment firm over time and concentrate all of their investments to own controlling stakes across entire industries or even all publicly traded companies.
Actually, this isn't so theoretical if you look at BlackRock's partnerships with Vanguard and State Street. The three companies operate in virtual lockstep and theoretically wouldn't even need 51% collective ownership in the companies they invest in because any company with an array of other investors should have some theoretical minimum that they can guarantee will follow the leadership of these big 3 in most cases. I've seen estimates that they only need a collective 35% share to all but guarantee any ...
