Assistant Village Idiot

Elie Wiesel's Souls on Fire had a profound effect on me, the only non-Christian book I can think of that I would say that about. Even after learning that Night is fiction, and known to be so when it was first published, I was still fascinated by what Wiesel had to say about the Hasidic masters. I have given the book as a gift several times, but I don't think it has affected any I gave it to very much.

One episode in particular has reoccurred to me many times, the year that Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev went silent. He had been sociable, humorous, and a great advocate on behalf of the Jewish people to God Himself. He argued on behalf of both individuals and Jews as a whole without rest, imploring God to forgive, because they also had many fair accusations against Him!

The rabbi returned to his previous personality overnight, and the incident is not mentioned anywhere else I can find. Wiesel states in his text it is barely mentioned since, as if no one could bear to think that R. Levi-Yitzchak could be downcast, even for a moment. Today we would simply call it endogenous Depression that remitted on its own and not look too hard for deeper explanations if none presented themselves. The Hasidim are not like that. Still, there are no stories.  Did Wiesel make this up as well? I would be on the far end of the continuum that says that such things should not be done. When we are speaking of the encounters between God and Man even small details might be critical and should not be played with. Yet with the stories of the Hasidic masters there are already porous boundaries between this world and any others. Time, distance, causality, motive - all of these are flexible.

I have always taken comfort in that unexplained year of the rabbi's. Silence strikes, but it ends.  It may have twenty explanations or no explanation. Day follows night. 

Be at peace whatever your lot. This too has been noticed. 

It is not only romantic loves that are unrequited

 

 Why America Needs Fewer Bus Stops at Works in Progress.

Bus stop balancing involves strategically increasing the distance between stops from 700–800 feet (roughly 210–240 meters; there are 3.2 feet in a meter), common in older American cities or in London, to 1,300 feet, closer to the typical spacing in Western Europe, such as in Hanover, Germany. Unlike many transit improvements, stop balancing can be implemented quickly, cheaply, and independently by transit agencies. By removing signs and updating schedules, transit agencies can deliver faster service, better reliability, and more service with the same resources.

In Northeastern cities especially, most people can get to a bus stop within a hundred meters, because different routes can take you to similar destinations. Four blocks feels like a mile to a tourist, but to a resident it's a comfortable distance that does not involve going up and down flights of stair and escalators for a subway.

Relatedly, the desire for walkability in neighborhoods is up against more friction that it used to be.  Houses and properties are larger but have fewer people in them, reducing the density that a retail store might need to stay operative. "Corner stores," similar to what we would call convenience stores now were ubiquitous in small cities when I was young, as were barber shops, churches, schools, music teachers, tenement apartments, and postal dropboxes. It was all walkable not only because we expected to walk more, but because the density allowed it. This remained true even in suburbs built around small-town centers, as many up here were. Not many in the neighborhood I lived in until 2020 walked the mile into town for milk or to have a beer, but I did. Online ordering means fewer customers on foot as well. We want contradictory things in our lives.

I read Sally Satel's PC/MD over 20 years ago, during the height of political controversies affecting me professionally, and found her to be a breath of fresh air. She has a new piece at the American Enterprise Institute's publication Medicine in  the Age of Social Justice.

 One effort to dismantle racism was undertaken in late 2020 by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). As you remember, at first, we had to ration the vaccine. It was clear that people over 65 were undeniably the highest-risk group for getting COVID morbidity and mortality. Almost every country gave them high priority. Yet ACIP told the CDC that it should not prioritize age. Why? Because, the 65-and-over cohort in America was whiter than the general population...

ACIP’s decision was anomalous. Racial politics is not an accepted method of rationing scarce treatment resources. Public health has used various other options, such as basing distribution on who has the best prognosis—that’s classic battlefield triage—or who is the sickest, or on a first-come, first-served basis. (That’s how kidneys are allocated when you need a transplant.)

Remarkably, ACIP did its own calculation and found that overall, more Americans would die, between 0.5 percent and 6.5 percent, if the equity approach were implemented. Older Black people would be among them.

Most of us would call "more people dying" a big deal in medicine.  From personal experience I will tell you that doctors know a lot of bad sociology and believe it. It does influence some decisions.

Cognitive Evolution in Western Europe, by Peter Frost at Aporia 

As average cognitive ability increased, so did the numbers of the highly intelligent. They were becoming a class of their own... Progress is driven not only by individuals but also by communities that can fully appreciate new ideas and put them to good use. Otherwise, new ideas are left to rot on the vine. For example, the printing press wasn’t really invented by Johannes Gutenberg in 1440 — this was when it became commercially viable. 

He places the inflection point around 1350, which naturally suggests a change in culture and thus selection at the time of the Black Death. If you think you would have just killed it as a thinker before then, likely not. Unless you found one of the few niches you could exploit, your knowledge of the solar system, germ theory, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics would not help you much. The larger monasteries in strong networks would be about the only place you would find people who could follow your reasoning after a few minutes, and those would um, at least reduce your chances of passing on your superior genetics. Hanging out with Jews for knowledge of medicine and accounting might have helped, but you would have acquired extra physical risks for that.

Tangent: He quotes a now-standard estimate of 30-60% of Europe's population dying from plague at that timed.  When I was in school "as much as one-third" was the usual phrasing, which crept up gradually to 40 and 50%. The numbers stopped rising about fifteen years ago, when I would read occasional 60 or 70% estimates. I had a brief conversation then with an historical researcher while we were on vacation who lowered his voice and said in not only towns but small regions the numbers reached 80% death, according to cemetery studies. At that point the towns simply folded, no further bodies were buried there, and the survivors moved to functioning communities, disguising the population decreases there. That is getting into the range of New World death from European (and in western South America, Oriental*) diseases.

Extra controversies are dropped in along the way because well, Peter Frost . 

*Pacific silver trade, similar diseases to Atlantic seaboard 

 

Someone said this morning WRT a particular question (not truth in general) "There are no wrong answers." It was meant as an encouragement to not be afraid to speak. I took the point, but that was not what he quite wanted to say.

Because sure there are.  I was reminded of a related line "There may not be True Truth, but there is certainly arrant nonsense." Truth may be hard for mortal man to find, and confidence that we have it quite right may forever elude us, but wrongness often leaps out at us.

Similarly, Meaning may be hard for mortal man to find and confidence that we have it quite right may forever elude us, but pettiness often moves in and takes up all the available space.  I know people who are smart and well-read, but are increasingly posting politically insulting silliness. No, silliness isn't the word I want here.  Silliness has a purpose of refreshment, of giving perspective and even joy. Stupid insults make us ever more stupid ourselves and slowly drain wisdom from those around us.

Reminiscent of my general rule that organisations that brand themselves with the word truth are usually selling opinion that they'd like you to believe is truth (Truthout, Truth*, and of course the Ministry of Truth in 1984) we have Ethical Capital Partners.

*Notable for its campaign to reduce nicotine use by telling teens that their pets might all die because of secondhand smoke. 

 Were Old Norse and Old English the same language? Colin Gurrie at Dead Language Society. 

Naturally, these kinds of claims invite a healthy suspicion. Jackson Crawford and Simon Roper have a great video where they test it out, and reenact a hypothetical conversation between a speaker of Old Norse and Old English as a kind of “experimental linguistic archaeology.”

...But for us the important thing is what they concluded from this experiment, namely that two people trying to make themselves understood to each other across this linguistic divide would indeed have succeeded.

The video is an hour long, but the conversation in one dialect of Old Norse and one of Old English is only a few minutes at the beginning. Gurrie mostly gives them credit that mutual intelligibility is likely, as they claim, but qualifies it that this would depend on context and situation.

This is an area of psychology I mostly know only secondhand. I have had patients both male and female who would weaponise their own children to get back at a spouse, especially around custody issues. I never stopped to tot up which there were more of. When you are working with live people, the specific case looms so large that generalising about the sex, seems inefficient. The Dark Tetrad In Women puts forth the claim that men start in the position of having to prove their safety and innocence while women enjoy an immediate advantage of the societal assumption that mothers are centered on the good of the child. Worse, during evaluations the same behaviors can be interpreted oppositely in the two sexes. 

This results in the same behaviours being described differently depending on sex. Male boundaries are “controlling”; female manipulation is “coping.” Male retaliation is “aggressive”; female retaliation is “defensive.” Male alienation is “abusive”; female alienation is “protective concern.” Her narrative is taken seriously by default, even when behaviour and outcome don’t match. The same actions acquire entirely different meanings depending on who performs them.

For me the problem is that I have heard too many accusations from people who clearly unreliable themselves. In acute psych, one learns too quickly and easily to be suspicious of or even disbelieve everyone.  It is interesting, and I think wise, that Dr. Hannah Spier advocates that we look at evaluating the behavior of women not in terms of what they feel but of what they have to gain.  We should train clinicians for it.

In the sermon on the Psalms the pastor made a distinction between those who do things wrong, those who do wrong things for so long that they have seared conscience and no longer recognise the wrong, and those who are so far gone that they make fun of the righteous.  If you think that first group doesn't sound so bad in comparison - which I guess is true - notice that they are called the wicked, which doesn't sound like an especially neutral term. The sinners and the mockers are the two further categories.  This tracks with what I have observed, though I'm not sure how we measure it. 

 Women in the supermarket ask their teenage daughters their opinion and then argue with them about it.

"Should we get more tacos?"

"No, we still have one and we're not making them this week."

"But I like to have some on hand." (Daughter then blankly silent.)

I have to wonder why she even asked.  

Do they even ask their sons? Come to think of it, I think I have heard women do this to husbands as well.  It must mean something.

 

There is an exquisite joy for me in this harmony.

Imagine, if you will, two bread trucks backed up to each other so the two vertically-opening doors can be lifted so that goods can be transferred from one to the other. They do not quite meet, so that there is about a 20" gap between the two, and one truck bed is about 5" higher than the other. One bread truck belongs to a charity that cannot afford luxuries like maintenance, nor can the warehouse bread truck, which is used instead of the actual warehouse because a largish rat showed up in the bread about 9 months ago and the charity doesn't take the risk - even for the immigrants being given the bread tomorrow who are used to working around rats since childhood.

Moving bread from Truck A to Truck B is one of my three stops every Friday. Six months ago I seriously banged my head on the poorly-maintained warehouse truck's rolling vertical door, bleeding all over the wrapped bread and my own clothes. I banged it again today, because it doesn't quite go all the way up to where it should and I didn't notice. I never do.  It was much gentler this time, and my scalp didn't bleed. But I did shy away from it, lost my balance slightly, which turned into "quite a bit, actually," and somehow bumped against both trucks on my way down.  I did not fall into the 20" gap, but impossibly fell outside the two trucks onto the pavement from about 3 feet above the ground. I landed on my shoulder and elbow and lay there, mentally surveying whether I was lightheaded, which parts of me hurt, etc. (See link.) I resolved not to try and stand or even sit up until I had figured out what was up. It sucks getting old and losing your balance gradually, so that you realise even on your way down that a year ago you could have gotten a foot under yourself and stayed roughly vertical, but now are headed for a very unforgiving place. 

I just barely protected my head with my flannel shirt-sweater-winter coat sleeve! I am very proud of that.

Long story not really short, I ended up in Emergency Services, answering the same questions repeatedly. I was able to try out my wise-ass lines on different audiences as I went. I had it down to a routine by the time I got to the final Physician's Assistant, and the harried staff pretty much loved me and had a brief moment of joy.  My favorite was answering "When did you first notice symptoms?"

"Right about the time I hit the pavement, actually." (While thinking "I can't wait to tell this to someone.")

"Who is the president?" 

"Is this a trick question?" (That got a laugh both times.)

When you were Al Wyman's son, everything that happens might possibly turn into a vaudeville routine. Life is richer.  

 

 The Alaska Wymans left Orlando at 74 degrees.  They arrived in Nome at -22 degrees. With the slight breeze, it was 30 below. 104 degree difference.  I don't even like to hear the words "30 below."  I shiver from that alone.

 
Gurwinder at The Prism links to the Oxytocin Paradox research 

 Oxytocin, the “love hormone”, can also make people spiteful. Cruelty is not simply the opposite of compassion, it’s often adjacent to it. For instance, the platform most dominated by “social justice” advocates—Bluesky—is also the one with the highest support for assassinations. Beware of those quick to show empathy, for they are often just as quick to show barbarity.

 From the substack Beauty Matters: Imagine being able to make stone translucent

 

 I had not heard this one before.  Looking it up, it is not a traditional piece, it is written by them. The lady with the magic horn is likely to be Morgan Le Fey. The narrative isn't quite clear to me, and seems to be a pastiche of medieval-sounding legends about false maidens.

 

I have heard that the debate over when ENGLAND formally began has resurfaced. It is one of those issues - like the filioque clause - that most people say "Who cares?" while the remainder insist that it is absolutely vital. 

I lean toward 954 myself. Aethelstan was the first to say he was King of all England and he did put most of the conquering or at least pacifying in place, and that was by 927.  Everyone would sort of like it to be Aethelstan. More kingly, what? Even his grandfather King Alfred, even more beloved, preferred Aethelstan to his older brother. Aethelstan is undoubtedly a great Anglo-Saxon king. But did he get the collection of territories in various states of fealty over the finish line to get to the point that we say "There! Finally! That's the England we've been looking for!" 

The other nominee is Eodred, who was sickly and uninspiring.  He did drive a stake in the ground - almost like planting a flag - on the English Benedictine Reforms, which was seen at the time as a big deal of a display about unified England in the 900s, even though it is rather a "Wait, what?" topic in the 2000s. 

Here are the weaknesses: Aethelstan had some controversy about whether he was a legitimate heir of Edward. His mother may have been a wife, may have been a concubine, and such distinctions often hinged on whether the king or the woman in question had technically been married before, or whether they had technically married before the birth of the child. If you think those are just matters of record-keeping and technicalities from an era completely unlike our own you might consider the early political career of Kamala Harris, of whom some would say "C'mon, no big deal," while others would say "Very big deal."  Yet he survived that and was almost universally accepted.  The bigger weakness is that the control of Northumbria slipped away right after he died and was not restored until later, under - you guessed it - King Eodred. 

Eodred nudged it over the line.  He gets the bouquet. 

BTW, this is delaying a post on King Canute. 

The following Chesterton quote came up for discussion at pub night while I was in Florida. I won't know until Thursday how it turned out, but no parties were hospitalised, for which we may all be thankful. There was puzzlement about what exactly GKC was driving at. 

 “Truths turn into dogmas the instant that they are disputed. Thus every man who utters a doubt defines a religion. And the scepticism of our time does not really destroy the beliefs, rather it creates them; gives them their limits and their plain and defiant shape. We who are Liberals once held Liberalism lightly as a truism. Now it has been disputed, and we hold it fiercely as a faith. We who believe in patriotism once thought patriotism to be reasonable, and thought little more about it. Now we know it to be unreasonable, and know it to be right. We who are Christians never knew the great philosophic common sense which inheres in that mystery until the anti-Christian writers pointed it out to us. The great march of mental destruction will go on. Everything will be denied. Everything will become a creed. It is a reasonable position to deny the stones in the street; it will be a religious dogma to assert them. It is a rational thesis that we are all in a dream; it will be a mystical sanity to say that we are all awake. Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer. We shall be left defending, not only the incredible virtues and sanities of human life, but something more incredible still, this huge impossible universe which stares us in the face. We shall fight for visible prodigies as if they were invisible. We shall look on the impossible grass and the skies with a strange courage. We shall be of those who have seen and yet have believed.”

I have an advantage here because I have read CS Lewis's discussion of the matter, which is greatly clarifying. Chesterton fans will tell you that everything of Lewis is in Chesterton first. While that may be true, the Chesterton version is often less clear, at least to me. 

One aspect (only one) of the above quote comes in those discussions of "the real meaning of Christmas (or Easter, Passover.)" Chocolate eggs and Jesus risen sang one little child, quite appropriately. Only when this is challenged does dogma start to be defined. "Well, Johnny, the chocolate eggs aren't strictly necessary and might even be a distraction. It's the Jesus risen part that's important." Once the distinction has been made we see that we could have Easter without chocolate eggs, but we couldn't have it without Jesus risen. We might not have apprehended that before. As things are taken away we see the core more clearly. The challenge has defined the doctrine. I wrote at greater length and I hope more poetically fifteen years ago in Festival Worship. Food and music are mentioned prominently.

We see that while we have gained something in terms of clarity in our religion, we have lost a great deal of fun and involvement when we separate out the (usually pagan) bits. The secular members of a post-religious society may want to keep the foods, the music, and the decorations and thus create new "real meanings" of Christmas or Passover.  It's about family. It's about heritage. It's about Peace - meaning either pretty quietness or a political version of the term, not a biblical one. It's about giving. It's about poverty and refugees. These dogmas define a new and different religion because the tree ornaments can't do that. They define nothing, only celebrate it.

I don't say the new religions are entirely unrelated to the old one. They are usually clearly descended from it, taking one of the many doctrinal bits and making it central. That is where the clarity of dogma comes in.  We wouldn't see - indeed we largely haven't seen - that a new religion has emerged if we focused only on the cookies and Santa songs. Memorial Day was about those who had died in battle, now it is about all who have died. Fourth of July and Veterans Day now join it in Generic Patriotic Day with Military Emphasis I-III. The celebrations alone cannot hold the holiday together, dogma is necessary or it erodes. 

Yet put simply, dogma isn't as much fun, at least at first. We can't just enjoy the holiday anymore, we have to believe in it now that unbelief has become a possibility. Failing that, we have to find a new belief, a new dogma to attach to the celebration.