Domain Specific Knowledge in the Land of the Blind

Not to seem like I am picking on blind people, but consider this more of belaboring a point - a point made in the previous post (or next depending on the order in which you are reading these). Let's add another quote to the mix "If you are so smart, why aren't you rich?!" The point of this quote is the same as that of the other, if you have something that others lack, you should be able to use that ability to rise above your fellow man. I bet you thought that those quotes were talking about different things, didn't you? Go on, admit it, no one else will hear you. I'll wait for you... There, don't you feel better now...

Let's look at a doctor in the land of the blind. He would have tools that allowed surgery based on sounds. They would be fine and dandy tools, highly optimized for the senses of the people of that world. Yet, we throw a sighted person into the mix - what would that do? He could see things that the doctor might miss, due to the limited scope of the world. Could this sighted person perform the surgery? No, he wouldn't have the specific knowledge of the surgeon, but he could know things that were beyond what the doctor could ever know. Would the doctor stop what he was doing because of this madman's ravings that something isn't right, something that the doctor can not sense? Probably not.

What am I saying? Even being sighted in the land of the blind, unless he learns knowledge specific to tasks, he would be limited to knowing that things are not right, but not be able to fix them. One has to have the knowledge in order to make changes. He could see the problems, he just couldn't fix them, therefore people probably wouldn't listen to him. He would seem like an endless whiner "Why did you do it that way? It was obviously going to fail because of this thing here? I can't tell you how I know there is something there that you can not hear, but trust me, it failed because of that. I can not tell you how to do it right so as to avoid that thing there - you have to trust me and use your knowledge to avoid the obstacles that I am pointing out to you. Yes, you are the expert in the this field, and yes no one else in this world knows why this always fails, but I am telling you I know why." Sad, isn't it.... my ability to write convincing dialog sounds more like ramblings, but I hope you get the point. What was the point again...

Ah yes, the point. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man would be king. And in a land of idiots, the smart people would be rich. And in the land of blogs, this post is finished.

The Edward

Land of the Blind, Home of the...

"In the land of the blind, the one eyed man would be king" If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that and thought "If only they knew..."... Well, there will be no further excuses, for now I will tell you, so then you will know, without all of those ellipsis...

Imagine, if you will, in a world where everyone was blind, what would life be like for these people in this world? People would know where others were by the noises that they made. People who wanted to practice subterfuge would be able to cast sounds, to make it sound like they were somewhere else. "I couldn't have done it officer, everyone could plainly hear that I was over there." How about plays and other forms of entertainment? Actors would be all over the stage, but yet it would be how they threw their voices to give the illusion (what is the word for a sound illusion?) of being other places on the stage, and make sounds to make the audience believe something else was happening. Special Effects in "movies" would be cool sound distortions. Etc.

Now, imagine if you will, a person with sight being born into this world. He would know that he could sense things that others couldn't, but he couldn't describe them to anyone else. There would be no words for what he senses, so how could he find others like himself? "But" you say, "why would he want to, the quote says that he would be King! To rule over others! Bwah, ha ha!" Let's put that aside for a moment.

What would the aforementioned world be like to this person born unto the sightless? People of lesser character would cozy up to him and try to rob or trick him. They would make it sound like they were far away, yet he could see them right there next to him. What could he do? "Everyone else in the world knows that you are way over there by the sounds that you are making, and yet I know it not to be true. I can see you stabbing me in the back!" All the felon would have to do is say "You are mad! I am way over here. I have witnesses." as he continues to assault this poor sighted fellow. Even the minor deceits that friends, family, and common folk do to keep privacy, etc, would be transparent to him, yet there would be nothing he could do or say about it.

What about plays and movies and such? Surely this god amongst blind men would have some solace in the venue of the arts! But he would be able to perceive more than everyone else, he could see the fakery so clearly, in ways that sound-only couldn't convey. He would see that the people are not were they sound to be. He would know that he is supposed to believe certain things are happening on stage or in the movie based on what he learned through socialization, but he couldn't easily ignore the input from his eyes without going mad, now could he? The blinds' plays would seem hollow and meaningless to him.

So, this sighted man could be King. But could he? He wouldn't understand most of what is going on around him, since he would have to figure out what others knew based on their limited senses, then try to talk as if that were real. He wouldn't enjoy any of the entertainment. He would see all of things that decent people keep to themselves. Indeed, if he wanted to, he could probably keep part of himself shutoff when dealing with others, though use the extra information to become King, but why? Why would he want to rule people he has nothing in common with? People who would argue every lest detail of his decisions because they couldn't see what he sees? And beyond that, what could these people offer him?

Would he want to marry one of their kind? Who would take someone so obviously mad? And if he found someone, he could never share the sights and wonders on his world with her - a life with someone he loved would be endlessly frustrating to both people. So, his only hope would be to rise to a comfortable position in the world, a place where he could cast his visual net out far enough in hopes of one day meeting others like him, but with no real way to really achieve that goal. He would have to watch everyone, see if anyone does something inconsistent with being blind. He would also have to do things, subtle things that the blind wouldn't notice, but something that he hopes another sighted people would see. He would have to fit in, while still being slightly out of sync in ways that he hopes would be obvious to another sighted person. Can you imagine his life like that? Can you still believe that the sighted man in the land of the blind would be a good thing, something that one would want for oneself or a loved one? The loneliness with the constant soul crushing hope of discovery? Bwah, ha, ha, indeed!

Next time you hear that tired old phrase, remember my words, and know that the above is what I think every time I hear them. The phrase actually is saying that people envy those who have something that they do not themselves have, but it doesn't take into account that a different life has different troubles. Sure, someone might have more of something than you have, but they can not enjoy life in the same way that you can.

Enjoy!

The Edward

Enough with the delays!

I've been hearing it for months now "The Edward, what happened? We hung on your every word. Your blog posts were like manna from Heaven. Please nourish us in thought and in deed." Indeed, but even manna from Heaven was bitched about after many months and years of nothing else. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. Two pigs in a poke. Etc.

Actually, I started to believe that I wasn't doing myself and my audience justice! I would see or hear things throughout the day, and I would say to myself, "Shit, man, that is some whacked shit, I should write about that shit", though without all of that shit. But by the time the day has worn on, and I would settle down for a good, hard writing session, I found that I could no longer remember the fine details nor clever twists of ideas that my fine readers have come to expect. So, I would write a bit, try to recall the details, and put fingers to keys in what I hoped was a meaningful manner.

I saw what I was writing, and though it still made me chuckle a bit, it wasn't the same as some of my other writings that I enjoyed so much. I did not feel that I was always getting the point across in the manner I was hoping for. So, I did what any red blooded American would do - I stopped doing it in hopes that it would get better. Now I see like a virgin on his wedding night that I was doing it all wrong! I should have been writing more, honing my skills like a two edged blade, but one with enough space left to get a good grip on it so that I could use it without cutting myself.

So, even though the topic of this blog site is My View of Your World, I guess this one fails yet again in that mission, yet I hope it is more of a Me Too kind of post - one that, while it lends no information to the mix, says "Hey world, look at me. Yeah, I have nothing to say right this instance, but rest assured, more of the same is on the way!"

Here's a cold hearty glass of boldness to more of the same. Cheers.

-The Edward

Psycho Killers

I recently had cause to watch the DVD version of a P.D. James novel. I had been a big fan of P.D. James writings way back when I was a kid - some classic reads they were. Since those days of childhood book burns on my nose, I gave up mysteries. "Why?" you might ask. Go ahead, ask - I just wait over here until you are done talking to yourself.

I gave up mysteries because they weren't. It was always obvious who did it and why, within the first chapter. I believe I mentioned this before in other blog posts, for all of you who fell for the "go ahead and ask me why" trick in the previous paragraph.

Recently, I decided that I haven't hit my head into a wall enough recently, so I should give them a try again. I bought some Solar Pons books, but had to give up for the aforementioned "no real mystery" reason. Then I started watching the DVD versions of novels, and in doing so, I noticed something that I had never noticed before - the murderers are always psycho killers.

I read something the other day about WWII (ie World War 2) - something like 90% of the guns used during that war were never fired. 90% of the people who stormed the beaches died because they just couldn't shoot a fellow human. The idea of the article was that wars are actually fought by the small part of humanity that are actually psychotic - people who do not see their fellow humans as fellow humans.

Something else that I had read a long time ago also came into play: there is an easy way for the police to tell who committed a crime. If you accuse two people of a crime, one of whom actually did it, and lock them both up, only one of them will sleep that night. An innocent person will not sleep, because they worry that justice might not prevail or something to that effect. While the guilty person will have had been worrying about getting caught, and now that he/she has been caught, they can finally rest.

Putting this all together, the thing that bothered me about this P.D. James DVD was that there was a murder. The person who committed the murder was just trying to blackmail someone, but was found out, so he killed her. Throughout the entire movie, the guilty party was fun and friendly. He suffered no guilt from the murder, even though murder wasn't his original intent. He was basically a psychopath. That is when it struck me that all of the murder mysteries are about psychopaths - all of them seem to have the attributes of them rather than of a normal person who just committed a crime beyond their intent. Just because someone is willing to steal, does that mean that they would kill someone? Actually, no, but yet that always seems to be the plot in stories.

So, I now have another reason to stick with my previous No More Mysteries rule - not only do they give it away in chapter one, but they do not understand criminals who aren't psychotic.

The Edward

PS Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against psychotics - some of my favorite companies are run by them. But all of them in the books are of the pedestrian type. Where are the crime novels about people being beaten to death with a giant clown shoe? Poisoned with larks' vomit? Wrapped in springs and thrown off a roof to see if they bounce? Criminally Insane? More like Criminally Lame!

Yeah Obama!

Hard to believe, but I just heard it on the radio, as I am sure that you have as well. Finally, some good news! And after all of these years of denial, we are finally going to be treated like adults instead of scared little children.

I admit, when I had heard that Obama was going to be the man to do it, I was surprised, just as much as you probably were. Clinton had the chance to do it, but I think that phrase meant something else to him. And W... But Obama, he's our man!

The government waste involved - it will sure be a grand day to get that money back into our budget so that we can do something better with it, like feed the homeless. I would say upgrade our schools, but none of that matters now! With all of that influx of technology... wow.

I heard about it on KSFO - they spent the last hour talking about it, and for this next after midnight hour, they say that they will continue talking about it. They just finished off the hour saying that the money being wasted over the past 70 years on this program will finally be over. Good news, everybody.

I wonder how they are going to report it around the world? Will each government tell its populous at the same time? Now that I think about it, why would they leak it to late night talk around... unless they have already started officially telling people in other countries - that must be it!

Hard to believe that Obama will go down in history as the president who finally stopped wasting time and money covering up the UFO/alien conspiracy. As they just finished saying, this will be the greatest event in human history.

Wait, the next hour started... they are now saying that they hope Obama will be the person who tells us the truth. We should all send him emails asking him to disclose the truth. They say he is a good honest man, so once he is in, he will spill the beans... Hmmm... not quite the same, but still... - could late night talk radio be wrong?!

The Edward

Whom counts?

I started writing about this over year ago - time, where does it all go! Since I can not go back and really write what I had started, I'll have to do it with shadows and mist, hoping that the real message isn't lost...

Back then, there was a suicide bomber. I know, I know, it is hard to believe that we still had them only last year - it seems like an eternity since the alien invasion put an end to all of that nonsense, but hear me out anyway. The thing I considered way back in those darkened ages when we still said "ook, ook" all of the time: who mourns for the suicide bomber?

It was a small bombing, they only counted something like five dead. The question in my mind at that time, those five dead (or as they say, they found five bodies, I guess the people had already left since they were never mentioned, just their bodies), who were they? Not individually, since realistically it wouldn't matter to me unless I personally knew them. I didn't see anyone I know shedding a tear for them while chowing down at Mr. Steer that night. No, my question was more, I don't know... well, enough pussyfooting around, here is the question:

Of the five bodies, did they count the suicide bomber? I assume that said bomber's body would have been amongst those aforementioned bodies found at the scene, but did they separate him out? Did five people die that day and the bomber, or did four people and a suicider? Was the news reporter counting the suicide bomber as a person, I guess is the crux of my thoughts. Why, one might ask, well...

Is all life sacred? If so, isn't the tragic death of the person wearing the bomb just as sad as the people who were in the blast area? He died in a bomb blast just like the other people did, and none of them are complaining about who actually pulled the trigger, so why should we? Realistically, for the vast majority of people in the world, the impact of his death weighed the same in their minds as the deaths of the other people, which is pretty much: none.

Since we do not know anything about the lives of any of the people who died that day, who was really good and who was really evil (how many were going to go home that night and do something nasty and evil, but were stopped by that event? we will never know...), how can were mourn for any of them? Can you really mourn someone that you do not know?

The Edward

By the time...

By the time you read this, I will be gone. I am writing these words Monday night, and Google's blog software will not post them until the time I listed as the post time, which will be Wednesday morning.

I would like to see that Wednesday sunrise with you, but I know that I will not be able, because of that aforementioned gone-ness. Then again, you will be gone too by then, "now" for you. In fact, all of us will be gone by the time that these words are posted. How do I know this...

But wait, if you are reading these words, how can you be gone, you are probably asking yourself. But you will be mistaken, for the you that exists right now as I type these words, will not be the person who is reading these words, just as the person who will be there as me will not be me. He and I will share some memories...

Every new memory changes me, as it changes it you and everyone else in this world. If you are happy now as I type this on Monday, aliens may attack on Tuesday, and by the time power is restored on Wednesday, you will be different - your view of the world will be different. If I could ask you some questions now, like "Do you think aliens will attack on Tuesday?" you would probably answer "Are you mad? Of course not. No way. Impossible!" And yet, if they did attack on Tuesday, by the time these words have found you, if I asked that future you (future to me now, present to you when you are reading this) that same question, you would say "Are you mad? Of course they already did. So possible that it happened." So, unless you are mad and answer questions differently every time asked, the person answering on Wednesday must be different from who you are right now.

Therefore, the person I want to talk with right now will be gone by now, I will have missed my chance to talk with you. I'm sorry to have missed you. I hope that the person in your place will want to talk with me, even though the alien attack will have had probably been my fault.

The Edward