Raxonspelt

Powerless Values

We often derive values from position, status, and context. But values are independent of those things.

When you lack agency, you come to a different conclusion of what is important. Conflating someone’s values with this is fatal.

Consider a worker in the capitalist system. Let’s call them a “subjugated” worker. Perhaps someone who hates their job or is underemployed in some way or merely needs to survive. Perhaps they even have several jobs.

One worker believes in unions and granting worker’s rights. Another believes that you need to pick yourselves up off your bootstraps.

Nearly any educated person would say worker one has “better values”, or at the very least is not actively voting against their self-interest. But their situation doesn’t reflect their values, they reflect their position.

Both workers win the lottery: do they act any differently from each other at that point? Do they become magnanimous and charitable?

An example I refer to often is charity being called altruistic. Yet most charity is given to causes that relate to the giver’s past experience. My uncle had breast cancer, so I give to breast cancer research.

Whether or not there is a net good for society, you’ve convinced yourself that you are a good person when you are really acting in a self-interested way. You otherwise would have not given to charity. You feel bad over your experience. Or perhaps you sympathize with people who have been through the same situation as you. But you don’t empathize with any other conditions in that way. You don’t think about the best use of money or where the money is even going or whether it even helps lead to a cure for breast cancer. You felt compelled due to your experience, not due to your values.

Ask yourself: if the situation were inverted, would I care about it? Would I act differently?

I admire music artists who wear multiple hats. Particularly musicians who produce their own music and write their own lyrics. The more stuff they do, the more creative control they have, the more I tend to be a fan.

I’ve noticed a phenomenon in K-pop where idols who don’t really care about the music will become producers or songwriters. To me, this is an obvious application of what I’ve noticed above. It is in their self-interest to take more control of their career, or to make more money. In American music, self-production is often a proxy for artistry. But in K-pop, it could mean they have a shrewd understanding of the industry and nothing more. Why wouldn’t you act that way if you want more pay, power, or control? Especially in a system that can be quite stifling.

Which brings me to my final thought: power does not corrupt. When someone gets famous, former friends and colleagues often say they “switched up” or “flipped sides” or changed in some way. In actuality, I think most of these people held the same values before and after. First, they were powerless and now they have power. The power didn’t corrupt them: they simply didn’t have the ability to exercise it before. They were always a dick, and then they make it and now become a colossal dick. Not to mention that these former family and friends are typically trying to get a piece of the pie themselves.

It’s been said that money is a multiplier. It multiplies the good or the bad in people. I don’t think that is necessarily true. Power is a temptress for some and money can bring other temptations that force people to confront their actual values.

It’s easy to say you won’t give in to excessive shows of wealth when your pockets are empty. It’s easy to say you won’t give in to drugs and alcohol when you’ve never even been offered a smoke.

I used to have this strange fantasy when I was very young that someone would come up and offer me a cigarette and I would smack it out of their hand. I’d even take their cigarette box, curb stomp it on the ground. and scream, “SMOKING IS BAD!” I must have been D.A.R.E’s target demographic. I found it kinda lame then, but it’s would be pretty bad ass if it really happened. Punk rock, straight edge.

You think you know how you will react in a situation, but then sometimes you have to confront “I’m not actually the person I thought I was. My actions are not consistent with what I thought I believed.”

Remember a time your were thrown headfirst into real peer pressure? How did you act? Were you always proud of what followed?

Perhaps you find out you actually value fitting in and conforming more than you imagined.

Your actions reveal your preferences and values. Sometimes your true thoughts hide even from yourself. But if you get to know yourself and your patterns, you know how you will act in situations that you may not have been confronted with before. Sometimes your actions embarrass you and you actually change to embody the values you want to.

Words are just words. You can proclaim any value you want, but at the end of the day your true values are independent of your current position. Not that these can’t fluctuate over your lifetime, but if changing your status “changed” your values then they weren’t held in high regard to begin with. Power only corrupts when you were already corruptible.

I can say I value feedback and then ignore it at every turn. I can say I love learning and then refuse to let anything penetrate my thick skull. Often “values” are projections of wishes and desires people have. I wish I had power, but I don’t. I wish I had empathy, but I don’t. I wish I was a good person, but it’s easier to just say I am then to actually be one. I believe this not because I value this, but because it is convenient or it would be stupid not to believe this. I espouse this value because I want the benefits without actually making the sacrifices it takes to hold the value.

Women World

The world should not be designed for men. I sketched out some quick thoughts about this after reading this interview in The Harvard Gazette of Karen Korellis Reuther about her new book Man-Made (interviewed by Samantha Laine Perfas).

Most products for women are just products designed for men and then made small. Meaning there was no R&D to make it work for women. There was no real thought at all, except to make it a stereotypical color like pink or add the text “for women”. These products contain less and cost more.

Thus, it’s not even made for woman in any sense that costs more and typically contains less product.

Ironically with smartphones, the one time it might be supremely helpful to have a smaller device, there is no “small” version. Everyone gets a giant phone. Yet the number one complaint from people generally is that they are too big. The smaller phones lack features or are worse. I understand phones are difficult to make both powerful and small, but it is clear they aren’t designed for humans with small hands.

Another issue mentioned is women leaking out of the job market. I have a solution for this: treat women like royalty. If a woman (or anyone) needs to take off time, they should be treated as royalty and not replaced. In monarchies past, the Queen might go on a trip and someone might run the day-to-day operations in their steed but they would never be able to replace the Queen. All communications should be created with them in direct consideration and updates should be available upon their return in as granular as detail as they want. This never happens.

When people take time off, a few people make sure things work, and stuff goes on like that person was never needed (usually at a significantly reduced capacity). OR even more commonly, nothing happens while that person is gone and then they get blamed for it upon their return. Would royalty be blamed? No! They would do the blaming.

There shouldn’t be an implicit expectation that if work didn’t get done during your time off that it is your fault for not setting up a good system. And it doesn’t matter if this is a leadership role or individual contribution. If we act like people are still around (without needing to contact them), they stay in mind. It’s about consideration and ensuring they have a place when they come back. Not deriding them and devaluing their place.

Imagine this applying to scenarios outside the workplace too. Several women on social media have expressed they wish their partners acted more like Chinese men. For example, they will wash their partner’s hair. They seemed horrified to learn their Western counterparts don’t do what they consider such simple acts of service.

I went to the doctor with my partner (something many men refuse to do) and when she went to get on the scale to get her weight taken, I offered to hold her purse. The nurse commented (paraphrasing), “Wow, that’s so nice. My husband refuses to carry my purse.” I thought this was so sad. Some men refuse to wear COLORS. I know they are fed a strict diet of Fox News and manosphere content, but jesus christ. Imagine an existence so bleak you eschew color.

Women can’t even get simple acts of service, let alone the royal treatment. My dream is an equitable and egaltarian society, but to put the scale back men need to be doing a lot more. If this topic interests you, I highly recommend Caroline Criado Perez’s Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men.

Ideas Matter Not

True invention rarely makes the infinite wealth common folk imagine. Generally speaking, we live in a society that is stuck in the past. I’ve written about this previously, about how we are “holding the future hostage”. The recent zeitgeist in technology was mostly known decades ago. Technology takes decades to adopt or become feasible in the marketplace; that doesnt make it new.

So if the idea that is taking off now is from 20 to 50 years ago, can we really call that new? You don’t need a new idea. You just need an idea you care about. What’s important is that you want to do it, that you care about it enough to bring it to life. When someone dreams of running a bakery, people don’t say “bakeries exist, that’s been done already, there’s no point .” Well, maybe some do but they aren’t your friends. And they’re wrong.

People are always interested in “yet another” bakery. People are hungry for it. Especially for places they can go run by passionate people. Things that exist in the present moment. And there is a greater need than you may imagine for particular things. Certain areas are woefully underequipped.

I always think back to the ye olde days when blacksmiths were around. A town needed a blacksmith, and sometimes bigger towns had several. But there were plenty of towns with no skilled labor at all and they would have killed for a blacksmith. That would have been the most important person in the entire town.

You do not need to be original or creative or unique. You don’t need a single bone in your body (which we all have by the way, but no one said to stop using your skeletal system because it’s simply existed before you!) devoted to a flash of inspiration or some special sauce to give you a leg up.

Going further: A trope in the American scheme is some dunderhead comes along realizing the value someone else who is typically “smart” has created. They take their great idea (read: stealing) and capitalize on it. Often, they are held up as the genius and the other as a fool.

We don’t need to be thieving assholes. Just do what you find interesting; it matters not the idea or if it has been done to the grave. Simply apply your perspective to it. My bakery would look nothing like yours (you likely have better taste in that regard, my bakery would shutter quickly as I have little passion for it).

Is This All Life Is?

My mother was a person who let everyone know of her regrets. She lived and projected them out loud, constantly. She regretted her life, her husband, her own choices. Though, she’d never own up to that last part. To her, these were just complaints that were owed to her.

And in some ways, she was right. Society continues to be awful to women. But that doesn’t give a person license to attack, neglect, and irritate everyone around them. You can’t be a shitty person just because you went through shit, even if that may be understandable.

Ultimately, it comes down to one question I suspect every one of us has asked at least once (and perhaps consistently, always on a perpetual loop): Is this all life is?

Yeah, if that’s all you let it be. If you sit in your house for twenty years and only forage for some food every once in a while, it’s a pretty bleak existence. Baseline survival in the modern world is not living.

Do not let yourself stew in your regrets. Humans are not to meant to be a perpetual stew. It isn’t the fault of others you begin to boil over. But people will start avoiding you if you start burning them to death.

Oh me, oh my, why do people not want to burn to death and die? On me, on my, why don’t they suck it up like I had to, lie? Oh me, oh my, I’m a lobster being slow boiled to the last inch of my life and I’m taking this whole tank with me, god forbid anyone else get a little more time.

So, if you have two healthy legs (or claws), use them. There’s more to the world than your own world and you can go out and see and interact with it.

It’s arguable that self-inflicted agoraphobia is preventing us (as in humans, generally) from connecting with each other. But my point isn’t some “go out, breathe in the sun” bullshit. You have to join a club! You have to volunteer! Nah.

No, I’m more talking about exposure and what you personally want. I just mean, if you define your world as your own little space and you hate it, then why did you make it so small? You don’t have to make it all about you anymore if it is making you miserable. Once you are safe enough, you can expand outward.

Or at the very least, stop clutching pearls, punching down and blaming minorities that you don’t even fucking interact with and have had no measurable impact on your pitiful existence.

And if you are a person who takes accountability for your own actions despite the awful systems we inhabit, you can take steps to expand your world at any rate you want.

It doesn’t have to be anything major. I recently got a library card. A physical one. In person. And I learned about all the community resources and offerings they have. I knew libraries expanded to having videogames and physical media, but I vastly underestimated how much it changed since I was a child. Apparently, most US libraries offer a streaming service called Freegalmusic. My branch offers unlimited streaming and I can even download 5 songs twice per week.

Alternative Economics

Distributism is an economic idea that they skipped over in all of my history and economic classes. In fact, the browser’s spell check says that it isn’t even a word. I first came across the idea from JA Westenberg, who is a fabulous writer I recommend you check out. The basic idea is that, rather than centralizing everything like in capitalism and socialism, the means of production should be distributed widely.

It didn’t occur to me that a better economic system had already been thought of, that it just didn’t win. There is a pervasive idea that if an idea is good it will win, but that doesn’t seem to be the case in reality.

What if there was a different system that is compatible with our current economic systems? A recurring thought of mine is something I call the “Essential Functionary”. What if we individually contributed to essential societal functions, but only for a short time. Not as a way to make money or distribute resources, but to actually keep shit running. I imagine this might look like a week of “civil service” every year, sort of similar to jury duty.

I’m not talking communism or socialism or any of that nonsense. You could keep whatever economic system you want, but for like a week you gotta actually do an essential function. Like assist with agriculture or whatever. I suspect it existing outside of the “economic” system would lead to better results.

Perhaps we live in times where people assume we will just automate everything away, but I’m sure people have been saying that since the 1800s. Yet, I haven’t seen the rise of leisure for all. If everyone actually committed to the essential functioning of society, then we wouldn’t believe in the zero-sum game they are selling us because it would be so obviously untrue.

Without Selling Out

Honestly, I don’t believe in “selling out”. I think it is another barrier attempting to make artists feel bad so they can’t survive in society. We are all stuck in the economic system we inherited.

But, even if you believe that, there’s no reason why you can’t make something that you genuinely enjoy on your own time and then monetize it later without betraying yourself. I always hear that you shouldn’t monetize your hobby because you will come to hate it. And that is true.

But there’s no reason why you can’t use the output of your hobby as a way to make money. For instance, if I want to design a figurine just for the hell of it, that would be a genuine artistic pursuit. If I then take that design and do all the non-hobby stuff with it after the fact, I can then make money off of my hobby.

The separation is important. I did not set out to design the figurine to make money: I did it for pure enjoyment. I also don’t have to monetize it. I can leave it as a fun design I did once. But since I already did it for fun, I can chose to make profit off of it.

This works very well for artistic pursuits. Spend a few weeks making different pieces in different mediums, then find a way to monetize one to subsidize the rest of your work and life. For instance, I can use a 3d resin printer to print out my figurine design, make some shortform videos, and try to get people to order some of them. Or I can take a painting I made and try to use it as a sample for a local business to do a mural/ad/graphic work for them.

The important part is the separation of concerns: don’t make stuff intending to make a profit. Make cool shit and see if you can retrofit the unfortunate need for capitalism after the fact. This way you can feel authentic in your art and fully able to support yourself without “selling out”.

Suspense vs. Play

I posit a theory between two distinct worldviews: suspense vs play. The modern age has forced us into suspense. Algorithms work on suspense. Can I hold your attention long enough that you get to the end of my YouTube video? Can I have you suspend your disbelief enough that you think any of these institutions actually assist you?

On the other side is play. We are told play is wrong and play is demonized for adults. We think we need something like suspense to hold other people's attention and to have value. Ultimately, we need to constantly prove ourselves and our value within the capitalist system. If we don't continually provide value, we are worthless. If we have inherent worth, we can all just play and experiment with our preferences.

The suspenseful world is as stressful as it sounds: my partner will only love me as long as I continue to prove myself. I don't have inherent worth. I must constantly struggle for survival and I'm no better than anyone else.

The playful world is as joyful as it sounds: we have inherent worth. We, and everyone else, deserve to have their needs met and to explore their desires.

The suspenseful world tends towards manipulation: if I just say these words in the right order or have this genius business idea I will make it to the top. But then no one is happy there anyway because you have to continue fighting to be there.

In a playful world, there is no need for manipulation; there's just preference. Something like the "art of seduction" is not about constant manipulation of your "target", it's about people enjoying each other and their company.

This suspenseful lifestyle is the source of many of the woes in the world. How can people have deliberate, intentional relationships as they constantly jockey for position and think they need to constantly perform for their so-called loved ones? It leads to people justifying violence and being selfish.

Imagine an actual playground: do you want to play with the bullies or the group of friends having a good time? Somehow, we all ended up with the bullies.

Personal Software

I ran across the Dangerous Writing App. You set a word count (or time) and if you stop typing it deletes everything you wrote. Talk about killing writer's block!

I decided to make a personal version so I didn't need to keep reloading that website. It felt wrong to dump personal journal entries into a site who could be storing it in a database for all I know.

In 52 lines of HTML, I was able to replicate all the features I wanted and customized them to my own preference.

I learned two things:

One, it has always been easy and cheap to make personal software and tools.

Two, when you know the rules (HTML), you can break them. I basically opened a blank file and started with a <textarea>, then added <style> and <script> tags. Fuck the <html> tag. You don't need it. It's just for me, not to meet web or accessibility standards. You'd be shocked what HTML the browser will still manage to render.

So, make your own shit. Make it ugly and useful as quick as you can. Add to it if you need. But I haven't. I've written over 50,000 words now using my own little writer block killer. I can set any word count I want and just go until I have something down. Typically I start with 1000 words and whittle it down. It helps with getting to the point as well. I often ramble so I can procrastinate the real work. But forcing 250 words out of you streamlines everything, especially after you already emptied the faucet of the cruft.

Refinding Reading

When I was young, I was an avid reader. Like, read every book in the house three times can't-get-enough type of reader. But over time, even though my passion didn't fade, I let the busy work of life intrude upon the Sacred.

First it was other activities, like extracurriculars or just focusing on social stuff. When college hit, I actually had a lot of free time and I reconnected with some passions had previously left behind: music, Runescape.

College consumed the rest of my identity in a way I didn't expect. No, it wasn't the liberal professors (which you may be surprised to learn don't have a massive presence at The Ohio State University), even if my estranged family would love to believe that. I never had a self-professed woke professor. I did have self-professed conservative ones though, especially in the classics courses that I took.

Eventually, I began reading again in the middle of college. I realized, what was all of this for? Who am I? And how did I learn about the world?

There were so many jarring world-bending (to my own personal world at least) realizations that had struck me, and I was seeking that high. What other way can you see the world from other perspectives?

So I set a Goodreads goal and I've kept it ever since. The idea was 100+ books a year, but I've settled around 50+. Quantity doesn't matter, but I found I incentivized myself to read short stuff if it was set to 100. I think tracking something like page count would be better, but it's simply pointless to track at all. My real goal is more perspective: that has more to do with epiphanies which don't happen depending on the length of a piece of work. Sometimes it is merely the distance between you and the subject matter. If I only read self help books, I'd probably read about the 80/20 rule another seven-thousand times and not have a change in my mindset or opinions.

P.S. It occured to me after writing this that rekindling or rediscovering is probably a more common way to describe this. But to be clear, I wasn't cultivating a love again. I never lost the love, so rekindling is inaccurate. And rediscovering is not quite right either. I never fully stopped reading, but it changed to textbooks and articles rather than longform fiction, for instance.