Have you watched any of Desmet's interviews or read his work? — Tzeentch

Listened to couple of interviews. Unfortunately he is associated with pandemic controversy, since his term "mass formation" came out of the mouth of Robert Malone on Joe Rogan's podcast and caused a stir.

It's this aggression and anxiety that can find an outlet through political narratives, for example. — Tzeentch

Yes, am very interested in anxiety/aggression with respect to the irrationality/frenzy of crowds.

Desmet also has something to say about the irrationality of crowds via the concept of "mass formation", the tendency of people to consolidate and pursue an ideological/dogmatic quick-fix under certain conditions. This process gets in the way of a sober assessment of the facts and the implementation of science through policy. This is similar content to Rene Girard's mimetic contagion/scapegoating stuff.

Here is a commercial that might encapsulate how the contemporary world is too much for the individual, especially with respect to the proliferation of technologies. It creates anxiety which makes us more vulnerable to whatever the fall out of "mass formation". From here we could travel down a thousand rabbit holes in a paranoiac wonderland about our techno mediated future. But maybe I'm just unnecessarily activating my amygdala at the moment.

Social instability/stress due to famine, plague or war is classically coupled with the scapegoating myth of the Pharmakos.

Today we've these same stressors and the crowd contagion is visible. The political tribalism of the Left and the Right and their corresponding spheres of propaganda end up in an aggressive blame game which seems to be escalating. Fear/anxiety causes more fear/anxiety with respect to social/crowd projections. Our last president, Mr. Trump, shows absolutely no constraint in blaming just about anyone/anything. The mass hysteria of the conspiratorial right takes up a lot of headspace. But they dance in step to the moral indignation and social justice theater of the Left. Girard had a notion of doubles (rivals) that are caught in a bind of aggressive escalation. I think the caricatures/projections of the Left and Right are an example of this.

Killing/murders, whether from police brutality or vigilantism, doesn't seem to calm folks down at all. They serve as fuel for targeting corrupt transgressors in offices of power. We lack any formal ritual that would transfer blame in religious way. A new scapegoat (external threat) would have to unify the entire national crowd. We've heard the notion that if aliens landed (Independence Day style) there would be a unifying focus toward the aggressor. Or maybe due to accident/impasse, we'd project onto these aliens a threat that isn't altogether true.

Vide Salman Rushdie who barely escaped an assassination attempt just a coupla weeks ago. — Agent Smith

The Salman Rushdie attempt is also interesting with regard to the potential escalation of agression/violence. Is Rushdie at an even greater risk now? I think the event precipitated a new rush to buy the Satanic Versus (even I want to read it now). Some will herald the criminal as a martyr/hero which may inspire imitation, making the old conflict new with respect to relative systems of justice/morality.

How many young fundamentalist Muslims, who never heard of Salman Rushdie, have now been educated about the existence of the Fatwah.

The archaic Greek ritual of the Pharmakos (a scapegoat ritual sacrifice) is very interesting with regard to the content of Greek tragedy. It is a myth/rite which structures/influences some famous tragic plays. Aristotle's purgation of emotion (catharsis) for the spectator watching tragic drama is also a word that refers to the magic medicinal function of the Pharmakoi (scapegoat as drug/medicine). The scapegoat cleanses the city, cures a collective ailment, just like a potion or drug might cure an individual of an ailment.

The pharmakos [1] was a human embodiment of evil who was expelled from the Greek city at moments of crisis and disaster. The name is probably, but problematically, connected with pharmakon, ‘medicine, drug, poison’. [2] Both poison and drug were originally magical; so a pharmakon is a magical dose (Greek dosis ‘gift, dose’, cf. the German Gift ‘poison’) causing destruction or healing. Pharmakos then would be ‘magic man, wizard’ first, though the borderline between magic and religion is not easy to define; the early pharmakos might have been ‘magic man’ or he might have been ‘sacred-man’. Then, presumably, he or she was ‘healer, poisoner’, then later, expiatory sacrifice for the city and rascal, off-scourings, and so on. [3] On the one hand, the pharmakos could be the medicine that heals the city (according to scholia on Aristophanes Knights 1136c, the pharmakos is used in order to obtain a therapeia—‘service, tending, medical treatment’—for the prevailing disaster [4] ); on the other, he could be the poison that had to be expelled from the system (he is often ugly or criminal). Thus these two interpretations are not exclusive. [5] — Compton, Todd M. 2006. Victim of the Muses: Poet as Scapegoat, Warrior and Hero in Greco-Roman and Indo-European Myth and History. Hellenic Studies Series 11. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies.

I suppose the ritual of the Pharmakos is a sort of idealized jewel/motif that serves as the Girardian model of the scapegoat.

Reminds me of the utilitarian-consequentialist conundrum where you hang an innocent man to prevent a riot. — Agent Smith

Consider Pontius Pilate's supposed ambivalence with respect to the trial of Jesus. The historical hearsay of Pilate paints him as brutal/corrupt governor of Judea, who sentenced many to death without trial for practical purposes. He is recalled to Rome later in life for excessive and unjust brutality. His giving into the will of the Jewish mob during the trial of Jesus might be a pragmatic concession that brings peace to the crowd but also protects himself from the fall out of his own transgressions against the Jews.

For the Jews Pilate's worst offense was belittling the taboo against graven images by introducing military standards into the city, and depositing golden shields inscribed with the name of Tiberius, imperial cult objects in other words, in the palace of Herod. As Philo tells it, Pilate worried about the Jewish protest over the shields, because he feared that if they actually sent an embassy they would expose the rest of his conduct as governor by stating in full the briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injuries, the executions without a trial constantly repeated, the ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty (Philo Emb. 302). — https://factsanddetails.com/world/cat55/sub390/entry-5754.html

.

I wonder how empathy (or the lack thereof) comes into play considering and assuming empathy to be an innate trait in primates ("the ability to understand and share the feelings of another"). — Seeker

I've heard that empathy is somewhat of a double-edged sword. We can empathize someone who we believe is a victim, then violence/aggression can be perpetuated against those responsible on behalf of said victim.

____________

What is interesting about the Gombe Chimpanzee War is that the individuals who divided into warring tribes once composed a community (needs citation). Wouldn't there be a memory of social relations, fond memories of kinship that could mediate violence in the future? All of a sudden alliances somehow change, probably with respect to what the leader chooses to do.

I have a distinct memory of turning against one of my good friends in a rather bullying way as a kid. My brother seldom allowed me to join with his friends. I was an annoying cling-on to be shunned. Except one day I got to be part of a tag along and we formed a kind of bicycle gang. My good friend became a bully target and I joined in from a kind of enthusiasm of being part of my brother's group. We knocked my friend off his bicycle in the middle of the street and he bawled his eyes out. My alliance had changed spontaneously because I wanted to be part of my brother's company. I'm not so sure if there was a reason for it. My friend was always a target as a kid, he was always bullied but it is hard to remember why exactly. Kids found him annoying... Possibly he visibly lacked some kind of social etiquette that was normal by his age. I was very Chimp like in that instance of betrayal, emotionally fickle.

The Rwandan Genocide and Nazi Holocaust are probably a good example of fickle bonds. Folks who grew up with others and had bonds of friendship, Hutus aside Tutsis, Germans aside Jews, all of a sudden are polarized by identity politics and scapegoating narratives, to a point where mass murder takes place. Folks are swept up in the movement/demands of the crowd (i.e. "you're either with us or against us").

Looking at the Gombe Chimpanzee War we see a very human-like parallel of violence in a social species of our closest living relatives. Chimps fight over territory/resources just like we do. This is a different kind of violence with regard to what the scapegoating pattern is supposed to achieve. Does a successful kill of one's rivals temporary suspend the desire to continue to kill? One kill doesn't stop the war. But such escalation of violence in terms of wanting what others have does fit with mimetic desire (which is kind of an unoriginal observation).

Girard's idealized pattern of the scapegoat process requires that a mob unanimously attribute guilt to a non-guilty victim. But he seems to ignore/dismiss alternative attitudes toward sacrifice. Maybe new attitudes grew out of initial spontaneous acts of scapegoating. People thought that because sacrifice is good (for whatever reason) it is good to be sacrificed, either by a spontaneous selection or by volunteering.

For example, in this telling of the Corn Mother myth, the corn mother tells her community that she must be killed/sacrificed for their well being. This is voluntary(?) ritual suicide, not a spontaneous scapegoating. We could interpret this as a kind of deity giving a life sustaining gift to her sons and daughters. But maybe there is a version in which the Corn Mother is a victim (or relative to our contemporary moral facts, Corn Mother is a victim).

There is the popular hypothesis of universal heat death, when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium, where there is a stark lack of differentiation of thinginess and therefore time. With respect to entropy, the quality and quantity of things make the causal arrow of time possible.

Though we can imagine that a universe at thermodynamic equilibrium has some-kind of time from an imagined point of view, as particles are still moving randomly in the homogeneous cold cosmic soup, and that such a state might change spontaneously or have new emergent properties (it might shed brand new universes as Boltzmann Brains).

Over a sufficiently long time, random fluctuations could cause particles to spontaneously form literally any structure of any degree of complexity... — Wikipedia: Boltzmann Brain

I bet the answer is a resounding NO! concerning magnet spectacles.

Do electric charges and magnets distort space, in the way that a source of gravity does?

such an assumption has little to no value in the light of progression — Seeker

Why would you take "progression" to be a sure thing given the time scales involved? Don't you think there are a lot of existential threats that might support the assumption that we don't have enough time to advance a miracle that defies the current limitations of physics. Have you heard of the Great Filter in relation to the Fermi Paradox?

It might be more likely that we meet our relatives in time (who we mistake as aliens due to separation in space and time), than we meet organisms from an independent event of abiogenesis.

What happened to the facts you were talking about? — Alkis Piskas

Do you mean the facts of distance and time? The farther out we look the older the universe is. Doesn't help with navigation toward a supposed location with life, in addition that the time getting to a location doesn't help with navigation. Everybody just seems to gloss over this in hopes for a miracle.

We're never going to encounter extra terrestrial life face to face (assuming there is none in our solar system) so it doesn't matter whether we are ready for it or not. We may see a mossy rock through our telescopes and have reasonably good evidence it really is full of life. We might get a signal but civilizations will come and go in the span of time needed to say hello.

Space is too vast. Consider just 1 light year; that is just too long for us. If we move 5 miles per second, it'd take 37,200 human years to cover that distance, or so says google. Only 4.25 light years to our closest star.

Imagine seeing an old planet rich with life but which stands in it's own time long annihilated.

Consider a depressed person who could not be cured by pills, but was cured by a more holistic approach to their psychological well-being. — Tzeentch

But all the other therapeutic modalities would do well to find evidence to back up what otherwise would just be a mess of testimonials/anecdotes. What gets in the way of this evidence, the gap between the consumer and the understanding of science, is consumer marketing/propaganda among other things. An understanding of mechanism is also what protects us from harming ourselves even more. If we all looked at the statistical evidence of pills versus lifestyle changes we might be surprised at how little pills have to offer aside placebo. What if we had honest drug commercials, showing the statistical effect aside other therapies?

It seems Desmet is drawing concern for the popular narratives and beliefs about science shaped by a profit incentive and public ignorance but it is strange to label it in such a way: "The End of A Mechanistic Worldview." I wouldn't doubt that the public is generally a lot more skeptical of the idealistic promises of for-profit science given current global crises compared to decades ago.

Part 3, “Beyond the Mechanistic Worldview,” explores how our societies can supplement science—which needs serious reform to eliminate corruption, biases, flawed findings, and outright capture by powerful and monied interests—with both traditional and alternative ways of knowing and attaining meaning (community, spirituality, mastery of craft, etc.) and to further develop the humble and mystery-respecting frontiers of science as articulated by giants such as Einstein, Bohr, and Planck. — Leo Aprendi, Amazon Book Review of Psychology of Totalitarnism, Mattias Desmet

Aren't parts relative/abstract fictions linked to the value/perceiving apparatus of a kind of being/observer. Nothing really has (or does not have) a part that isn't relative to what conceives the the part as a part (or not part).

A unity is always within something which plays a necessary part in creating that unity. There are no absolute unities, only relative ones that break apart according to the various schemes/methods of part making.

Is one single atom of a nuclear isotope that decays a unity without parts? When the particle decays, does it act upon itself? Does the presence/fields of all other things (as parts) in the universe have no bearing on why/when/how that particle decays? It can't be a unity without parts if it decays, can it? Is time a part of that unity?

Is this view point arguing for something like the precautionary principle? The discoveries of scientific empiricism always involve trade-offs when applied at industrial scales. The problem is more of science from narrowed economic concerns, what is done from local incentive with ignored consequences/externalities. It's less about what science can do in principle and more about what humans can't organize due to all kinds of other depressing limitations.

The science is great tool assuming one could overcome the hurdle of an uncoordinated pluralism (many states acting independently) to implement global coordination toward sustainability and human welfare. But let's not kid ourselves.

Choloroflurocarbons used in refrigerants degraded the ozone layer. Luckily it was reversible and there was enough universal agreement to implement a fix.

Just read that all rain fall on earth is contaminated with PFAs at levels that pose risk to human health.

Maybe someone will try geoengineering if the planet gets crazy hot but there could be unforeseen trade-offs with that also.

No matter what the prevailing dream is, it's depressing. :shade:

What we need now is a non-human mechanistic Fuhrer/Pope AI who can choreograph global sustainability while minimizing human suffering.

The trick would be intolerable by human standards. How does the AI ensnare you to believe that everything you are doing as a contributor to the grand plan of a better future is what you want to do? And is it allowed to "assassinate" anyone or perform acts of God. How could it transcend the current limits of human powers to enforce its mission?

When does your freedom become one with global servitude (all for one and one for all)? What is it allowed to take from you that you currently feel you are entitled to now? Aren't you afraid of this? How will it mollify your paranoia?

But maybe this is the utopian dream of the power of the mechanistic world view, the very kind of thinking that is dangerous (because nobody will know what is really going on to futilism, crippling paranoia). The mess of human affairs is a mess, due to the blindness inspired by local needs/fulfillment, entropic trade-offs, resource limitations, the void of eternal unsatisfaction in the being of all creatures, short term versus the long term thinking. Catastrophe, soft or hard, is probably likely.

Is selfishness/narcissism at the root of the more pejorative aspect of "ego"? The only time I ever use the term for ordinary purposes is for folks who appear to be somewhat self-absorbed, narcissistic in conversations/acts. A few figures spring to mind, celebrity rock front-men David Lee Roth, Steven Tyler, Gene Simmons. Simmons especially embodies a caricature of selfishness/narcissism, much like Donald Trump (an epitome of pathological narcissism made president). In the abject case it seems there is no commitment to a shared moral reality, honor, reciprocity, where the needs of the self supersede others in an abnormal way.

In a more rudimentary way, the self and its habits are the concrete aspects of a biological individual (body) as it works to survive and reproduce in nature. Self-awareness, if necessary for the presence of a "self", probably arises from social relationship with others as a way to further mediate behavior in complex social situations. We get to run a simulation of projected consequences.

Psychoanalytic theories use these terms in special ways however, such that the Ego is one feature of Self among many others.

The positive aspect of the ego or self (all the conceptual/cognitive projections of what one is) helps one to live. You have an image/concept of what you want to preserve, maintain or evolve based on memory, instincts, social conditioning and articulated desire and you work toward that given all kinds of worldly constraints.

Now here is a selfish dog. Why is he so selfish? Does he have a big ego?

Is "collectivism" well defined? It seems like the abject example represents the ideology of failed communist regimes, where private property is outlawed and absorbed by the state, where authoritarian mandates come from an elite governing class. But it seems it's better suited for a democratic experiment.

We're not allowed to call the modern for profit corporation an example of collectivist enterprise? A group of individuals come together and are constrained in their freedoms to work for stakeholders/shareholders as a group. Every employee is to some extent a stakeholder insofar as they rely on the company for their own individual well being (they rely on some collective for their well being). These companies concentrate the power to influence state policies and to influence the greater collective.

Wherever the individual goes he/she is embedded in collective enterprises, ideologies that bind men and women in common values, causes. There is always, always, always the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of life's lottery (the caste/condition of one's individuality). There will never be a kind of state in which these tyrannies disappear entirely.

I was in my room, minding my own business, buggering the local barista. The door burst asunder.

"Thou shalt not sodomize!" The authorities cried. "You're under arrest."

"But God told me it was ok bugger the barista."

"Blasphemy!" the police priest shouted. "You've been deluded by Satan."

"But what does God say about North Carolina's hog farm pollution calamity?"

"Shut your trap! Sodomizer! Grace comes to the deserving."
_______

God gets to trounce secular rule because he is associated with ultimate values by his/her/its cult members. In current times this is very dangerous.

Many use God as an excuse to get what they want (power/wealth). Others are persuaded to follow by a senseless appeal to faith.

Is there really (apparently) just one substance?

There could also be a paradox of choice going on which leads to an admission of life being unsatisfactory despite all efforts to enjoy it. There are simply too many points, too many avenues, too many possibilities and yet the circumstance of satisfying some needs over others leaves one vacillating over what could've been. There is so much denied or granted to us by absurd historical accident.

The grass is seemingly greener on the other side of the fence and any satisfaction is temporary, attendant on a never ending work to sustain it. Sisyphus rolls his rock against the flows of entropy.

Then bring in misfortune and suffering. Nature demands that we satisfy our needs all the while denying the means to satisfy those needs. How could the centrality of life become inescapable pain and suffering? Perhaps the default of the human condition is one of want and its itchy and uncomfortable and we are tired of having to put salve on it every morning.

But maybe the salve is like heroin and you're having the ride of your life.

Gratitude is likely associated with desired brain states (a feeling of satisfaction/peace/love). If love were an island, folks living on it would be bonded in mutual trust through acts of authentic gratitude. One would be more often genuinely grateful and show it in reciprocity with another.

The self-help psychologists say you can fake gratitude until you make gratitude, exercise the circuits, like the Buddhists might exercise loving kindness (Metta) toward establishing a good social habit.

Just never show gratitude toward your boss, or he'll likely pile on the workload. There is no room for gratitude in master/slave relationships, unless of course you enjoy your work and can picture yourself as a free man instead of a precariat slave in our Capitalist utopia.

We are barreling toward extinction within a minute breadth of geologic time. No need to arrogate the right to end others lives. That's a punk nihilistic move.

It's all going to happen again anyway. Being is inevitable and we have no control on where and what we might appear as in the next happening.

What about the historical fact of polytheism with regard to gods?

There's Shinto/animism, where just about everything is a god/spirit.
There's the Greek pantheon of elitist soap opera fickle pricks, playing chess with mortals, susceptible to bribes.
There's the Egyptian animal headed figures of the immortal other world (a bit alien/weird from my point of view).

You could just as well ascribe kingship/sovereign to a God who is the arbiter of law/morality/truth/duty/value/identity.

Maybe loosely the family stands in relation to the patriarch as the village stands in relation to the king/leader.

God is probably a strong model/reflection for the head of the household in a Christian context. The figure informs and is informed by the social reality of those who live by it.

Guess Italians traditionally love the Madonna because they prefer mom to dad. Mamma mia (oh mother).
_______

The fragmentation of old cultures with the turn of the englightenment and technological age, Capitalist commodification, alienation, atomization, might bear some responsibility for a nostalgia of more simple yesterday, when you could find answers/guidance in God. This surely parallels the individual's crisis of having to go out into a shitty world, after leaving family, and pull on one's bootstraps in the nihilistic rat race. Maybe if we had a God (imaginary parent) we could pray for guidance. But who believes in that anymore?

Why take drugs when you can just go see the new Cronenberg nightmare this year.

Crimes of the Future

I am in my mid 50's and wondering why I'm not a worshipper of Mammon — allan wallace

But where does your dough ($) come from? It's a bit presumptuous to say the average wage/salaried earner worships Mammon. Maybe they see no comfortable alternative to how they live currently.

You ought to have compassion for the slaves of Mammon (The Terror of Entropy Incarnate as Death and Dispersal), unless you think they're wholly responsible for the situation they've habituated themselves to.

Rene Girard is the new trendy/intellectual cipher to understanding the motifs of Bible (the meaning of Christ's sacrifice).

Jesus is the Last Sacrifice, a symbol/awareness/reminder to end the widespread unconscious practice of scapegoating, which is an evolutionary trick or double edged sword which formerly stabilized society but is also the source of violent apocalypse/end of times . Good luck on that account. That's as much like telling everyone that Christ's message is that they shall all become vegan and give 10% of their away to the poor and never partake in money lending with interest.

So what do you think I think of your writing? — Joe Mello

Tell us what you think of his writing.

If God is actually playing hand puppets, Praxis on one hand and Joe Mello on the other, I'm stoked for this gladiatorial theater. One hand is feigning outrage. One hand is arrogant. Both hands like to write fiction. One hand paints. The hands do so many things.

I'm curious - can you give an example fo cultural enhancement? — Tom Storm

Well, maybe it's a bad term because as I think about it, most of what I think would might count as cultural enhancement already exists for those interested. We already have the freedom to choose what we want to do if we have the time and money. Maybe setting up a means to give away free experiences to those who can't afford it. More non-profits for hands on skill trading.

I like the idea of street level cabinets/libraries/farm stands where people can exchange unwanted books/items/food but maybe this would amount to an eye sore, a garbage heap and something to be vandalized and abused. Besides, these things already are a thing.

Edit: I've got it: more time and money (means to ends) for everyone who is lacking.

I doubt you would get much agreement as to what constitutes the notion of 'beautify' or 'enhance culture' in the current world of anti-foundationalism. — Tom Storm

Do you mean unanimous or majority agreement in any community? I guess we can consider the home (or one's room) as a sovereign microstate and where beautification and cultural enhancement can start. Even at that level there can be plenty of disagreement if others are in the mix. I've no plans to try initiate a mass movement of cultural/political change. If I had Jeff Bezo's money and influence, maybe I could get somewhere (other than space).

I care from fear of suffering mostly. Maybe reason (if I could reason) would help to avoid unnecessary suffering. Secondarily, I care for pleasure.

The golden rule is about care. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I care not to be stuck with a knife, so I won't stick others with knives. I care in maintaining trust, so I want to be trustworthy. I'd care to beautify society and enhance culture so I can benefit too and everyone can feel just a smidge better. Basic stuff. But there are plenty of my habits/actions that fail this rule on account of not self being aware enough. We do not sit down and apply the golden rule to all potential action. We engage the rule mostly with regard to shorter term personal consequences and we succumb to reciprocation (if you slap me, I slap you, then we declare a slap war and the children go hungry).

Think depression has quashed my ability to recall most dreams. The one's I do recall lack much of any kind of emotive charge/significance. I took a sleep study in which I had zero REM sleep but it may have been due to taking a tricyclic sedative. Lots of substances reduce/affect REM.

Sometimes dreams can be so foul that one would wonder how one could sleep through them if one were aware of them.

Besides, there nothing more surreal then this waking dream we've yet to transition from. Just walk into a Walmart... how many planets in the universe have a Walmart equivalent? This is all so strange.

Once, Zhuang Zhou dreamed he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering about, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know that he was Zhuang Zhou. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuang Zhou. But he didn't know if he was Zhuang Zhou who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming that he was Zhuang Zhou. Between Zhuang Zhou and the butterfly there must be some distinction! This is called the Transformation of Things. — Zhuang Zhou

This is the paradox then: you pay for the distance the cab travels, the cabby acts as if you paid for his time. — Agent Smith

Because time is always an inescapable value factor that applies to any kind of labor. There would be no passengers if they could not expect to get to their destinations on time. It takes time to travel any distance and there are only so many hours in a work day.

What form of productivity doesn't gain or lose value relative to the amount of time it takes to perform?

Taxi fare is not calculated by the drivers hurrying to reach the destination because if he goes to fast the customers are in the cab only a short time and pay less. It would not make sense for him to do so. — Sir2u

But we've just established that at a certain speed only distance is metered. So if there isn't much traffic, a taxi driver can increase his daily income if he speeds to get more fares for the day. All he needs to do is maximize distance traveled in a day above cross over speed. But the question is whether it is really worth it to do so relative to whatever the time metering rate is. Looks like crossover speed for one company is above 11 mph.

Still don't know why there would be a paradox. It's more a question of optimization. Is it worth it for a cabbie to speed?

Quora: Do taxi drivers make less money in slow traffic?

The answer is yes.

$.50/54 seconds versus $2.50/mile

@ 40miles/60 minutes speed you get .66miles/minute so that works out to like $3.30/2 minutes at 40mph versus $1.11/2 minutes waiting in traffic (or equal to and below 11mph).

While the taxi is traveling above the "crossover speed," the added 25-cents is a mileage charge only. When the cab is below the "crossover speed," the added 25-cents is a time charge only. — yellowcabhemet.com

When taxi goes vroom vroom fast, distance rate only applies. When taxi go too slow, sneaky time charge pulses add to the bill.

This is flash fiction. Join the thread.

What does "in-moral" mean? I suppose it means not moral in the way the prefix works with inflexible. But shouldn't the word immoral suffice?

If a rider were paying for the taxi driver's time then wouldn't there be an incentive to slow down. Why rush off to your next customer when you can get as much by being less productive.

Therefore it doesn't follow that a cabby who is paid by distance and speeds drives as if paid for his/her time.

Deleted

Using this dichotomy of winners and losers is a failure on my part.

Virtuous/successful/loved/gifted people watch and read what their unlucky counterparts do, whatever they're into.