It has been cold where I am, and much of the ground has been covered in snow. There really is something both beautiful and majestic about a field of snow. It is sublime, and it seems to speak to a part of me that is buried deep down inside, oh so deep. There is something that comes alive when I feel that rush of cold on my face.
Something raw. Something deep. Something powerful. Something very much alive.
The cold air rushes over the bridge of my nose. My cold tolerance is better than most, but my bony, roman nose is the one chink in my armor.
Far, far back, my ancestors would have been shaped and molded by the plains and forests of ice age Europe. Even now, my skin tone is a near perfect match with that unending landscape of ice and snow. It is a testament as to who I came from and what I once was, long ago, in another life…
And yet, everything else about me screams of my ancestors who frolicked on the shores of the Mediterranean. As to my temperament? Well, that’s a story for the ages.
Skin the color of snow. A heart as cold as ice. A soul that embodies fire.
It all comes together, somehow. It all makes sense, somehow. There’s an underlying logic to it, somehow.
I walk in the sun and take refuge in the night. I seek for the warm and come alive in the cold. Some of us are one thing or another, built for a purpose, engineered for the right environment.
Some of us were born to walk in the void.
I recently read the book “Red Sparrow”, by Jason Matthews, so I suppose that means I’ve just forfeited by reactionary card, as not only was it not written by Carlyle or Evola, but it was a popular novel that made the New York Times bestseller list. Quelle Horreur!
Hey, we all need some light reading from time to time. It’s actually a pretty good read. I recommend it if you like spy novels.
Matthews worked for the CIA for 33 years before penning this work, which makes me more willing to suspend disbelief and assume the accuracy of certain details than for most writers. In any event, there are a few things worth digging into a bit.
It has two particular nuggets that I think would be of interest to my readership. The first is that it heavily implies that Vladamir Putin is a vain and narcissistic man. We can chalk this up to projection, or even just not understanding Putin, but it might not make sense to reject it out of hand. It does take a certain type of person to run with the big dogs in any country, and I would expect a massive dose of the Dark Triad from anyone capable of reaching the top in post-Soviet Russia.
Maybe that assessment is completely off-base, but it does seem like a possibility. We are talking about a politician here.
The other interesting nugget that was hidden away was the idea that Russia believes that the US made a fatal mistake in alienating Russia, as the two of them should have been preparing together for a great war between the US and China that the US will not be able to win without Russian help. This is actually very similar to something that I was thinking, so it was pretty weird to read it in a bestselling novel.
This is not to say that recent concerns about war with Russia should be overlooked. That’s the bigger possibility and the bigger threat at the moment. That said, conflict with China is a distinct possibility the more that we look to the future. I’d say it is more likely than not that it will happen sooner or later, and time is on the Chinese side.
Speaking of reading, Dampier has a review up of the book “Breakfast with the Dirt Cult”, by Samuel Finlay. I’m actually making my way through the book at the moment, so this was a bit of a funny coincidence. In any event, once I’m done with it, I’ll probably have a review up as well, but Dampier’s review is a pretty good place to start. From what I’ve read so far of the book, I am definitely willing to recommend picking up a copy if you’re looking for some light reading.
Juggling dozens of correlated and intertwining factors using nothing but fuzzy definitions and ambiguous categories is not for the faint of heart. Being able to use these vague and probabilistic descriptions to build predictive models of any significant power is a task far beyond the ken of all but the most capable mortals. Understanding the low degree of predictive power of any single schema but being able to build enough of them to develop a mental model based on many interlocking and often contradictory schema is quite a task indeed.
This is one way of attempting to build mental models with predictive power. The other main way is by building linear models that attempt to control for certain factors and ascribe causality to (at most) three or four factors.
Off-hand, I would guess that both models have certain merits and unique contexts in which one will be more applicable than the other. Wonder if there’s a way of reconciling them?
Nihilism would make a lot more intuitive sense if humans were not wired to perceive moral beliefs in the world around us. Sight, touch, and our sense of time are means of perceiving the universe. It seems believable that we sense morality in much the same way.
I was planning on finishing off the fragments with a quick note on the Charlie Hebdo attack that took place earlier this week, but that fragment turned into a 1200-word post (see now why I do these things?) which you can read here.