There is No Spoon, or, Spoonlessness.

Like so many other techies, I was a huge fan of 'The Matrix' when it came out. It was sad to see the series degenerate so rapidly with each sequel, as the Wachowski Brothers apparently turned to Hallmark Greeting Cards for script writing, but I digress. The original, the slightly gritty, slightly sterile, bleeding-edge-hip original was a classic.

And a quote from that movie "There is No Spoon" has become a meme in our vernacular akin to a pop Doctrine of Maya (Life is but a dream). The really cool thing about this meme, though, is that it's true. There really is no spoon. There is simply a collection of atoms with very tight orbital patterns, aligned to a common frequency, and thus bound together in mutual affinity. If you added up the amount of space in between the nucleus and the electrons, there would actually be more empty space than matter.

Thus, if a solid object is mostly empty space, imagine just how ethereal a human-manufactured concept might be. An example of a concept like that would be Civilization. Another example would be Religion. And still a third example would be Politics. These aforementioned constructs only exist insofar as we allow them to. Outside the realm of semantics, they're just so much thin air. That is, you can't point to some quantifiable object and say: "There. That is religion." It is an idea -- a construct -- and is therefore unquantifiable in an objective, ontological sense.

I elaborate on this in order to provide a framework for the construct of Spoonlessness.

Spoonlessness is the idea that we are in control of the ideas or constructs we create, rather than vice-versa. It is the Master Key of Idea. Spoonlessness is a state of understanding wherein you can see the virtual 'atoms' at the core of the construct, and retain lucid control of the way they manifest. Spoonlessness states that a construct may be 'tweaked' in order to improve performance, or as a result of the emergence of other newly-discovered ideas or constructs.

Spoonlessness has only one law: There is no Spoon.

What this means, ultimately, is that we control the game, at least as far as our own ideas are concerned. And this is important and timely, because at the moment we're letting constructs on auto-pilot make our day-to-day lives miserable, and that's putting it mildly. Day-by-day we sink a bit deeper into the quagmire, and yet, highly-paid 'pundits' and infotainment bobble-heads continue to proclaim each decline as 'unexpected'.

Unexpected, only if you're not paying attention, for whatever reason that may be.

The Truth, however, is plain, transparent and simple: We are allowing outdated and corrupt constructs to run our day-to-day lives right into the ground. These institutions, initially noble, now decrepit, have become ubiquitous and infinitely intertwined with The Things that Matter, and I think it's high time we separate what does and does not matter.

What matters, for practical intents and purposes, is the individuals that make up the construct we call the Society of Man. All cultural pragmatism aside, humans need what all mammals need: A place to live, food to eat, and some type of extended family.

Why should these basic necessities be so difficult to achieve? It seems like such a simple task to reshape the spoon, as it were, and thus to create an open society where people are allowed to live out there lives, to eat, sleep and be merry, without fear of persecution from arcane, corrupt or just plain malicious constructs.

And the reality is this: It IS just that simple. Just remember: There is no spoon.

All we have to do in order to make things better is to decide we want to make things better.

Such is the way Spoonlessness rolls.

Seeking Sustainability: Part One

Humans have amazing powers of conception, and, collectively speaking, no vision. There are individuals throughout history that have shown to be visionary, but as a group our vision is poor, at best.

Perhaps our collective consciousness needs glasses. If we had glasses, perhaps we could see that the modern civilization we've built is based on a finite resources and is therefore unsustainable.

Since that probably won't happen, building a sustainable model will be left up to individuals to design. With that in mind, let's get started, shall we?

1. Food
   

   The first thing -- one of the most critical pieces of infrastructure -- is food production. Modern society has become so far removed from it's food source that we have almost no idea how to produce our own food, were that to be required. We need to remodel our infrastructure -- and our diet -- so that we're producing food regionally, and more importantly, locally. From fruits and vegetables, to meat, eggs and dairy, to grains and legumes, the lot of it needs to be grown close to home, rather than on another continent. The benefits here are multi-fold. Food grown regionally will be more fresh, and you'll likely know the people who grew it. You'll know what went into it, and accountability would return to food production.
   
   You can start that move right at home simply by starting a garden and getting come chickens. If you don't have a place at home, see if there's a community garden close, or better yet, organize one. Re-taking control of our food supply is Step One.
   

2. Energy - Electricity and Fossil Fuels
   

   Energy consumption is the 800lb Gorilla no one wants to talk about. That would be because the core of modern industrial civilization is built around the concept of limitless, cheap energy. This was a horrible idea completely lacking in vision. The laws of Thermodynamics posit quite clearly that there is no such thing as a closed system. That is: You have to put energy (fuel) into a system, and that system, no matter how efficient, will lose energy in the form of entropy. This applies to suns, stars and planets, but applies equally to industrialized society. Hence, building a system around the idea of limitless, cheap, easily-refinable energy is a flawed premise of the highest order. It's also the by-product of allowing people who own the fuel source to create the infrastructure it powers. The carbon footprint of the average home in the US is enormous when compared to the rest of the world. Worse yet are commercial and industrial consumption rates. To date, we consume vast amounts of power gleefully, willingly, wantonly and much to our own detriment. As energy prices increase, so does the stress on those living within the infrastructure. A model built on the idea of infinite resources existing within a system of limited resources will invariably exhaust the resources in the system. This is a simple Law of Physics, or, more precisely, thermodynamics.
   
   We need to rethink everything in this regard. For example: While the 'grid' -- the patchwork of cables, towers, wires, inverters, capacitors and transformers that runs all over everywhere -- makes a nice idea on paper (and generates a very nice revenue stream for privately-owned utilities) it doesn't make sense on a practical level. Like food, we've become far removed from our own energy production. It has become abstracted to a socket on the wall or a light switch, for most. When you're in charge of your own energy, suddenly you become very aware of any given item that consumes it, what it consumes, and what the most efficient way to provide the energy required for that task would be. When I moved off the grid 8 months ago, the first thing I realized is that I was going to have to re-tool my energy usage patterns.
   
   I think by far the biggest culprit would be the compressors used by refrigerators and air conditioners, etc. Any time you attempt to change the equilibrium of a system (remove heat from it or add heat to it) you're talking about a significant about off wattage and amperage. There are other ways to cool things down without compressors. They are, perhaps, not as neat and tidy, but they take considerably less energy. If energy is a sparce commodity, then neat and tidy take a back seat. Two ways you can keep things cool:
   

   1. Hydro-cooling:
      

      Water. Using a mister, or just allowing a high pressure jet to spray into the air will create a cool area during hot days. All you need for this is a well and a pump, which uses minimal to no electricity, depending on your pump.
      

   2. Geo-thermal
      

      Using earth to maintain a consistent temperature year round, rather than trying to constantly heat or cool an inefficient structure is far more economical and requires no energy input at all.
      

   The problem with these solutions, again, is that they're not as neat and tidy as modern US cultural norms demand.
   

Ultimately, then, a sustainability shift is going to require a change in cultural norms first and foremost. Re-thinking how and where our food is grown, and how and where our energy comes from (and what it's used for) are two good places to begin.

Begin.

Why the term "Neofeudal"

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

"And I believe these are the days,
Of Lasers in the jungle,
Lasers in the jungle somewhere,
Staccato signals of constant information,
A loose affiliation of millionaires,
And billionaires..."

-- Paul Simon, from 'The Boy in the Bubble'

I've never been one to follow fads. Over the years, the various 'scares' that sent a few people running for the desert never even phased me. I knew there were problems with our leadership, but they were somewhat remote and overtly political.

Then the World Trade Center thing happened, and suddenly things got very weird and very uncomfortable very quickly. I watched with horror as the Corporate Police State began closing in on We, the People. I watched the airports come to resemble large, airy, poorly-decorated indoor concentration camps. I watched in horror as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were dismissed out-of-hand in the name of 'security'. Being raised to believe in the concept of "The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave," I was appalled at how easily people were willing to trade Freedom for Slavery and Bravery for Cowardice. I wondered long and hard about what happened to those ideals.

I think we got off on the wrong path at some point.

Then, in the Summer of 2007, I started doing something I'd never done before: I started stockpiling food. It was an unconscious act at first that later made it's way into my consciousness. Bear Sterns had just collapsed, there was a worldwide rice shortage, and talk of increasing the usage of corn (a food staple) for ethanol. Something inside clicked, and I started buying dried good (beans, rice, pasta) and canned vegetables and fruit. I created a pantry in my basement that became filled to the brim with such goods. Yet still I felt that I hadn't done enough.

When Bear Stearns collapsed, I pulled all my money out of the stock market and into so-called 'investment' property, which is really just Land in the Middle of Nowhere. I started buying tools. I had already set up a solar array, but now I increased it's capability. I started a garden. These were all things that I'd never bothered with before, and yet now they were consuming most of my extra cash and free time. When finally I bought chickens, I decided it was time to go to the next level: to move to the back country and start realizing my vision.

I had mixed feelings about the whole turn of events. On one hand, I was satisfying a deep-seated urge. On the other hand, I felt a bit foolish...at that point.

I don't feel this way any longer.

Which leads me to the title of the blog. Why. I believe we are on the cusp of entering a Neofeudal Age. I write that, and yet it's still difficult for me wrap my head around, given that just a decade ago we heralded the onset of the Age of Information. Ironically, that 'Age' had the staying power of the latest 'killer app' du jour, which is to say little to none. And with the speed of a dot.com IPO, the Age of Information was discarded in favor of Neofeudal Age.

The Feudal Age was a period prior to the Renaissance that lasted several centuries. During this period, Feudal Lords 'leased' pieces of their land local fiefs. The fifes were allowed to work the land, and in return they were given not-quite-enough to survive and were forced to turn over most of the harvest to the Feudal Lord.
Today, the gap between the 'haves' and 'have nots' has grown into a gaping chasm. There seems to be a movement to re-create the American Landscape according to the the laws of the Feudal Age. The American Middle Class, the society in which I was raised, is disintegrating. We're entering an era where Corporations (the new Feudal Lords) control everything, and what they don't control directly they control via lobbyists and corrupt politicians.

For my part, I'm just trying to get out of the way. I'm going about that by building an eco-friendly, self-sustaining human habitat. My goal is to require little to nothing from an overseas supply chain that I see as unsustainable.

So there it is, and here we are. Hang on. It's going to be a rough ride.

Further Reading:

• Wikipedia: Neofeudalism
• Christopher Hedges on Neo-Feudalism

The Tower of Babel... or is that Babble... the demise of the collective dialog

"In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane."

-- Commander Spock, from Star Trek


It has been coming on for quite some time now. By 'it' I mean the fracturing of our collective dialog.

What's a "collective dialog", you may ask? The collective dialog is a hyper-conversation, if you will, that provides meta-data context to our physical dialog. Physical dialog is like the conversation you had with someone the other day, or when you watch the news. One of the primary purposes of the collective dialog is to act as a benchmark in the exchange. An example of this is that two people look at a chair, and they can both agree that what they perceive has the Quality of being Chair-like. Aristotle called this the meson or middle term. That is, there are two extremes in any conversation (called: akron), with this meson, this "shared-term" (a chair is a chair) mediating the exchange.

Since the permutation of the news establishment from Information providers into Infotainment vaudevillians, I've watched in horror as the collective dialog was tainted and maligned by what is commonly known as "spin".

Spin has effectively eliminated the common ground from our conversation, and, in my opinion, is the core of our current dilemma. How can there be rational dialog if there is no "middle-term" to persist parity in the conversation? Simple answer: there can be no rational dialog in this case.

Why?

Well, we need look no further than the average press release from the administration, need look no further than *'s last speech, need look no further than FOX "news".

For example:

"We're at 'war' with 'terrorists'"

Now, for this sentence to have real meaning in a conversation, the two parties must both agree on what a 'war' is and what a 'terrorist' is in order for there to be an accurate exchange of information, in order to move the debate forward in a rational manner. If the two parties cannot agree on what constitutes a 'war', if one party introduces an alternative definition into the collective dialog it obscures the debate (the debate becomes the definition of the word) and worse, it can take centuries to work it's way out.

Centuries, if at all.

What has happened is that a group of people in positions of power have managed to fracture the meson. There is no longer consensus on what constitutes a 'war', nor what constitutes 'terrorists'. Further, core concepts like 'freedom', 'liberty', 'security', 'compassion' and on and on have been corrupted in a similar manner by this process. There exists now, for all intents and purposes, two or more mesons.

The Tower of Babel has been shattered, once again.

It is the plurality of these middle-terms that make conducting an intelligent conversation virtually impossible these days, and has led to the definition of a sub-group quaintly labeled "the reality-based community".

As opposed to the fantasy-based, of course.

The redefinition of these middle-terms has become known as 'Framing the Debate', and it is a dangerous and silly game, yet like chronic gamblers, we remain at the table and continue to play. The longer we play, the worse the situation becomes. That is, the more constructs that are re-defined or questioned by this group, the longer it will take to repair, if we're able to repair it at all.

We need to stop the childish indulgence of framing constructs to match the argument. It is causing irreparable harm to our collective dialog, and serves only to move our species closer to extinction.

Admittedly, accomplishing this will be next to impossible thanks to folks at Big Media, Inc, who continue to foul the waters to this day.

We have to try, though, so allow me to start: There is no such thing as a 'war' on a concept like 'terror' or 'drugs'. Dismissing that popular colloquialism as an illogical fallacy would be a grand first step towards rebuilding the Tower of Babel now lying in ruins at our feet.

The Commons, and We, the People.

Every time you get a paycheck, you pay taxes. Every time you buy something, you pay taxes. Every time you make money selling something, you pay taxes. Why is it, then, that the Commons -- the result of all these taxes -- is funneled to military and security industries? Why is it that the lion's share of what we pay into the commons goes to corporations in general? This phenomena is diametrically opposed to very notion of a Public Commons.

Before I go on, I must offer this humble disclaimer: I am no fan of excessive taxation. I believe we could have a Cadillac Health, Human Services and Education system by simply re-aligning our priorities, rather than increasing what we pay in taxes. That's always been my position, and it remains thus today.

And the idea of the aforementioned system is really nothing more than the Commons, and the fulfillment of the Social Contract.

If you have a birth certificate, you've signed the Social Contract by proxy, so common-wisdom runs. The idea of the Social Contract is tribal at the core. In essence, the tribe acknowledges you as a member, and both parties agree to a well-defined set of constructs. The Social Contract says that your participation in society (everything from time spent sitting at a stop light to civil service) shall be compensated in return by society providing you with the tools you require to survive. A place to live, a job, food to eat, and health care when you need it, roads to drive on, and on and on. At the core of the Social Contract is this agreement: You agree to be a member of the society-at-large, and in return, society will assist you in fulfilling the lowest level of need: food and shelter and well-being. The rest is up to you. That's the deal, at least in theory.

In smaller communities, this is -- or was -- more often than not the norm. As our small communities have given way to large highly-concentrated urban environments, the notion of what the State needs to do to fulfill it's side of the bargain has narrowed, and continues to narrow. At the same time, the responsibilities of the individual have broadened in scope. Increased taxes, decreased civil liberties, decreased -- or decaying infrastructure, privatized utilities, privatized government service -- these are all prime examples of the change in the relationship.

I'm often accused of being a libertarian. And I have, at the same time, openly admitted to having libertarian tendencies. However -- and this is why libertarians call me a raging liberal -- I believe that a social safety net is part and parcel of the Social Contract, just like education, and health care, and roads. You pay into a common fund with the idea that if something ever happens, you would be able to draw from that fund. This is the central tenet behind the idea of paying taxes, in my opinion. Taxes should go towards making our lives better.

Incidentally, conducting 'wars' abroad does absolutely nothing to make our lives better. Quite the opposite, in fact. But I digress.

Here is the crux of the agreement: When things are bad, we ought to be able to turn to the Commons to help. That's not the case these days, however. If you're not a bank, if you don't manufacture armaments or contribute to the security apparatus, if you're not a well-connected beltway insider, you can rest assured that the people who you've put in charge of overseeing the Commons will tell you piss off. If they do offer assistance, it will be limited, at best, and will often come with expensive strings attached.

This attitude defies the very definition of the Commons, by my thinking, and therefore violates the Social Contract.

Wouldn't it be great if, when you really needed assistance, that you could turn in confidence to these people who you've entrusted with you taxes? Wouldn't it be great if you could know, dollar for dollar, where your payments to the Commons went, and that if you needed to withdraw some because of a hardship, or if you needed a hand up, that you could rely on the people who you've entrusted to perform that simple service?

We don't need a revolution. We don't need more 'wars', abstract or otherwise. We don't need further erosion of civil liberties in the name of safety. We don't need health 'insurance', student loans, or the creepy DHS. What we need is for the people who we elect to oversee the Commons to act in the best interests of We, the People. We need people to be held accountable for misuse and corruption. It's really just that simple. The Social Contract isn't complicated. It fulfills the basics, and in return you, now well-fed, healthy, free and educated, are able to pitch in and make things even better. And this cumulative feedback loop produces the Best of All Possible Worlds.

Really.

It's not a theory, it's a fact. If you consistently work at making things better, they WILL get better. If you ignore things, they decay. Again: just that simple.

The situation we're in, while dire, is not untenable. It simply requires that we manage the commons wisely, that we hold people accountable who don't, and that we work to make our lives better.

Here's to better times.

Cheers.

Three Core Necessities for Living Off the Grid

Living off the grid, three core necessities become quickly apparent (assuming you have a food source);

1) Shelter
2) Thermal Stability (Heating|Cooling)
3) Water

An optional number 4) would be electricity, but the aforementioned three must be fulfilled first, and not in that order, but sort of all at once. Those three are critical to carbon-based life form survival and fecundity.

The 4th is nice if you want to have the internet available. :)

I say this because after living off grid for the last three months, it's these things I find myself most concerned about. Electricity is available, in limited amounts, so I've been giving a great deal of thought to alternative methods of achieving these three core necessities using little to no electricity. So make note: if you ever find yourself living off grid, remember these two simple words:

Thermal Mass.

Thermal Mass seems to be something of a well-kept secret that no one wants to talk about beyond how to waterproof your basement. Perhaps because it's cheap, strong and efficient, eh? In any case, I've been putting the concept of thermal mass into practical application, and the results have been outstanding. Using a mere 40 watts,
I should be able to keep my water and chickens cool this summer, as well as the produce from the garden. I'm accomplishing this using -- you guessed it --thermal mass.

It was exciting to see a concept perform so well in practical application, so I wanted to share.

I guess I should explain myself.  Thermal Mass is the idea that a structure's mass determines its ability to maintain temperature inertia.   Here's the Wikipedia Link:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_mass

This is such a powerful concept only given lip service in current building techniques.  It's like weak gravity, or something.  A little goes a long way.  Just a few inches down into the soil, or just a few feet higher on the wall, and you've increased the mass of that wall considerably.  I have cool water for the garden, trees and chickens.  I (will) have a cool place to put veggies and grains for storage, and if these smaller test structures work out long term, I could see building a berm house in the same fashion. The amount of rain that we get here in Florida will be a good test. I'm in the process of building strategically-placed berms to hold the water away from the cellar, etc.  I'm sure it will be a learning experience. :)

The water storage culvert uses thermal mass to keep the water cold, even on a hot, sunny day.

The root cellar will have an 11 foot ceiling, and a 4-foot-thick roof. The temperature should vary very little.

Even incomplete, this day shelter for the chickens was nice and cool in the afternoon sun.

End of Days for 'Rosie the Riveter' a.k.a. the Middle Class

This isn't about Rosie the Riveter, albeit I use her iconic name in the title. I reference her because from Rosie emerged the Great American Middle Class. Rosie, of course, represented the multitudes of female factory workers hired to build armaments for World War II. Rosie also represents a classic piece of US propaganda, and illustrates how the US goes about shaping it's citizens to suit its needs at Any Given Moment.

When the war ended, the Rosies needed to be deescalated and disbanded so the returning males could take their positions at the factory. To do this, the government tweaked the propaganda, and created the concept of the Middle Class Housewife, and as such gave birth to the Middle Class itself.

But there's a catch. Why? Because there's always a catch.

Consider this: The Captains of Industry (A Bush among them, of course), worked with the government to create Rosie, and then later to disband her. To disband her, they created the Middle Class. Yet even way back then these Captains of Industry knew that the Middle Class was a temporary inconvenience for them, and that someday it, too, would be disbanded.

It hasn't happened overnight, of course. That would have been to obvious. They had to move slowly, stepping back the concessions they were forced to offer at the end of the war. It started in the 70's, about the time the soldiers who fought in that war would have been retiring. My grandfather was a pilot in that war. He retired a Lt. Colonel with a comfortable pension and free healthcare. This was in the 70's, and many of his generation were doing the same thing, retiring, many on full pensions with excellent healthcare.

But at the same time, something started happening in the 70's. Wages began to stagnate. Manufacturing began to pack up and move overseas. The foundations of the Middle Class began to lose integrity. Again, it was subtle, until Reagan. When Ronald Reagan was installed, the Monied Class took things up (uh, or down) a notch. Manufacturing's move overseas was now in high gear, so the Monied Class turned attention to eating away at the Professional Class that had emerged as a by-product of good Middle Class living. So they started whittling away there. It started with corporate culture. You no longer worked at a single corporation your entire life through to retirement. Rather, jobs became a commodity of sorts -- a marketplace, a sporting event, a 'Running Man Game Show. Remember 'Dress for Success'? The idea behind this nasty little meme was that you should hone your skills in the fashion of a Samurai, and that the Strongest, Most-Well-Dressed, Most-Vicious candidate wins. In essence, Kill Or Be Killed.

In the 80's, then, we see the professional corporate culture becoming less stable, being disbanded by the Monied Class. So-called 'Free-Trade' agreements were working wonders, and the Middle Class was now becoming insecure. Everything was going to plan, and then the Internet happened.

It had been around for quite some time, of course, but it started catching fire in 1994 and by the end of the 90's managed to float a large chunk of the Baby Boomers and Gen X'ers to the Top of the Barrel.

The Monied Class was not amused. They tolerated this briefly, to take a bit of profit, and then they had Greenspan drown it so that they could get back to business.

And that business was, of course, dismantling the Middle Class and the introduction of a Neo-Feudal Age.

You see, I believe the Monied Class has always resented having to share-the-wealth with the peasantry, with Rosie the Riveter. I think they've groused and grumbled about it in exclusive clubs nationwide, slumped down in high-backed oxblood calfskin chairs, nursing 150-year-old brandy, and chomping on a big Cuban cigar (yeah, Cuban, that's right). I think they've bitched about it and have been plotting its demise since its inception. Waiting for the 'Greatest Generation' to retire was just their way of saying 'Thanks'. As soon as they were out of the way, the doors were thrown wide open and the corporate predator was unleashed on the unsuspecting populace. Free to say what they want, sell what they want, charge what they want, these corporations began devouring the Middle Class under the guise of 'cheap' credit and low-low prices. The only problem was, the credit wasn't really cheap, and the prices were low because the merchandise was garbage. Nevertheless, it worked. They snared millions of people in their nets.

Then, finally, came the piece de resistance: the so-called "Ownership Society" (or pWnership society, as I call it). This was a herald call to anyone who had managed to avoid the previous pratfalls. The message was that you were going to be a millionaire, simply from buying and selling your house every couple years.

Of course, if anyone had read the details -- the Fine Print, as it were -- they would have seen the trap quite clearly. Most didn't, though, they took advantage of 'cheap' money and borrowed to the hilt. People making $60,000 a year were able to get loans for half-a-million dollars. Think of that, for a second, and it should give you pause.

Why on Earth would a mortgage company loan someone off the street a half-a-million with no money down?

We see the answer to that question everywhere on Main St. today. We see people buried so far under in debt that their only option is to declare bankruptcy. At the same time, we see corporations checking a) Credit, and b) current employment status.

There is a final Great Culling going on. What's left of the now tattered, once Great, Middle Class is being rounded up and turned into indentured servants. Wages are flat or declining, benefits even more so, working conditions deteriorating, rampant long-term unemployment is creating a force that drives this cycle downward. And everyone but a politician knows that once you're out-of-work, and out-of-a-house that you're in an extreme World of Hurt.

"It's a crime, to be broke in America." -- Michael Franti, The Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy.

And that brings us up to 2011, and the US is well on the way completely disbanding the Middle Class it created only a few short decades ago.

Fare thee well, Middle Class, fare thee well, Rosie, we hardly knew ye.