Showing posts with label simplicity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label simplicity. Show all posts

Thursday, April 6, 2017

Bad Buys

     The reactions to this piece, coupled with my experiences of the past few days, which I spent in the Blue Ridge Mountains of deepest, darkest Virginia, have me thinking along the lines of this piece once again – but not in a purely romantic or inter-gender relations way.

     A few days separated from one’s usual surroundings, most emphatically including all his “stuff,” can result in a massive realignment of his perspectives. Mind you, I like “stuff.” I certainly own a lot of it, as the regular financial extractions I undergo for its repair surely remind me. However, it takes up space, both physical and mental. I have to stay on top of its maintenance. I also have to remember how to use it. (Sadly, I’ve lost the product manual for my Qwert Iggle and can’t find a copy on the Web. No more emu juice with my Cheerios®. Sigh.) And in the strict sense of “required for survival,” I don’t need most of it.

     My host these past few days, whom I’ll call Joe, has a lot less “stuff” than I, and he gets by much better than I do. Indeed, Joe designed and built his own home in the mountains – no small feat, especially as there was no access road at the time and Joe’s plot is so sharply sloped that I had difficulty ascending it on foot. He also wired, plumbed, fenced, and gated it. I have no doubt that despite any and all difficulties he could and would do so again, from scratch and Home Depot, were circumstances to demand it.

     Joe’s place is not some sort of primitive hunter’s lodge, either. It’s a comfortably furnished home comparable in its amenities to a typical middle-class suburban home you would find in less sharply sloped America. His main building is a bit smaller than most, but that’s nicely offset by his three satellite buildings – his workshop, his wife’s workshop, and his guest cottage – which Joe also designed and built himself.

     The typical example of the contemporary cults of “preppers” and “survivalists” would fall to their knees in awe at Joe’s achievement. And well they should. It’s a testament to what a determined man capable of mastering the skills normally left to “specialists” can do with the application of sufficient physical and mental effort. It’s an absurdity of Brobdinganagian dimensions that Joe thinks I’d do just fine on his mountain – I, who recently had to call a master plumber for instruction on how to replace the flush lever on a toilet.


     I don’t imagine that most of Joe’s contemporaries could hope to replicate Joe’s achievement. He put a lot of time, money, and effort into it, to say nothing of the array of skills he had to acquire. (Plus the need to go armed at all times; the Blue Ridge Mountains weren’t free of predators back then. Nor are they today.) But setting that undertaking alongside my habitual reliance on “specialists” is a humbling experience.

     I’ve accepted the division-of-labor economy. Indeed, without it I’d be a starving wretch; the only things I can do that are worth anyone’s valuta are software and fiction. (What, you think the crap I post here is worth anything? Millions of people worldwide are doing the very same thing as we speak. Some of them do it better than I. Virtually none of us get paid.) But the simplicity available to Joe is something I envy greatly. He needs absolutely no one for anything. All his associations are by choice; none arise from necessity. What would you give to be able to say the same?

     Simplicity is, quite ironically, one of the most complex conditions a contemporary American can contemplate. Try to imagine how you would contrive to live well, according to your personal standards, with no need for the support of specialists in dozens of fields.


     Now, as to the title of this essay. A “bad buy,” by most people’s understanding, is an expenditure whose consequences are “not worth it.” In some sense, no element in the fantastic array of devices that surround me and support my existence is a “bad buy.” Indeed, I rely on them for many daily “necessities.” But in aggregate, coupled to my own specialization, they’ve rendered me dependent on innumerable others to whom I must regularly pay obeisance in Federal Reserve Notes. Most of those others have nothing else in common with me. I wouldn’t think of inviting them to a party; if I did, they’d be shocked right out of their skivvies.

     On those occasions when I desire merely to sit and think, which are more frequent than ever, those dependencies can be irritating in the extreme. For example, I need to invoke the services of three specialists today, owing to conditions that arose while I was in Virginia. I can’t spend the day merely contemplating how to proceed with my current novel-in-progress. Like it or not, I must open my home to others – don’t get me wrong; I greatly appreciate their attention and pay for it willingly – and await their verdicts about various matters pertaining to plumbing, basement drainage, and how to repair certain of my mechanical assistants.

     And then there’s this:

     “That’s the whole bill of lading?” Adam Grenier said.
     Martin nodded. “As near as we can figure it. You said twelve thousand pounds was the limit, right?”
     Grenier nodded. “For the Guppy. If you think you’ll need more lift—”
     “We won’t,” Althea said. “That list ciphers out to about ten thousand, eight hundred.” She glanced up at the craft they were chartering. “She seems awfully small for that kind of load, Adam.”
     “You might be surprised,” Grenier said. “That’s her safe rating with all possible hazards taken into account, including things like short-field takeoffs and landings. Her lift rating is about fourteen five, and her structural rating is higher still. But ten eight is severe enough, thanks. With all the miles she’s got on her, I don’t like to tax her.” He glanced back and forth between them. “You’re both coming along?”
     “Of course,” Althea said. “That pile of crap isn’t going to do much on its own.”
     “That adds about three-fifty to the load, so we’re just over eleven thousand. Look,” Grenier said, “it’s better to be safe than sorry. Planes have fallen out of the sky for being overloaded. None of mine, but all the same, if you can avoid expanding this list any further, I’d strongly advise it.” He awarded her a wholly artificial smile.
     Something’s going on here, Grandpere.
     —Almost certainly, Al. His father was a better, more pleasant man, and
he was never this accommodating.
     So how do I find out what?
     —I have no idea.
     Damn. I suppose I’ll have to ride it to the end, won’t I?
     —What if you retreat to your earlier plan?
     Martin said we wouldn’t. In front of all our neighbors, at that. I can’t make a liar out of him.
     —I know.

     “When do you think you could fit us in?” she said.
     Grenier waved unconcern. “You get your stuff together, get it over here, and I’ll take care of the rest. There’s enough slack in the scheduling to squeeze in one flight just about any time from now through November. Oh, and don’t worry about the loading. My crew will see to all of that. They understand the issues quite well.”
     Martin’s eyes narrowed. “What makes you think we wouldn’t?”
     A quick flicker of the eyelids was all the reaction Adam Grenier produced. It was enough.
     “Well, maybe you do,” he said. “But do you want the responsibility for a possible midpoint fuel shortfall because of unbalanced aerodynamics? For a plane that has to turn around before it’s delivered its cargo? If you load, it’s on your shoulders. If my guys do it...?” He shrugged.
     We’re being set up for a fall.
     She glanced at her husband. He shook his head microscopically.
     “Okay,” she said. “We’ll be back in touch when we’ve assembled all this junk and have arranged to truck it over.” She stuck out a hand. “Thanks for being so helpful, Adam.”
     His plastic smile was still fixed in place. “Not at all.”
* * *
     As they exited the tree-lined corridor from the commercial strip and turned onto the pathway to Morelon House, Althea halted her husband and turned to face him. “I can’t figure out what he’s planning, can you?”
     Martin gazed at her ruefully. “I’ve been thinking about that and nothing else, love. But I’m dead certain it’s nothing we’d enjoy.”
     “So what now?”
     He grimaced. “I don’t know. Postpone the trip, for sure. How to get our initial load up to Thule? Frankly, I don’t think we have much choice. Our clan had heavy-lift capacity at one point, didn’t it?”
     She nodded. “Yeah, but we sold the plane when Adam’s dad set up shop here. Charisse said she was happy to get rid of it. It made more sense to hire it out, so we wouldn’t have to maintain a plane and train pilots.”
     She glanced at the entrance to Morelon House. The old mansion looked as sturdy as ever. It presented an appearance of immutable strength to all who saw it. Yet it had begun to seem to her that the clan had undermined that strength in several ways, with several decisions. None of them had been fatal; indeed, when each was made, it had appeared to be the obvious choice. Yet in combination, they had rendered Clan Morelon massively dependent upon the wills and skills of a multitude of outsiders...persons who might not be as available or dependable as one would hope.
     —That’s the downside of the division of labor, Al.
     Yeah. I can see that, Grandpere. But how could we have avoided it?
     —By resisting all the temptations to specialize and to make use of specialists. By purchasing absolute self-sufficiency at the price of economic advantage. Which, incidentally, no clan or society known to history has ever managed to do.
     The incentives are too strong, aren’t they?
     —Judge for yourself, dear. Put yourself in Charisse’s place at the point when Jack Grenier moved into the area and started offering his services around. Would you have done as she did, knowing only what she did at the time?
     Probably. If there’s a lesson in this—
     —If there is, Al, no one has ever drawn it. The division of labor is the one and only path toward general prosperity. It can go to an incredible depth. A
frightening depth. And it is utterly reliant upon the character and good will of the specialists. Let one critical specialty be corrupted by political forces, or conceive of a grudge against some other group, or even decide that it can rape its customers without fear of reprisal, and the destruction spreads faster than anyone can act to check it.

     [From Freedom’s Scion]

     No human society has ever successfully resisted the division of labor...and no human society ever will. That’s part and parcel of the political dynamic that we suffer.

     Yet I don’t adjudge it all as a bad buy...except for those times, which have been coming more frequently of late, when I yearn for the simplicity of a cabin on the side of a mountain, surrounded by nothing but trees and wildlife. Give me a stick, a stretch of sand, and time to think about geometry just as Pythagoras did long, long ago. Well, that plus a centerfire rifle chambered in .30-06 and a thousand rounds for it. Pythagoras might have appreciated those conveniences, too.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

The Loss Of Simplicity

     [I wrote what you’re about to read nine years ago. It first appeared at Eternity Road in 2007. I’ve unearthed it owing to the stimulus provided by this piece at the Return of Kings website, a principal promoter of neomasculinity (good) and shameless sexual exploitation of women (bad). I advise you to read the RoK piece first before proceeding below. -- FWP]


By way of the esteemed Pommygranate, your Curmudgeon happened upon this emission by previously unknown Ruthie Zaftig in the wee hours:

Long, long ago (well really, about a month ago) Tom Paine wrote about the reasons for blogging. Blogging, he says, is a vain activity but a worthy one— the blogosphere enables us to escape our typecast roles that we fall into in everyday life. It lets us speak truth as we see it, unencumbered by "the conventions of everyday life." Blogging lets us see past a person's normal, public facade and into the inner workings of their mind, the heart of their being.
Meet them in their everyday lives and they would be playing their parts. We would not really know them. In a sense, they would not really be them. As bloggers (particularly anonymous or pseudonymous bloggers) their inner voices speak.

Ruthie goes on at length about this thesis, concluding thus:

A blogger's identity—especially those who use pseudonyms and avoid personal references—can theoretically be free from outward social stigma and stereotypes— ideas and words judged by their worth and quality alone.

Your Curmudgeon must disagree. Rather strongly, at that.

Bloggers, like saner persons, can be partitioned into those who are the masters of their own souls and those who are not. The former type may have adopted what's colloquially called a "role" -- husband and breadwinner; mother and homemaker; pillar of the community; what have you -- for practical reasons, but he plays it; it doesn't play him. When he speaks, whether on the record, off it, or pseudonymously, he's candid, sincere, and trustworthy. He might be wrong about any given thing, but he's not trying to deceive you. What he tells you about himself is what he himself believes.

The latter type is the reverse. His "role" is his defense against a world he fears to show his real face. It's stronger than he; that's why he adopted it. It doesn't matter whether you know his name or not, for even if you did, what you'd be getting from him when he opens his mouth is the role, not his heartfelt convictions or sincere desires.

Anyone not blinded by his own prejudices and fears can tell the two breeds apart, whether they adopt nommes-de-plumes or write under their public names. This gives the former, publicly named sorts an edge with your Curmudgeon; it means they're willing to stand behind their statements regardless of what others might say or think.

But that's not exactly what your Curmudgeon is here to talk about.

***

The cult of celebrity has taken an appalling toll upon the persons on whom it focuses. Take the much-reported descent of actress Lindsay Lohan into degeneracy as an example. Despite multiple prior brushes with the law and with serious self-inflicted harm, this young woman is apparently unable to control her desires for alcohol and cocaine -- all the way to the extent of driving California's already life-threatening roads in a state of intoxication that would induce paralysis in half the human race.

One must ask why. If there's ever been anyone one could justly say had the world by the tail, it's this beautiful, talented, wealthy young woman. Why would anyone so gifted and fortunate seek out the oblivion of routine intoxication? What objective fears for herself could she possibly have? What does she lack that her assets could not secure for her?

Well, actually, there are a couple of things.

The first is love. One price of being forever in the public eye is the loss of the ability to determine whether people actually see you when they look at you. A celebrity's public image is seldom controlled by the celebrity; it's almost always the creation of skillful flacksters whose sole interest is in the commercial possibilities of the person they promote. This is true even of the reports of "journalists" -- yes, those are "sneer quotes" -- from supposedly objective news organizations. A celebrity with a quiet, sane private life cannot be used to sell advertising space.

To be wrapped thus in an artificial veneer, however glamorous and pseudo-exciting, deprives one of the ability to take others at their "emotional word." Every offering, advance, or gesture becomes subject to question: What does he really want from me? The undermining of the requirements of mutual trust makes intimacy remarkably difficult to achieve. It can even affect one's relations with one's parents, who are often seduced into becoming part of the "money machine" and stripped of their natural love for their child.

(Yes, parents do love their children. Overwhelmingly, and despite their many flaws. Why do you think infanticide is so rare? If you don't think the point is relevant, you've never changed a diaper.)

The second thing is privacy. This is hardly an arguable point. The entertainment industry, like any other, is focused on profit. That's not a condemnation; your Curmudgeon could hardly be accused of decrying capitalism, and despite the entertainment world's many shortcomings, we would be worse off for its loss. But the cult of celebrity and the use of entertainers' off-screen and off-CD personae as marketing vehicles for their movies, discs, and television shows has made it impossible for anyone significant in that industry to have a truly private life. They're followed, whether they wish it or not, through every move they make. Even the ones who preserve some solitary space behind high walls and locked iron gates have to be aware at all times that the barriers that keep the "journalists," paparazzi, and obsessives locked out also keep them locked in. Their marketability has imprisoned them in a cage of klieg lights and telephoto lenses.

In our era, when the mass media are everywhere and thousands scramble madly for every iota of potentially profitable attention, this may be unavoidable. It also suggests that anyone who heads into an entertainment career in full knowledge of the price of stardom might start out a trifle "tetched." But those considerations stand apart from your Curmudgeon's major thesis: the cult of celebrity is a mechanism that destroys the stars upon whom it focuses.

Yes, there are exceptions. Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward come to mind, as do Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick. These are to be commended for their fortitude. But such exceptions are rare, and are growing rarer as we speak.

But that's not exactly what your Curmudgeon is here to talk about.

***

Like most Americans who own freestanding homes, your Curmudgeon is assisted in his toils by a host of machines:

  • Two cars
  • A lawn tractor
  • A walk-behind mower
  • A snowblower
  • A chain saw
  • A hedge clipper
  • An air compressor
  • A wide variety of other power tools
  • A washing machine and a dryer
  • A dishwasher
  • A furnace and a hot-water heater
  • A water softener and a carbon-filtration system
  • Two vacuum cleaners
  • A carpet-steaming appliance
  • Two fans and three window-mounted air conditioners
  • A host of computers and related devices

As you would expect from a brute of gorilla-like strength with a Certified Galactic Intellect, your Curmudgeon could tear any of these devices down to their lowest components and reassemble them flawlessly. He could easily service any of them that might experience a breakdown, without so much as a tip of the fedora to paid service personnel. He can do all of these things, and he has...but not recently.

Life is too BLEEP!ing complicated and tiring already. Why add to one's burdens when one could easily, at modest cost, shunt them onto the backs of others?

No doubt many Eternity Road readers are in sympathy, whether they possess your Curmudgeon's array of skills or not. Our lives are fantastically complicated. Even given that he can hire out many irritations to the attention of paid specialists, the challenge of a typical day demands that the typical American exhibit competences of unprecedented variety and delicacy from the moment he rises to the moment he drops his briefcase or toolbelt in the foyer. It leaves him prostrate with exhaustion by six PM. He'd rather spend a hefty fraction of his income on those specialists than assume a greater burden than he already carries.

If you've been wondering why you have less time, energy, and inclination to play with your kids than your parents had for you, this is a large part of the answer.

Complexity is fatiguing all by itself. A complex situation that demands a response also demands a significant investment in analysis and the assessment of risks. Mental fatigue is just as important to our overall enervation as physical fatigue. Indeed, it might be more so.

One of your Curmudgeon's favorite colleagues, Og the NeanderPundit, has said on many occasions that his most cherished dream is to retire to a cabin in the woods bereft of any technology more recent than the centerfire rifle. This is an undisguised cry for a return to simplicity -- a return to a milieu in which one could expect to exercise complete personal control over every element that affects his life in any way, and still have time and energy left to ogle the girls and enjoy the sunset.

Your Curmudgeon knows exactly what Og means. He's occasionally wished for it himself, as much as he might miss his broadband Internet connection.

But -- you guessed it -- that's not exactly what your Curmudgeon is here to talk about. Then what, you may justly ask, is he here to talk about?

Why, the Girl Next Door, of course. What else?

***

One of Fritz Leiber's delightful early short stories, "The Last Letter," concerns Richard Roe, a young man in a bizarre future society where all communication-over-distance is monitored by agents of the State and everyone is expected to marry the Girl (or Boy) Next Door. Our hero spots a young beauty in his travels who is most definitely not the Girl Next Door and writes her a letter -- don't ask how it was conveyed to her; exercise a little willing suspension of disbelief, willya please? -- to propose marriage. The mere act of writing that letter causes major convulsions among the Powers That Be, who intervene swiftly to determine what could possibly have moved young Richard to such a deviant act. He's told that he's supposed to marry the Girl Next Door. Everyone is.

That's not too far from the way things used to be here in America. Minus the official inquisition for having written a letter, that is.

One of the measures of our lives' greatly increased complexity is the geographical measure of our relationship-bonds. How far away was your spouse born and raised from where you were born and raised? How about your closest friends? Your associates at work? If your children are grown and out on their own, how far away from you do they live? In your routine personal communications, what's the physical distance between you and the other party? (Include your chats on the Internet.)

It can be a bit frightening to tot it all up that way. Your Curmudgeon knows that very well. He's blathered about it before. But its major significance is the increment of difficulty this complexity adds to the search for something all of us need: love and acceptance.

Allow your Curmudgeon a small but critical tangent. One of the prevalent emotional motifs of our time is the notion that all of us are entitled to "unconditional love." You can hear this asserted in any forum you prefer, not merely on daytime talk shows. But your Curmudgeon would like to demur, in the fashion you all know so well:

BALDERDASH!

No one is inherently entitled to anything, whether physical, intellectual, emotional or spiritual. Each man must earn what he needs and desires, or receive it as a gift from someone favorably inclined toward him, or learn to do without it. Love is no exception.

Love always comes on a condition: the condition that one must be lovable.

Being lovable is a bit different from "being yourself," one of the other maximally irritating mantras of our time. He who is focused on "being himself" is unlikely to be lovable; he's too self-obsessed for that. He may be admirable in many ways, but without the openness to self-extension and generous accommodation of others that genuine intimacy demands, he will not be lovable -- and he will not be loved. The Girl Next Door would find him weird and repellent...if she were still there.

Who is -- or was -- the Girl Next Door? Why, she was someone you knew from sustained proximity. Someone whose "little ways" are no surprise to you. Someone whose conduct was no more than mildly at variance from the norms dictated by polite society. Someone whose family was well known to you, so that you need have no fear of them, or of their interactions with your own kin. In other words, she was someone you could love, if you chose, without fearing anything too untoward in consequence.

But the Girl Next Door isn't there today. At about age seventeen, she moves a great distance in physical, psychological, and/or emotional space. Usually, that distance is great enough to forestall any intentions you might have had toward her. You seldom wind up marrying her, whatever relations you might have had with her before she joined the Great American Diaspora.

The physical displacement is bad enough. The psychological displacement is worse: she almost always comes under the sway of "authority figures," sometimes teachers or employers and sometimes just charismatic contemporaries, who are determined to wipe out her original, authentic self and replace it with something molded to suit a crabbed and monomaniacal ideology. The emotional displacement is worst of all: while those "authority figures" -- why, yes, I do have a key labeled "Sneer Quote;" why do you ask? -- are at work on her, her hunger for any sort of connection to others is steadily being transformed from an asset to a liability. She accepts random hookups as substitutes for genuine affection, and fastens on bright lights among the glitterati of the entertainment world to admire, in place of the uncelebrated but substantial heroes of her youth whose shoulders steadied the sky above her.

If the Girl Next Door returns home, it's for a brief visit. Those who knew her before are stunned by the transformation, and not in a good way. The weird clothes and makeup, the tattoos and piercings, and the changes in diction and sentiments are signals that not all has gone as well for the Girl as her parents and their friends had hoped. When she concludes her visit and returns to the remote wherever, they're secretly relieved. Their cherished image of her is forever compromised by the alien who came to call bearing her name and the vestiges of her face.

These are the fruits of the physical diaspora, the displacement of solidity in favor of celebrity, and the severance of our traditional connections to home, family, and neighborhood. In sacrificing these things, we don't shed burdens as we might once have imagined; we discard the most important supports for life in a world more complex than anyone has ever managed to bear alone. We sacrifice all hope for the most critical simplicity of all: emotional simplicity, the sort that comes with knowing that one is accepted and loved, and can accept and love in return, without compromise or pretense.

And we sacrifice the Girl Next Door.

Good luck with that babe from the back of beyond you took into your bed. How long do you think it will be before you know her? Really know her, enough to be confident that the chemical infatuation that fueled your lusts will be enough to get you past her "little ways" -- or her past yours?

Keep your Curmudgeon posted.

***

The opening segments of this tirade were not an accident. Their connections to one another and to the rest are not tenuous. Do you see them now?

A man will only seek to conceal his identity if his identity is an impediment or a burden to him -- that is, if who he is stands athwart his path to his goals. In other words, he'll conceal his true self if it complicates his acquisition of whatever he happens to want. This has been demonstrated to compelling effect in every imaginable venue; think "singles bars" and shudder along with your Curmudgeon.

A young woman of beauty, wealth, and talent will only embark on self-destruction by drink and drugs if she cannot cope with who she is, or who she's been hyped to be. If "who she is" is be defective, but "who she's been hyped to be" forbids her to reveal a flaw, she could implode as catastrophically as Marilyn Monroe. If "who she is" is sound, but "who she's been hyped to be" demands that she be a degenerate party animal for the publicity it will garner her, she'll be revulsed by her self-betrayal, and attempt to hide it from her consciousness. To both of these escapes, drink and drugs are a venerable avenue.

The purpose of all human striving is to get and keep what we want, and to avert or shed what we don't want. The state of mind in which one is confident that there will arise no body- or mind-defying barriers to those meta-purposes is what your Curmudgeon means by simplicity.

Do you have enough of it for your needs?