<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/11/25 10:15 AM, glen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7380797b-cd3d-4fbb-a816-3e9300d58bba@gmail.com">There's
a Nurse Anesthetist I sometimes drink with who is dyslexic. He
once described how difficult it was for him to get through his
schooling and how it seems to compare to his wife's experience
getting through her Nurse Practitioner schooling. I waffle between
wondering if this guy's actually 100x smarter than the people
around him, which is what allowed him to grit his way through
that; versus the perspective that we *all* have persnickety little
details about how our bodies work that somehow evens out the
struggle. Maybe we're all equivalently sized tensors, but the
weights are differently distributed?
<br>
</blockquote>
This is how I read Vonnegut's <u><i>Harrison Bergeron</i></u>
(short story) when I first read it: <br>
<p data-start="0" data-end="113"><begin GPT 4o offering of a
summary><br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p data-start="115" data-end="498"><i>In this dystopian tale,
society enforces strict equality by using <strong
data-start="181" data-end="194">handicaps</strong> to
suppress any form of advantage—whether physical, intellectual,
or artistic. Strong people wear weights, intelligent people
have distracting earpieces, and beautiful people wear masks.
The story follows Harrison Bergeron, an exceptionally gifted
individual who rebels against this oppressive system.</i></p>
<p data-start="500" data-end="671"><i>It’s a satirical critique of
forced equality and government control, with Vonnegut
exploring themes of individualism, freedom, and the dangers of
extreme egalitarianism.</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p data-start="500" data-end="671"><i><</i>end AI provided
text></p>
<p data-start="500" data-end="671">Vonnegut, true to form was
caricaturing something and I (also true to one of my forms) was
seeking the counter-example/argument and wanted to notice that
*everyone* is (dis)advantaged across a spectrum of (Assembly
Theoretic) composition of nature/nurture precursors to the
imminent next-state.</p>
<p data-start="500" data-end="671">The conclusion in HB was in the
spirit of Ghandi's "An eye for an eye will make the whole world
blind." Pretty much what MAGA seems to be lining up on? And
perhaps what they percieve "wokism" to be leaning toward as well?<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7380797b-cd3d-4fbb-a816-3e9300d58bba@gmail.com">
If the latter is the case (which I tend to believe - maybe
confirmation of my rejection of the Great Man theory and
meritocracy), then the appreciation for a well-timed meme or a
pithy/profound tweet (neither of which I have) is on par with an
appreciation for, say, Paradise Lost or whatever book allows one
to virtue signal to one's MENSA buddies.
<br>
<br>
But even if the latter is the case, my perspective on it still
seems individualistic. The appreciation for snark and sick memes
still resides deep in one's psyche. It's centralized. The compute
isn't on the leaves as it is with something like mob mentality or
that exhilaration you feel at a rave or a protest.
<br>
</blockquote>
I think this is a deep (and possibly fundamental?) observation but
I'll be damned if I can un-pack/tangle/fold it effectively.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>