TQ White II

And so, Taylor gets the treatment again. Two years after her previous one, she releases a new album, Tortured Poets Department, and, again, the poopy meta analysis begins. Too this. Too little that. So much. So soon. So so so. Couldn't she just be less?

Here's what I think: Her fans love it. That's all that matters and, if you're not a fan just shut the hell up. The NY Times puts this on the front page. More negative click bait.

The first time I listened to the album, it felt long. The second time, less so. Then a friend noted four tracks she liked and I listened to them several times. And here's the thing about Taylor Swift, each time I listened to them, I liked them more. I've listened more to others since.

Previously, I wondered, are any of them going to be caught in my head on repeat like Love Store or Blank Space do? Each time I listened, I noted an interesting little hook. Felt the frisson as I recognized a moment where she had captured another subtle idea in a sweet turn of phrase.

She will tell you herself that her most important art form is lyric. I think that's fair. I don't think she's ever going to be compared, on a strictly music level with, say, Lennon/McCartney, Irving Berlin or Brian Wilson, people who were innovators in music style and structure, per se. But, listen to the song Fortnight a couple of times and I don't believe anyone who loves music can come away with anything short of delight and a tune stuck in your head, on repeat.

This article is bullshit. The songs, one by one or in a group, are lovely. Taylor is a force of nature. I consider having discovered her from a fan perspective to be a huge gift to my life. I have another thing to enjoy and she is good.

I consider my main goal to be lowering the bar to match my capability. I try to be satisfied by the things in my life that are good.

I am old enough so that getting sick as a prelude to dying is part of the planning process. I intend to have perfected my ability to look on the bright side by being able to take full satisfaction about any tiny thing that is good.

To the extent possible, I hope to avoid allowing negative stuff to influence my self evaluation or sense of happiness.

I am an old, male boomer. I want to shout: I think the anti-millennial crap spewed by older people is utter bullshit. It's unfair. It's wrong. It's so horrible I categorize it as on par with full-on racism.

Millenial people (they are not 'millenials', some mythic creature in your imagination) did, in actual fact, grow up and come of age in a remarkably shitty time. Worse than other bad times, maybe yes, maybe no, but from 9-11 on, American society has not been good. This is compounded by their vicious exploitation by the ruling classes and corporations. You needn't go any farther than the elimination of art and music from public school, to the cost of college education and then the rapacious structure of the student loan industry.

But another thing that matured in the lives of millennial people is the technology of worker exploitation. The fucking over of young people in the job market is unconscionable. And, as with student loans, it's abetted by the government (though more on one side of the aisle than the other) supporting corporations uber alles.

Before networked technology, it wasn't practical to manage randomized work schedules that make you work days alternating with working nights. There weren't as many jobs simple enough that firing an experience worker because they are making an extra buck an hour and you can hire a new one for less. It makes your life miserable on purpose.

We won't talk about climate change, the unwholesomeness of food, or mass shootings every day, or etc, but they count, too. Suffice to say, I agree that things suck today and tell you that they are actual things that have been done, almost maliciously, mostly to young people.

I also think that much of it could have been avoided. I think the older peoples' condemnation of millennial people is mostly projection. They cannot face the guilt of having wrecked the culture and the planet so they blame the victims.

I start to say that I also apologize for my age cohort and it's bad behavior but, that doesn't capture my real feeling. I am enraged and ashamed of being part of such a rapacious, short sighted and prejudiced bunch.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-trad-wife

Bertrand Russell says,

“The Christian religion, as it was handed over by the late Roman Empire to the barbarians, consisted of three elements: first, certain philosophical beliefs, derived mainly from Plato and the Neoplatonists, but also in part from the Stoics; second, a conception of morals and history derived from the Jews; and third, certain theories, more especially as to salvation, which were on the whole new in Christianity, though in part traceable to Orphism*, and to kindred cults of the Near East.

The most important Jewish elements in Christianity appear to me to be the following:

• I. A sacred history, beginning with the creation, leading to a consummation in the future, and justifying the ways of God to man.

• II. The existence of a small section of mankind whom God specially loves. For Jews, this section was the Chosen People; for

Christians, the elect.

• III. A new conception of ‘righteousness’. The virtue of almsgiving, for example, was taken over by Christianity from later Judaism. The importance attached to baptism might be derived from Orphism or from oriental pagan mystery religions, but practical philanthropy, as an element in the Christian conception of virtue, seems to have come from the Jews.

• IV. The Law. Christians kept part of the Hebrew Law, for instance the decalogue, while they rejected its ceremonial and ritual parts. But in practice they attached to the Creed much the same feelings that the Jews attached to the Law. This involved the doctrine that correct belief is at least as important as virtuous action, a doctrine which is essentially Hellenic. What is Jewish in origin is the exclusiveness of the elect. 

• V. The Messiah. The Jews believed that the Messiah would bring them temporal prosperity, and victory over their enemies here on earth; moreover, he remained in the future. For Christians, the Messiah was the historical Jesus, who was also identified with the Logos of Greek philosophy; and it was not on earth, but in heaven, that the Messiah was to enable his followers to triumph over their enemies.

• VI. The Kingdom of Heaven. Other-worldliness is a conception which Jews and Christians, in a sense, share with later Platonism, but it takes, with them, a much more concrete form than with Greek philosophers. The Greek doctrine — which is to be found in much Christian philosophy, but not in popular Christianity — was that the sensible world, in space and time, is an illusion, and that, by intellectual and moral discipline, a man can learn to live in the eternal world, which alone is real. The Jewish and Christian doctrine, on the other hand, conceived the Other World as not metaphysically different from this world, but as in the future, when the virtuous would enjoy everlasting bliss and the wicked would suffer everlasting torment. This belief embodied revenge psychology, and was intelligible to all and sundry, as the doctrines of Greek philosophers were not. 

To understand the origin of these beliefs, we must take account of certain facts in Jewish history, to which we will now turn our attention ...“

— Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (1945), Book Two. Catholic Philosophy, Part. I. The Fathers, Ch. I: The Religious Development of the Jews, pp. 307-09

━━

* Orphism (more rarely Orphicism; Ancient Greek: Ὀρφικά, romanized: Orphiká) is the name given to a set of religious beliefs and practices originating in the ancient Greek and Hellenistic world, associated with literature ascribed to the mythical poet Orpheus, who descended into the Greek underworld and returned.

— Bertrand Russell, Portraits From Memory And Other Essays (1950), Essay: V. Beliefs: Discarded and Retained, pp. 40-1

 Long ago, the failed presidential candidate, Ross Perot, said that he could not understand how anyone felt they could trust someone who didn't believe in God (his, of course) because, without a divine imperative, why would they adhere to any moral code. That pissed me off and I've been thinking about it ever since.

The essay above is the basic idea of my answer to the question, Where does morality come from if humans are basically just overgrown yeast cells in a universe that doesn't care. Or, more simply, why don't we kill each other with the same zest as great white sharks at a beach.

The basic premise is that our brains are built to appreciate order and safety. Other things, too, that add up to what the religious types attribute to "God's will" but are instead fundamental aspects of human biology.

Along the way, I have become interested in philosophy. It turns out that there are a lot of people who have tried to figure out more about what is going on in our culture and the universe. Among those are the two I mention above, Kierkegaard and Sartre (he's the guy that inspired the picture below). They are among the earliest people (along with Hume and Kant a hundred years before from a completely different perspective) to really explore how humans get their morality without assuming 'God made them do it'.

Neurological Existentialism is an attempt to improve on their answers. On the one hand by explaining how we could be 'good' without God to tell us how. On the other, how we can be fulfilled without God telling us that we are ok.

Kierkegaard's exploration of existential challenges rooted in a supernatural God and Sartre's emphasis on radical freedom, while insightful, each possess inherent limitations. Kierkegaard's reliance on supernaturalism may pose difficulties for those without religious faith, while Sartre's oversight of human biology neglects the profound influence of our neurobiology on existential experiences.

In response to these limitations, Neurological Existentialism emerges as a synthesis—a third way—aimed at reconciling tensions between the supernatural and the natural, and between existential freedom and biological determinism. At its core lies an acknowledgment of the intrinsic interplay between our biological makeup and our existential experiences. Within this framework, innate human tendencies—fear, desire, and the pursuit of order—serve as foundational elements in shaping ethical principles and existential choices.

By redefining the concept of the "leap of faith" as an exploration and belief in our essence, Neurological Existentialism offers a departure from Kierkegaard's reliance on supernatural belief. Instead of leaping towards a transcendent deity, we are encouraged to delve into the depths of our neurobiological makeup and existential experiences to discover meaning and purpose.

Similarly, the notion of "radical freedom" is reconceptualized within Neurological Existentialism. Rather than a daunting expanse of boundless choice, radical freedom becomes a liberating recognition that our actions are guided by our neurological characteristics. These characteristics offer both support and constraints, providing a framework for navigating our existential journey with greater understanding and acceptance.

In embarking on this philosophical endeavor, Neurological Existentialism offers a compelling synthesis—a third way—that integrates scientific inquiry with existential reflection. Through this synthesis, we deepen our comprehension of the complexities of human existence and the pursuit of ethical understanding. This paradigm transcends the limitations of previous philosophical models, fostering a holistic approach to grappling with the intricacies of human nature and experience.

Here's my idea: Don't talk about people at all. Don't say someone is normal, neurotypical, smart, ugly or tall, unless you are actively helping them solve an individual problem that you are qualified for.