Timely and relevant version of a groovy and powerful song. U2 stole the hook from Ted Nugent’s “Stranglehold”, and gave it a bath and a heart. :wink:

A universe basic income, or a public works program ala FDR, or some combination or the two, makes supreme sense to seriously consider. It would lift many out of poverty and near-slavelike existence.

Which unfortunately is why it won’t be even considered, one fears. Too much riding on the (united) status quo. Why have an educated, content, clear-thinking people when a nation of PTSD and poverty is so much controllable... and marketable?

Thank you for sharing this excellent post. Carl Jung would approve, methinks!

We as humans, as mammals, will always have preferences and balance points. We like the weather a certain way, and a particular food, and a firm foundation. We (usually) avoid pain and the extremes, and in the middle ground find a space to inhabit.

But finding deep peace, as opposed to seeking natural contentment, is probably proportional to the amount of equanimity one realizes. Equanimity, (an even spirit, an equal mind) might be the learned ability to simply not take every darn thing that happens to you, or near you, or to someone you may know, so absolutely personally. (Still working on that myself, imagine it will be for a lifetime). And equanimity should definitely not be confused with apathy.

We are in the circle of life on a spinning planet in a swirling galaxy. But if one holds their gaze on the unmoving center of the wheel of fortune for even a moment, the stillness experienced may be the foundation that was sought.

How would one relate the topic at hand to the E-Prime “language”? Seems to be a parallel with E-Prime generally dispensing with the intransitive verb “to be”. A positive effect of this is to avoid assuming the omniscient POV and god-like statements. I don’t follow E-Prime strictly, but it is has had a large effect on how i try to word things. Also, it seems to have influenced psychological practice, for example encouraging people to share their feelings about a person rather than labeling that person. Description rather than proclaimation, perhaps.

(Not directly related to the OP, but hopefully relevant.) I have been wondering lately about the effects that cryptocurrency might potentially have on employment and the economy. Despite it being almost ten years old, “crypto” has much work to be done to make a positive impact on the lives of ordinary people (as opposed to big investors and speculators.) There is a current bear market for crypto, after last year’s dizzying profits. And there is much to be skeptical about generally.

But as a best case scenario, perhaps the alternate currencies can provide some lubrication, for lack of a better way to put it. The economic situation seems to be like a car trying to run with very little oil. Despite gov’t money being created non-stop, practically everyone i know is struggling and is hesitant to spend money. It is like we are wandering in a financial desert, and the chiefs are hogging the oasis. Not looking to them to change anything.

If the entire cryptocurrency market doesn’t collapse or get bogged down in scams and greed, could it possibly eventually ease the pressure and work load on the average citizen? At least just a little?Or have some other positive effect on our work/financial lives? Is it all a pipe dream? Or just too early to tell?

New products tend to break because they were rushed, always wait for future versions. With a little bit of technical background you can fix a lot of things on your own. My point was more about the "phenomenology" of technology. For many people, myself included at times, learning how something works is cool. Oftentimes, however, I find myself struck by how kludge-like things are. The documentation isn't always great, sometimes non-existent. When you ask professional engineers for help with some device and they tell you "I don't know", that doesn't always instill confidence. It's also scary how many people are desperate to get through error checking, testing, etc.

What's super sketchy are unregulated products. Literally, use at your own risk. A lot of things aren't regulated, and even if they are, the standards aren't always satisfactory. — darthbarracuda

Thanks for sharing your experiences here. Good point. Maybe kinda like not wanting to see sausage being made. And it’s probably better not to think about airline cost-cutting affecting safety as one is about to get on a flight.

I've always been amused by the niche cult surrounding artificial intelligence, because as much as it's "transhumanist" and "futurist", the hype fundamentally is related to our own insecurities. Those touting A.I. do so because they seem to think A.I. will do everything we don't want to. They will work - we won't have to. But what will we do instead? We'll still have the existential angst, and even more so when we realize that the A.I. is, in that respect, superior to us by being able to work without burden. Artificial intelligence might make some people question the value of human existence qua human existence, as A.I. presumably would do most of the work while we sit around idly, twiddling our fingers. — darthbarracuda

Yes, the A.I. hype is in full swing, and full funding mode. Lots of promises here, more than a presidential campaign, which is hard to top. Even daring to critique a specific “technology” is a tricky position for one to take because it is at the risk of appearing to be a fud-dud or an eco-extremist or something. However, i must concede that the advances in driverless vehicle tech is impressive imho, despite some recent tragic accidents.

Is it a change in how products and services are distributed? Is it a change in what we value? Is it a change in relations? Is it a change in how we think? And then how would it all come together? Yep too much for my mind. As we've seen, any "attempt" at some kind of change led to violence and domination of one class or group over another. Better to just accept no? — schopenhauer1

Yes, violence unfortunately often accompanies revolution. This is something to be avoided as much as humanly possible. If one can see one’s opponent as a sister or brother, or even as one’s own self, then lasting change is possible. The movie “I :heart: Huckabees” has a great scene where the idealistic tree-hugging crusader finally sees his “stuffed suit” opponent as himself, and it changes everything. Great metaphysical movie.

Acceptance is usually a good thing, even if one tries then to change what is accepted. Patience is wonderful and rare is our insta-google world. Don’t know how it would all come together, but eventually we all have to come together. We might be all huddled together on the mountain tops when the oceans rise and the levee breaks!

Mein Gott im Himmel -- that is an inspired title. — Bitter Crank

:grin: I’ll even write a blurb for the book, if you’d like: “I laughed, I cried, and my chair needs to be dried. Couldn’t stop myself, though I really tried.”

Yes indeed, but what does that require from us? What would we have to do to end the despair of the modern work life? Right. Now. — schopenhauer1

Ahh... well that’s the tricky part, isn’t it? The devil hides in the details. I’d imagine that there would have to be many different approaches, coming not just from experts and scientists, but from anyone who has something useful to add. For example... perhaps if a significant percentage (not even a majority, just a spark so to speak) really were convinced that humans are more than just a bowlful of isolated marbles barely touching, never intersecting, merely bouncing off each other either painfully or pleasurably ad Infinitum (I am a rock... I am an iiiii-aaa-land. And a rock can feel no pain. And an island never cries)... Then just maybe, life and work on this third rock from the sun, this blue-green space marble might actually be quite enjoyable.

For inspiration of this sort, i usually turn to the Tao Te Ching, and the writings of Daniel Quinn, Joseph Campbell, Ken Wilber, and some others.

Thanks for your posts here. Good stuff as usual. In fact, you could probably just go through your post history, collect the best of them, and have a dern good book to publish. Call it “Philosophy in the Age of Assault Rifle Porn” and you’ll have a bestseller! :sweat:

Somehow, when it comes to the major issues that we face (like the question of work), i usually arrive at the conclusion that modernity/civilization has an imbalance (among many other imbalances) when it comes to how we view our individuality and collectivity. This cuts down to the very marrow of our identities. In tribal cultures, one identifies with the group as much as (or perhaps even more than) being a particular person. At least that is my understanding.

As for our culture, circumstances are obviously different, but our DNA and human needs remain little changed. Though it is difficult sometimes to feel a connection with the person down the street, let alone across the country. We are atomized and isolated, interpersonally speaking. Intra-personally, we are equally splintered. Our Ego fights with our Id which resents the Superego. Left brain intellect vs. right brain feelings. Capitalism (of course) capitalizes on all this division and strife. But this mindset seems centuries, even millennia older than capitalism (as in the biblical examples BC gave).

Some say technology will save us (eventually). Some say there is no way to change flawed, sinful human nature. There is another view that says if the future is to be different, it will come not from machines or powerful computers, but from people with changed minds.

A passionate motivation to do good.

Rousseau "The mistake of most moralists has always been to consider man as an essentially reasonable being. Man is a sensitive being, who consults solely his passions in order to act, for and for whom reason serves only to palliate the follies his passions lead him to commit" — Cavacava

The theory of energy flow put forth in the chakra system is relevant here, as you probably know. It is not quite the mysterious secret in Western civilization that is was many years ago. But there don't seem to be many proponents of it that are taken seriously, or given much credibility beyond "therapeutic healing". It may strike some as "too religious-based" or "new age-y" or just plain "voodoo". It seems the acceptance of chakras, chi, and many other Eastern-type ideas was hindered greatly by the both terrorism and the resulting "war on terror".

But a damaged circulation of vital energy in a person will do as much damage if not more, than the damaged flow of blood, oxygen, or nutrients. Multiply that by a thousand, by a million, or by 7 billion...
and the result is what we are experiencing and dealing with at the present. Is this a simplification? Yes, like a pattern, algorithm, or model is simplified to its essential parts. Could it help untangle the knot if understood and applied to the situation? That seems to be the question at hand.

I subscribed to Quietism for a few years. Then they raised the price by $20 a year, while going from a weekly issue to a monthly one. Too many perfume ads, as well. :D

Seriously though, probably most times and in many cases "less is more". More words count less, know when to close the door (as the Tao Te Ching puts it). Having said that, the life and times we find ourselves in tend to provoke some kind of philosophical agitation in many people. Like an oyster working on some irritating sand in its shell. Maybe a pearl follows... or maybe we are just scratching an itch.

(Sorry for the zombie undead thread. Flipped a coin about starting a new one.)

Relevant and interesting article from Aeon site linked below for your enjoyment and response. Of substantial length too, which is good. Some articles there are good, but are so short they seem like mere introductions. The author of the article (Derek Skillings) also joins in the discussion on the website.

https://aeon.co/essays/what-constitutes-an-individual-organism-in-biology

Concerning the OP about the boundaries of the individual, the article looks at some examples from the plant and animal kingdom to show that the borders are not always clear. An excerpt:

What individuates one organism from another? Plant life is tricky here because it can be hard to tell when a plant is growing and when it’s making something new. The philosopher of biology Peter Godfrey-Smith at the University of Sydney diagnoses the distinction between growth and reproduction as one of the central puzzles at the heart of biological individuality. As he puts it: ‘reproduction is making a new individual, while growth is making more of the same’. But there’s an uncertain relationship between the two. As well as sprouting from seeds, strawberries and many grasses send out above-ground horizontal stems called runners or stolons. New systems of roots and leaves will grow where these runners set down. If the runners get severed, the plants will carry on with no problems. A single strawberry seed can produce a large network of distinct ‘plants’, some connected and some disconnected from the others. It’s difficult to determine the boundaries of the plant that grew from the original seed, and consequently, how many total strawberry plants there are in the garden.

In the early 19th century, plants were what really kickstarted the debates among naturalists about the definition of individuality. Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin, wrote in The Botanic Garden (1791): ‘A tree is properly speaking a family or swarm of buds, each bud being an individual plant.’ A special draw for the early naturalists building up their museum collections were the unusual organisms swept up during survey expeditions across the world. Strange colonial creatures with weird life cycles were being dredged up from the sea: encrusting colonies of sac-like tunicates that start life swimming around like tadpoles; long chains of transparent jet-propelled salps; and corals, anemones, sea pens and other animals that were initially believed to be plants.

He goes on later to discuss the colonies of gut bacteria we carry around with us, numbering close to as many cells in the body. Human life as we know it would be radically different, if even possible at all, without these bacteria. Not expecting anyone to thank their gut flora at an award speech, but it blurs the lines drawn between self and other. Which is nod in the direction of complexity theory concerning inter-being, systems, and networks.

Looking to the (so-called) natural, biological world for some sort of inspiration or grounding concerning human affairs is a traditional, if perhaps currently under-utilized, technique. It is not in itself a science, though it welcomes knowledge gained from scientific inquiry. But neither is it mere superstition or a fantastical divination like reading the future in the flight patterns and singing of birds. (Or is augery merely a lost art?).

Plants and animals have an instinct and drive to stay alive, attain some level of stasis or comfort, and reproduce. Since there is not unlimited space and resources for unlimited numbers of countless species to exist simultaneously, there is a de facto competition for the means of survival. This all may be obvious, of course, but is stated here to establish a "starting point". Given that point then, it can be said that ethics and morality exist to put the individual's wants and needs in a dynamic, working perspective with others and world. And given that point, of organisms "needing to take", and therefore taking what they need (including killing other organisms for food), one can imagine an extreme case where one species or one individual tries to take all life and land to be their property. This would eventually include genocide and slavery by all probability, which all but the coarsest and most short-sighted of ethics condemn. Which is where we humans find ourselves: in between Jainism and genocide, so to speak. Between existing on sunshine and rainbows while avoiding stepping on bugs; or attempting to be Pharaohs of the universe and owning, consuming, or destroying all.

Which leads to many questions. A few examples: What is the optimal balance of give and take for an individual? Like a person's eating habits, how much is "too much"? In what way are nations similar to individuals concerning actions, intentions, responsibility, etc. and in what ways are they different? Do nations owe each other anything? If so, what? More ambiguously, what is the real difference between countries beyond their borders? Do religions somehow transcend borders, or merely offer different ones? What of the seemingly contradictory trends toward both unification and tribal states? Given the facts of the current state of affairs, the cycles of life and nature, and evolution... how are the sustainability of individuals, nations, and the Earth interrelated?

(Y)

... our backs to the wall.

Every thread needs a theme song.

Ahhh... it might be fun though! Give feedback without starting a riot. Since we can't have 9 different fonts and 17 text colors... X-) (Of course it won't happen because of the forum format software thingy even if all the moderators suffered simultaneous concussions and agreed to it!)

Or that a particular approach might be barking up the wrong tree. (There might be an upside to some small anonymous feedback.) But then again... there's that very slim chance that I'm right and 135 other philosophy devotees are wrong. It could happen! It is such a burden sometimes to be slightly ahead of the rest of humanity. Oh, the pain... the pain of it all! :D

Hee hee! Though odds are i would eventually get the a rating of:

:-d 99. (N) 81. :-} 36.

Lol! Exactly. Some more button possibilities: "WTFudge?", "Tl;DR", "Pure Genius!", "Could you dumb it down a shade, please?", "meh... ", "Thems fightin' words! (if I could ever translate it into plain English, that is)", "What-eva!", "Inspirational! Want that engraved on my tombstone!"

Probably not possible, but it might be interesting to use the emojis/ smilies as a vote feedback at the end of posts. Example:

(Y) 7 . :-O 5. (N) 4. X-) 3. :P 2.

My point has only been that we should be mindful of not only the philosophical import of our words, but their effect on the health of the forum. It's a matter of faith, perhaps, that the latter would also lead in the long run to better philosophy. — Srap Tasmaner

(Y) Yes, that is well said. Thank you.

As I mentioned, "objecting to tone" may be a type of red herring fallacy (as listed here: These descriptions of fallacies are helpful for tactics to avoid. Though i have committed most of the mistakes at least once. It is so embarrassing to have your spouse call you out on a motte-and-bailey fallacy. :-# ) Tone-policing may sound like the mating call of the loser. But even though one can't win the argument by complaining about sarcasm, mockery, or arrogance, those things can weaken one's argument. This seems to be a bleeding gladiatorial age we are living in, from sports to politics to singing contests. There is however evidence of many great minds and deep hearts on this forum on a daily basis. Those qualities defeat our shadow-selves.

Why, everyone says you're a wise guy! :D

Knowing others takes intelligence, knowing oneself requires wisdom.
Overcoming others requires strength, overcoming oneself takes greatness.
- Tao Te Ching

If I (for whatever my part-time contributions are worth) am reading between the lines correctly (no small feat, if successful), then I'm still a bit puzzled. Is there too little freedom of expression on this site, from its ownership? Or is there too much expression (of potentially dubious nature) allowed by moderators and taken by certain members? Or perhaps both? Not being sarcastic here. Just asking questions. And perhaps they are rhetorical questions because to answer them might be too blunt or accusatory. Which I would understand, if that were the case. (BTW and FWIW... I do wish to commend unenlightened for his transparency, and surrendering the post of moderator.)

Kevin is a very naughty boy indeed, and everyone except Kevin agrees the he must be banned. But most posters, even the naughtiest, are not as bad as Kevin, and not everyone will see the need for discipline. — unenlightened

The ideal would be to have a thread that we peasants could post to but not read in which we could have a long and detailed rant about all the many Kevin's that are infesting the site and ruining our insightful discussions. That way it would be clear - assuming it was used by many, occasionally, and not just me, all the time - who was a Kevin in the fevered imagination of another Kevin, and who was a real bloody Kevin. — unenlightened

My thought is that Kevin ought be banned. Whether others ought be offered an opportunity to publicly lambast him seems a pretty silly question in light of the fact that we have a murderer in our midst who needs removal. — Hanover

So I am assuming that "Kevin" refers to at least one actual flesh and blood member (if not more), in addition to being a composite of undesirable qualities similar to those I described here recently. And if there were a scenario where EVERYONE was in favor of banning said person then I suppose the outcome would be clear. But I can't recall any recent thread or issue of any significance that had complete agreement, fortunately or unfortunately. And banning is permanent. Now, "correction" or "reproval" by moderator(s) would be a different thing, of course. How does one person tell another not to act like a douchehead WITHOUT acting like a douchehead themselves? Tricky question (pardon the vulgarity).

To put it bluntly, the concern in banning an outspoken, offensive, and perhaps longtime member is that it will make a fecking martyr of that person. So we will all endure long winded speeches before the fact, and stern judgments after the fact. His or her name will be brought up reverently by supporters as some kind of hero who gave their all to the cause of truth and philosophy. This is based on past occurrences, and would undoubtedly be worse this time if it occurred. At that point, I would probably lose interest in this site, despite my wishes otherwise.

Before this site becomes a virtual version of the battle at Charlottesville, those with an excess of attitude (who have no time or respect for whomever they deem "fools") best get off their high imperial fat horses before they fall off and shatter like Humpty Dumpty. Let's talk like different (and differing) equals, rather than fighting like high-minded superhero warriors. Hopefully, it is not too late for that.

In matters that might be labeled "sexist", I would propose that the tone, manner, and attitude have as much as an effect- if not more- than any particular statements of potentially questionable nature. Of course in debate, objecting to an argument because of "tone" is an ad hominem fallacy. But matters like this seem to be beyond that particular debate definition. If someone has a very macho and brash style of writing or speaking, fairly or not, it could possibly strike some people as a sexist or chauvinist attitude, irregardless of any definite sexist statements. No one likes the "tone police", but tone will have an effect on the message written, and may color it very strongly.

In general (not picking on any particular person here): bossiness, argumentiveness, name-calling and labeling, swearing, nay-saying, pedantic comments, lecturing, going off-topic, self-righteousness, demanding others answer one's questions, etc. are "alpha male" type traits that wear out one's welcome. If the conversation were in person, things like shouting and being physically intimidating would fit this pattern. It absolutely doesn't NOT matter what the gender is of the person committing these errors. A woman could commit these behaviors just the same as men. Thankfully, no one person embodies all of these extreme, pushy, over-ripe qualities. I know i have erred similarly in my life, though I try to avoid that on this forum. But anyone is apt to be mistaken in judgment or in knowledge from time to time.
(From another thread. I'm posting this again because I think it bears repeating).

In matters that might be labeled "sexist", I would propose that the tone, manner, and attitude have as much as an effect- if not more- than any particular statements of potentially questionable nature. Of course in debate, objecting to an argument because of "tone" is an ad hominem fallacy. But matters like this seem to be beyond that particular debate definition. If someone has a very macho and brash style of writing or speaking, fairly or not, it could possibly strike some people as a sexist or chauvinist attitude, irregardless of any definite sexist statements. No one likes the "tone police", but tone will have an effect on the message written, and may color it very strongly.

In general (not picking on any particular person here): bossiness, argumentiveness, name-calling and labeling, swearing, nay-saying, pedantic comments, lecturing, going off-topic, self-righteousness, demanding others answer one's questions, etc. are "alpha male" type traits that wear out one's welcome. If the conversation were in person, things like shouting and being physically intimidating would fit this pattern. It absolutely doesn't NOT matter what the gender is of the person committing these errors. A woman could commit these behaviors just the same as men. Thankfully, no one person embodies all of these extreme, pushy, over-ripe qualities. I know i have erred similarly in my life, though I try to avoid that on this forum. But anyone is apt to be mistaken in judgment or in knowledge from time to time.

What we all need right now is a big group hug! C'mon, everybody!
(L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) :D

Deleting thread in 5,4,3,2,1...

An acronym that describes our Internet-dominated era: Digital Information Age of Rumors, Reality-tv, and Home-shopping Easing into the Apocalypse. Or DIARRHEA for short. :D

Computer science. Everything else as a hobby or spare time activity, as important or interesting as it may be. (Y)

Individuality/collectivity and similarity/differences are the Yin/Yang of our existence, and maybe all of nature's. In nature, the balance point is generally the norm. Humanity (as culture or particular people) can be either balanced or unbalanced at any given time. Perhaps this is the price of complexity, or it is a conscious choice. Maybe it is a mixture of both.

Individual/collective: Right now, it seems (more and more) that the overriding belief is that humans are absolute individuals. That is, that there is a definite, permanent, indivisible wall or separator between a person and everything else in the world. According to this belief, we are like marbles rolling around on the floor, maybe in proximity to or bouncing off of other marbles, but always clearly distinct and separate. And mental processes arise deep within the matter of the individual, and are thus even further separated from anyone else. Communication is possible in this paradigm, but difficult and incomplete. Communion as such does not compute. Or if it does factor in, it implies death and dissolution. Like marbles crushed into dust, and mixed together. For a quick sketch of an opposing belief system, look at trees. One tree, but many branches and innumerable leaves. Many trees, but an unseen network of roots connecting them.

As for the similarity/difference scale, there is some equivocation. The saying is "you are unique... just like everyone else". Similarities bind a group, even if the main similarity is that the group is together in the same location. Families may share a last name while having different first names. Gender, age, race, location, class/wealth, language, religion, etc. all factor into the difference/similarity scale. People seem to want to blend in with their group, but not disappear into the crowd. It is a dynamic that can be confusing or humorous, observing the push/pull people feel about conformity and trends.

https://aeon.co/essays/psychedelics-work-by-violating-our-models-of-self-and-the-world

Interesting article (and comments afterward) about dissolving the ego. Disregard the psychedelic aspects if you wish for a purer description of the process.

Your hand- is it one thing or many? Five fingers or one hand? Both? Neither?

Nondualism's "not one, yet not separate" may be onto something...

Everyone's situation is different. But what helped me (to be overly simplistic) was to scrape off layers and layers of personae. In other words, i had to demolish the building of my psyche and start over from the ground level. It was necessary because the building was collapsing. Your mileage may vary. Best of luck, success, and peace to you.

I'm going to change my username. So please no one take "MasterDebater" since i have my heart set on that name! :D

I genuinely hope you are right... for everybody's sake. You presented in general more of a best case scenario, maybe I'm looking at worst case possibilities. And that is fine; hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Almost anything is possible at this point. What concerns me is the direction circumstances seem to be going. A potential large natural disaster combined with a powerful "elite" in government and commerce that are prepared to take full advantage of the situation to gain even more control is a recipe for a nightmare. Basically the scenario in Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine. I agree when Quinn writes that there is nothing fundamentally wrong or evil with humans that prevents us from living sustainably and relatively peacefully. It all in the "story" (a scenario interrelating humans, the world, and "the gods") we are told and believe about our life on earth:

“There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with people. Given a story to enact that puts them in accord with the world, they will live in accord with the world. But given a story to enact that puts them at odds with the world, as yours does, they will live at odds with the world. Given a story to enact in which they are the lords of the world, they will act like lords of the world. And, given a story to enact in which the world is a foe to be conquered, they will conquer it like a foe, and one day, inevitably, their foe will lie bleeding to death at their feet, as the world is now.”

Excerpt From: Quinn, Daniel. “Ishmael.” A Bantam/Turner Book, 2009-12-16. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Is there some other way to live besides trying for total domination over nature and each other? What is the use of maximum production and maximum profits? What good is a reward if you ain't around to use it? Can't we have the good things in life without this extremist strategy? Even if there were no other viable alternative way to live at this point (and I believe there is an alternative), it is hard to ignore the beliefs that got us to this point.

Identity. Very important question. And like many such questions, the first answer that may pop into mind is "what's the big deal?". Because it is so natural to name everything, it seems like it can have no downsides. But when does it go to far? When does it go past the optimal point? We know that it can be sometimes harmless, sometimes not. Like someone crossing a road, one can ignore some things like trees and garbage cans to focus on the vehicles.

Like others here mentioned, the gov't and especially corporations want to know every location and website you visit and every keystroke you type, practically. And if that is an exaggeration, it won't be for very much longer. It is almost accepted with a shrug. "Divide and conquer" is a perennial strategy. So is "define and control", which suggests that the first step to control someone or something is to name, label, categorize, and number it. To define is to limit. To feed personal data into a certain program, and it can map out someone's past, pinpoint their present reality, and very accurately predict their future better than any other method. But it all starts with the names and especially the numbers. Numbers are hard and scientific. There can be 90 John Brian Zanders, but only one with this particular social security number.

Imagine that you are alive back in the 1800s out on the American frontier. Your job is to help the gov't establish some control of the local Native tribe. You and your coworkers could just walk around with rifles drawn and try to control the tribe. Might be somewhat effective, if you knew exactly what you wanted to happen and how to communicate that. Or you could get out your pencil and paper and start counting. You act like a census taker and count everything and everyone. Getting names and assigning numbers. And so on. In a relatively short time, that tribe which was a complete mystery is now a known quantity. They have been counted, measured, and named. They have begun to be under control...