Search Inside Yourself

Version 0.1

Notes and email related to Search Inside Yourself (leftover as a draft review long ago)

Journaling communication exercise for Saturday September 6 today I'm going to talk about the book search inside yourself by Google employee number 107 I found it a very interesting book quickly car interested in it so I think that means my mind state is basically in a tune with the authors way of thinking. Yonkers with thinking. I don't quite by into the value a sinus to additional meditation practice, but a lot of his exercises and ideas seen very sound. He seemed crisis here, but it's hard to take am seriously in conjunction okay the context the way to google is your fault over the years. He's been teaching this course since about 2007 didn't even showing move from engineering work them, this looks pretty annoying. over to the personal section. Los several attempts to dictate more material. Anyway, the objective shirley appears to be to clarify my thinking in a b c a natural topic of journal activities would be the latest book 7 reading. My approach is going to be too dictated into Android, and then paste it into some kind of blog web page, editing. My feeling is I want to keep this kind of disassociated from my name, I'm not sure why. Perhaps a new blog over on WordPress rather than part of my existing blogs. Yes it's an estimate consciousness for now. Arapaho september 6

Since you closed Search Inside Yourself with a quotey thing, I feel I should open with a philosophic bauble whose origins are lost in the distant mists of time:

The past is fixed. The future does not begin tomorrow--it begins in the next instant. I stand in the cusp of now. Now I can make a thousand choices, each of which leads down a different path. Only one is the way to Tao. But regardless of my choice, the path of Tao is still before me. On my way, I met a man and asked him which was the path to Tao.

But the Master replied, "You can't get there from here."

I suspect the master was misquoted. He probably said "You can't get here from there" or, in accord with your book, "We can't get there from here." Or maybe that's just an allergic reaction to first awakening after finishing your book and sleeping on it?

Your book implied that your first language is not English, so you may not be familiar with the predecessor joke. I'm sure you can google it from the punchline, or I can explain it. Of course, if I tell you, then I have to kill the humor being. (Since my Zen collapse, it seems everything is also a joke.)

Anyway, my primary reaction was "So if he's sincere about training compassion, and since games are the most effective training mechanisms, and since games often induce quasi- or pseudo- or semi-meditative states of contemplation, where is Compassion, the training game?" The first person shooter of compassion? (Me? Can't stand FPSs, but Compassion is different, eh?)

Seems intuitively obvious enough for the most casual observer, but again, feel free to ask for clarification if required.

Having said that, I'm quite dubious about communicating with you. Your book certainly makes you seem like a nice guy, but the overwhelming evidence of the google is that you must be faking.

By the way (and way too far, too), I'm not really blaming the google. It's just that the rules of the business game in America worship cancer. Natural result of being legislated and regulated by the most cheaply bribed politicians working for the greediest and least ethical businessmen. The super-rich are different from you (I hope) and me. They love money much more, and that's how they became so stinking rich. Unfortunately, their problem is uninteresting because it is not solvable. The problems of a rich bastard who desperately needs more money cannot be solved by ANY amount of money. Meaningful problems should be viewed in terms of solutions.

Oh yeah, where did the bauble come from? Maybe you can google it? I found it in a little pocket notebook I used to carry, into which it had been copied from an earlier notebook, which had come from an earlier notebook, and back into the mists. I suspect it is my own thought, but if so, the prior question is what provoked me to think of it? If not, I wish I had noted the source.

P.S. You probably know Hal Varian (unless his title is just a sinecure). I was reminded of his contact invitation when my first search for you failed. You aren't using Google+, but he is, which is presumably the source of the fake LinkedIn account in his name. I'm pert' shure he isn't looking for me to discuss "Couch Potatoes of the World, Unite!" (Cf. Your page 135, which just missed the magic number of 137.) Pert' shure he isn't actually using Google+, either, since I used that link to let him know about the theft of his identity some months ago, and the fake LinkedIn account is still there and inviting me, for whatever nefarious purposes I know not.

P.P.S. Do you know Salikh in Japan?

P.P.P.S. I also hope this email bounces from a celebrity email system. Not to benefit the google, but for world peace and because it would help solve the spam problem. ROFLMAO.

--

Freedom = (Meaningful + Unconstrained) Choice ≠ Beer

Reactions to General will 2.0: Rousseau, Freud, Google

Reactions to General will 2.0: Rousseau, Freud, Google by Hiroki Azuma (一般意志2.0 ルソー、フロイト、グーグル)

In summary, a tremendously provocative and rather interesting book, but too flawed and immature to be important or influential. It makes me feel like I have to start with rationalizations about the book's limitations. I think there're three kinds of problems that affected this book.

One is that the translation itself seems somewhat suspicious, Either because the material is so difficult or possibly because the translators own philosophies were brought into the picture, especially if either of them is a libertarian. In my page-based notes I will include a few specific questions about the translation, but I think there's more a general problem manifested in the confusion of proper nouns with generic usages. Quite frequently the book uses terms such as "general will 2.0" that should be capitalized and treated as proper nouns, but which appear in lowercase. It is barely possible that this reflects a feeling that the frequent capitalization would have made the book feel too heavy in some way, but I think it much more likely that it reflects the lack of capitalization in the original Japanese. (There are no capital letters in Japanese.)

The second problem could be described as a kind of trauma due to the disastrous earthquake and tsunami of 2011, immediately followed by the nuclear-power-plant disaster in Fukushima. My own trauma was relatively minor, just that I voided elevators for a few months, but perhaps the author had tighter connections to Fukushima or for some other reason felt the disaster more deeply. He gives the impression in the introduction that he was forced by the earthquake into rethinking many of the points raised in the book in ways that prevented him from merely polishing the original essays. His choices were to present them almost intact from the magazine serialization or completely rewrite the book.

The third problem can be described as a kind of forced extension beyond the original conception, especially as regards Rousseau. He is trying to rework the philosophy of Rousseau in a way that goes beyond the plausible implications of the original philosophy of the "social contract". I think it started as an interesting thought experiment, but he went so far that he at some point even the author understood that the connection to the original was overstretched. Even with the stretching, it's thought-provoking, but I felt it was not a mature conceptualization. There was some additional confusion caused by the layering in of later philosophers and thinkers, especially as regards Freud.

So here are my page-based comments:

On page vii I saw the first thing that made me worry about the translation. Near the bottom he says "I was able to assume the place ..." in a way that sounds quite pompous and assertive, even aggressive. I suspect the original Japanese may have represented a gentler conception that should've been translated into something like "I found myself thrust into a place ..."

On page xii he notes that it is September 11, 2011, which is exactly half a year since the disaster of the great earthquake. As an American I was struck but that the date was also exactly 10 years after the great and similarly traumatic disaster of 9/11 in America. It would have been even more striking as the double anniversary. (The 9/11 disaster was mentioned on page 60.)

On page 6 he talks about the Google's mission statement of organizing the worlds information. My main reaction was negative in light of my reconsideration of that mission statement in favor of giving priority to accessing the advertising information with the new utility metric of the paying advertisers' profits. I wonder if his generous and friendly interpretation was still plausible when this book was written?

At the bottom of page 11 was another sentence that made me wonder about the quality of the translation. It uses a very unusual word, "sublated", in such a way that it could not be clearly interpreted from the context. Perhaps a dictionary-based translation? Following the literal Japanese, but the result was not clear in the actual context. Better writing or a better translation should have made this concept clear. There are other examples in the book where free translation was clearly used. For example the "two heads are better than one" expression is used instead of a direct translation of the Japanese expression about the three men being wiser then Buddha. (三人寄れば文殊の知恵 was referenced in a note.)

On page 53 there is a confusing note about the two Japanese forms of 意思 and 意志, which are homonyms with closely related meanings. (One kind of 同音異義。) However my main reaction to this footnote was to realize that all of the Japanese intrusions in the book would have benefited from the inclusion of proper Japanese. The use of Romaji was as usual ambiguous and confusing. If you don't already know the Japanese, then the Romaji is just gibberish, and if you do know the Japanese, then the Romaji is just intrusive.

On page 69 he's discussing the shallowness of conversations on the infamous Nichanneru (2ちゃんねる？). Reminds me again of Nicholas Carr's excellent book The Shallows.

On page 70 the second note is talking about the creator of the Google's Japanese input system, someone named Taku Kudo. One of my reactions was to wonder if he was might be related to the security expert Kudo-san at IBM Japan, but mostly I was curious about the extra features of Google Japanese input.

What struck me about page 73 was his essential confusion about the nature of freedom. However I think it helped to trigger me to think more about the meaning of constraints based on reality within the context of my own equation defining the most important sense of freedom. [#1 Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice{5} ≠ (Beer^4 | Speech | Trade) in my favorite sig.] Not sure if this is when I started wondering about some way to work the word constraint or reality into my sig, but it also reassured me about the usage of "Coerced" there.

My main reaction to page 79 was probably do to his apparent confusion about the you effective use of personal time. This is also another intersection with The Shallows.

Page 81 i talking about island universes from a libertarian perspective, but this is a concept I now map to do-it-yourself brainwashing.

Page 86 represents another other intrusion of libertarian fantasies. He's trying to rationalize minimizing government without considering the essential blindness of masses of people. The kinds of data he is collecting here are fundamentally incapable of revealing what should be done, incapable of dealing with the notion of change itself, but only capture the static conditions. I7m doubtful that the author understands that leadership requires unified vision, though this might be an overlaying of the libertarian conceptions. There's also some confusion with his use of the word "database" throughout the book, where he was probably thinking about something like "big data". Perhaps the use of big data came later, so he was forced to use the approximating word database?

I had two reactions on page 96. The main one was feeling his interpretation of Google PageRank was quite shallow and even inaccurate. I also had trouble with his interpretation of Freud here.

Not certain what caught my attention page 113, but perhaps that is where I realized the confusion between database and big data? The closing paragraph of that chapter was quite confusing to me, though that might be another translation problem.

Page 115 he had me thinking about reality-based constraints in relation to freedom.

On pages 136 and 137 he made me feel like he was confused about how the wisdom of crowds works, even though he refers to that book. The independent perspective of the individuals within the crowd is key to avoiding mob-based decisions.

The third note on page 139 made me think of time-based economics, although that general topic is clearly beyond his thinking in this book. I think that was the main problem that caught my attention on page 145, too.

On page 150 he's talking about the Japanese website Niconico, which has a real-time chat mode similar to YouTube's. He's talking about the problem of an overabundance of comments on the right side. This make me think about an obvious solution. Most of the comments should never be displayed, though perhaps they could be saved somewhere else for later reference. The displayed comments should be throttled to a slow speed to make sure they can be read. After each comment that makes it onto the display there would be some number and buttons. The first number would represent how many comments had been skipped before accepting the displayed comment. This would give a real-time indicator of the activity of the discussion. A thumbs-up and thumbs-down button would let the audience try to push the comment up or down the list, with a number for the net value. If the comment is accumulating a lot of positive reactions, then will tend to rise in the stack of displayed comments, but if it's getting negative reactions it will sink. There should also be a button for "the subject has changed". If enough viewers click on that one, then the comment will disappear to make room for a new comment. This system would then semi-automatically create a time-based list of the most important comments associated with each part of the video. More ideas and details available upon request, but that offer feels like a joke these days...

The discussion of Twitter on pages 182 to 184 was also thought provoking. It made me think of a new way to make Twitter much more interesting and useful. You should be able to sort and group the accounts you are following so that the different kinds of information appear in separate lists. On a large screen computer you would be able to display the lists side-by-side. For example the Twitter feed of your family members and close friends might be in the first column on the left side, while the second column might be for news sources and the third column for celebrities you are interested in. On a small screen device a sideways flick could switch between the columns representing your groupings. Another new idea of the sort I like to think about...

On page 204 he suggests that Google and Apple are influenced buy their shareholders. Seems to me to be a remarkably naïve statement, based on my firsthand experience as an Apple shareholder and most starkly in a recent interaction with Sony. They are not interested in new ideas or any sort of "guidance" from shareholders. That's part of a more general problem and made me think his economic models are too naïve by half.

Those are my page-based reactions to the book. They sound somewhat critical, but I'm still interested in many of the topics he raised. Not sure if I can actually recommend the book, but I'm thinking of visiting the coffee shop (or maybe it's more of a discussion salon) that the author manages.

Art of Loving

Version 0.2

Two Minor Criticisms of The Art of Loving by Erich Fromm

Mostly an excellent book that I can highly recommend. This is a book that was published more than 50 years ago, but which is still in print and still in demand, even in Japanese. After reading the English version, I tried to reserve the Japanese version at the library, only to find more than 30 people ahead of me (even though the library has several copies).

The book ranged over a large number of topics and I felt that it was deeply insightful on almost all of them. Actually, my main reaction was to feel like we are become mental midgets compared to such deep thinkers. In particular, I think Internet is contributing greatly towards our shallow, unfocused, and overly fluid thinking.

Notwithstanding that, I felt there were two weaknesses in the book. One was in sections where he used the kind of vague language that afflicts medical diagnosis and astrology. Such language makes it too easy to fit people into categories that seem highly applicable, but are actually uncertain.

The other weakness was in his gender stereotyping. He took it as natural that children should change and evolve over time, but seemed to ignore the possibility that parents can also change. I felt that his thinking on these topics was even kind of rigid compared to other areas he discussed, but just now I'd excuse him on the basis of his dealings with the Freudians...

2-D Framework for Explanations in Why

Version 0.2

An Interesting 2-D Framework for Explanations in Why? What Happens When People Give Reasons... and Why by Charles Tilly

Not doing justice to a rather interesting book of applied epistemology, but wanted to record the key analytic notion because it struck me as unusually interesting. The book is much longer of course, with a long chapter on each of the four cells, but it's also a rather heavy read and I don't even feel I could do justice to it on the basis of one normal reading. This is the kind of book that you could easily build a college course around, probably in psychology, but perhaps in another department such as philosophy or sociology or even within a law school or medical school (since many of the examples are specific to those two professions).

It's actually somewhat difficult to clarify his two dimensions. He labels the horizontal dimension popular versus specialized, where "popular" is in the sense of general use by the entire population while "specialized" is for use by specialists. The other dimension is for formulas versus cause-effect accounts, but I think of the "formulas" more in terms of purely descriptive records of observation.

As he applies the typology, popular formulas defines the cell for "conventions", which are reasons that are basically just standard expressions and somewhat mindless. In the morning, everyone says "good morning", and that's a convention that doesn't involve a lot of thought. The popular cause-effect accounts usually take the form of "stories", where the key is a reduction from the complexities of life and the storyteller's insertion of reasons and rationales for the events, often leading to a moral or illustrating some teaching point. The specialized formulas are the "codes", explicitly in the case of codes of law, but implicitly in such situations as standards of good medical practice that physicians are expected to follow. In applying the code, the intention is to fit the real-world situations into the closest matches of the code and then follow the specified procedures. The judge attempts to match prior cases and follow the precedents of earlier decisions, or the physician attempts to match prior diagnoses and follow the standard treatments for those illnesses or injuries. The specialized cause-effect accounts are called "technical accounts", where the experts are talking to each other about their deep justifications of what was observed in the real world where the codes were applied.

Not sure if writing that will help me internalize the deep concepts here, but it's definitely a thought provoking book and worth the reading, if you are interested in having your thoughts provoked. The part that is harder for me to follow is how our selections among these kinds of reasons determine or are determined by the relationships among the people giving and receiving them. The most concrete example is how physicians relate to other physicians as peers when they exchange technical accounts, whereas they relate to patients from a superior perspective when they present the code of standard medical practice.

In the chapter on technical accounts, he includes some general works targeting non-specialists, and based on my reading of Blood, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, I regret that none of my accessible Japanese libraries seem to have the books he mentions by Charles Pasternak and Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza--at least not in English.