The Subordinate Court

Once judicial giants roamed our Great Republic.  John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand (such a fine name for a judge) and Benjamin Cardozo, to name a few.

No more, alas.  Now, their unworthy successors, especially those sitting or perhaps I should say reclining on what's still called the Supreme Court, creep abjectly among us, meek minions of the plutocrats and their chosen agent.

Their opinions reflect their submission.  When they can without appearing entirely foolish they avoid deciding the important issues which come before them addressing the powers of the presidency, taking refuge in hypertechnicalities.  In that fashion they assure that excesses are unchecked as matters proceed through the lower courts.

God knows how they'll decide when they cannot avoid making a decision.  It seems some of them, at least, believe God will guide them when that time comes.  The majority have been exuberant advocates of the demands of the religious when interpreting Constitutional rights, finding even that group prayer on the 50 yard line of the football field of a public school is private prayer.

Sanctimony characterizes certain of the Justices as well as their decisions.  One sees it in their disdain for the ethical restraints which apply to other judges. One sees it as well in their acceptance of and advocacy for the peculiar repression of sex that is used to disguise the equally peculiar fascination with it in our society.  First Amendment rights thus are disregarded in order to protect the young from exposure to the naughty conduct their parents delight in but don't want them to see.

But it's money, of course, that's paramount in the Court as it is in all our institutions. So we have one Justice, at least, complaining that he's not being paid enough for the 9 months a year he must work, and more than one of them mooching off the wealthy who seek to influence them and are the primary beneficiaries of most of their decisions.

Lifetime appointments are supposed to render the judiciary independent.  But appointments now are entirely political.  Competence is no more a concern for judges than it is for cabinet members.  Lifetime appointments of dwarves instead of giants is no benefit to the nation.

Will We Become Dumber As AI Becomes Smarter?

 

The answer to the question posed in the title to this post may already be clear.  If being gullible, incoherent, irrational, shallow, emotive, narrow-minded, bigoted and ignorant is characteristic of low intelligence, we've been growing dumber for years, even during the infancy of AI.  But we will grow less and less able or willing to think because AI will make thinking less and less attractive or necessary.

It seems clear that AI serves as a substitute for thinking already in our schools, even in institutions of so called "higher learning."  Recourse is had to it for the purpose of writing essays or reports and answering questions posed. Presumably, teachers will learn to recognize work performed by AI; or at least works written by AI.  I assume the research required for students to complete their assignments is already being done by it. Why read anything beyond the summaries of novels and historical events provided by Wikipedia?

I think it's inevitable that, because of the availabilty of AI, we will stop learning as that term is currently defined.  There's no need to learn or remember facts or dates or events which may be determined quickly by access to a computer. Nor is there any need to interpret or analyze events or facts.  AI can do that for us as well. 

If we lack the need to think, we won't think.  If we don't think, we won't question nor will we criticize.  This seems to me to be what's most to be feared from our continuing reliance on AI.  That, and the fact that our growing tendency to cease thinking will surely result in our unquestioning acceptance of what AI does.

An episode of John Oliver's The Late Show addressing "AI slop" provided several examples of fabricated events and "news stories" which, through use of AI, gave the impression that actual information was being communicated.  In the examples given, the misinformation provided touted achievements of the current regime and right-wing fantasies which haven't taken place.  Nonetheless, comments made by those viewing the fabrications established they believed them to be true.  Fabrication, even extreme fabrication, being characteristic of the current regime in any case, I suppose this is in a way unsurprising.

Of course, AI may be used to provide, convincingly,  left-wing fabrications as well.

It would take an effort to determine whether such fabrications are true or not.  But more and more we seem uninterested in making such an effort.  That would require that we question appearances...in other words, that we think.

Gradually, or perhaps not so gradually, through our use of and reliance on AI we may forget how to do so.

Regarding the Obviously Untrue

 

Lying is something at which politicians have always excelled.  But the falsehoods now generated by the political class of the nation (especially those of the current regime, its lackeys and its facilitators) have a special quality. They're so obviously untrue that it's unclear whether they should be considered lies, properly speaking.

Typically, a lie is intended to deceive.  But when a statement is clearly false, and no thinking person--including the person making the statement--could think otherwise, how could deceit even be expected?

There's something else involved in the making of such statements.  Otherwise they would not be made by any self-respecting individual.

It may be that the person making the obviously untrue statement simply doesn't think; not really.  No thinking person would maintain, for example, that a tornado devastated a town when no such thing took place--there was no tornado, nor did the town exist.  Such a person may be unable to think for one reason or another (insanity, developmental disability, etc.).  Or, such a person, conceivably, may refuse to think.

Alternatively, a person making an obviously untrue statement may make it assuming that those learning of the statement themselves don't think, as they are unable or unwilling to do so.  Thus, no shame or blame would accrue to the claimant.  In that case the obvious untruth may even be believed. 

Possibly, the clearly false claim may be made with no expectation that it will be believed.  As a kind of joke, perhaps. 

Another possibility is that the falsehood in that case would be an article or expression of faith.  In that event it wouldn't be expected that there would be any factual basis for the statement.  Instead, the expectation would be that the claim is completely unfounded.  If one's faith or religion provides that a tornado devastated a town, the absence of any evidence of the tornado or the town isn't a consideration or concern.  The fervent believer would make the untrue claims and repeat them gladly no matter how baseless they are in fact.

I doubt that the obviously untrue claims being made (e.g. those regarding such things as crowd size, assassination of Democrats by Marxists, the need for use of the military in U.S. cities) are intended as jokes, if only because those making them are so evidently devoid of wit.  I'm willing to believe that they've not certifiably insane.  

I don't doubt they feel that those they hope learn of their misstatements are unable or unwilling to think, as their contempt for most of humanity is apparent as is their juvenile cruelty.  But I'm inclined to think that their assertions that what is obviously untrue is true nonetheless are expressions of something similar to religious beliefs which they believe need not have any basis in fact. That's always been a source of comfort to those who find thinking difficult or inconvenient.

What is Truth?

 

This is supposedly the question of the man we call Pontius Pilate:  Quid est Veritas?  According to Francis Bacon "jesting Pilate" asked this question but "did not stay for an answer."  According to the Gospel of John, Pilate was responding to Jesus' claim that he (Jesus) was a witness to the truth.  

If Pilate asked this question, I doubt he was jesting.  I think it's more likely that that he was noting that Jesus was brought before him because there clearly was a disagreement regarding what the truth was, and whether he was witness to it.  Truth is disputed all the time, particularly when it's believed that what is true neither has been nor should be determined through intelligent investigation and inquiry, but is instead revealed or is as claimed by an authority figure.

Those with such a narrow, limited conception of "truth" are inclined to be irrationally sensitive to criticism and can even be enraged if contradicted.  They can't tolerate being challenged or worse yet expected to explain or justify what they believe.  Resentment or outrage is characteristic of the true believer when questioned. The more preposterous the "truth" believed, the greater the resentment and outrage.

As a result, they can react violently to dissent.  Their response is excessive. They're blind to the consequences of their outrage.  In fact, consequences aren't significant according to their peculiar logic.  Those who disagree deserve to suffer because they disagree.

If Pilate asked what it's claimed he asked and did so in the circumstances it's claimed took place, then perhaps the question wasn't a quip or an expression of futile relativism in the face of what is absolutely true.  It may instead have been an acknowledgement of the fact that when there is a dispute judgment is required.  We must ask what is true, and make a determination.

We make no judgment, certainly not an informed or intelligent one, when we fail to ask what is true in attempting to define let alone resolve a dispute.

The High and Mighty and Moralism

 

We live, if we continue living, in a time when all those we encounter in politics, in the arts, in the media (including social media) are arrogant, excessively and vigorously proud of themselves, and relentlessly self-important. Those we must listen to, if we choose to listen, or see if we choose to see, or whose words we read if we wish to read, are spectacularly full of themselves.  I say "if" in the hope that we may ignore these creatures if we try very hard to do so, with some success.

Regrettably the high and mighty who torment us generally lack any knowledge or wit or intelligence which would justify their vast self-regard, nor do they think any justification is needed for it. It's even more regrettable, though, that such remarkable and even delusional belief in their own significance is combined with a tendency to moralize.

With respect to politicians and their minions, their corruption and cupidity is such that it's absurd for them to make any moral judgments or claims.  But given the extent of their self-love it may be inevitable that they do just that.  Still, their moralizing is insufferable.

Generally, they moralize in an effort to retain their place and position and to facilitate their quest for infinite money.  They also do so to render those they rule over docile and willing to accept their exploitation.

The high and mighty in the media and the arts, on the other hand, seem to moralize primarily to instruct those of us they think are unelightened but nonetheless able to be educated, or if unable or unwilling to be educated may be compelled to be enlightened.  

As I've remarked before regarding what I've called the "Missionary Media" its moralizing often takes the form of insertions into narratives of plot and expositive devices.   These devices exemplify relationships and characters which are contrary to traditional norms but are considered by the inserters to be appropriate and even desirable.

Unfortunately, this kind of moralizing has in many cases taken place by in effect rewriting existing works to suit the purposes of the enlightened.  New characters may be introduced; known characters may be strangely changed. Some part of an existing portion of a story may be altered ; some events may be added.  In this fashion claims are made contrary to the various "isms" the enlightened maintain plague humanity and they are displayed to be condemned, all for the good of the unenlighted.

This procedure is often clumsy and heavy-handed, and can anger those who are fans of the original works despite their flaws, which too often are the result of the fact that they were made in the past by people insufficiently enlightened and ignorant.  Moralizing by refurbishing past works is annoying and condescending.

Media and art have always been used as propaganda, but moralizing is especially disturbing and offensive when it involves the deliberate alteration of beloved stories, or of history, or by defying common sense and through contrivance which lacks all credibility.  The movie Conclave, which I've seen, and the book on which it's based, which I haven't read, are examples of moralizing which fails and is unsatisfactory because the narrative and plot devices employed to make the desired moral points lack credibility.

The film was interesting and well made but ended with election to the papacy of an unknown man suddenly made Cardinal just before the death of the pontiff to be replaced, who it is discovered has both male and female sexual organs.  That discovery was made after his election, and is known only to a few.  As far as I can see, the election of this unknown takes place only because he makes what is in the movie an unremarkable and rather trite speech about the horrors of war and conflict (he was archbishop of Kabul--I don't know whether such a diocese actually exists). He had the opportunity, apparently, to have surgery to become entirely male (biologically) but decided not to go under the knife. 

I don't know if more of the Cardinals become aware of this, but he duly becomes Pope and all is well.  Which just goes to show that it doesn't matter what sexual organs one has ...etc. 

Thus the moral point is made, but through a rather bewildering and incredible plot twist.  I have no real problem with this point, but think that the election of an unknown person to the papacy in such circumstances just wouldn't occur, no matter what sexual organs he/she/they had. Moralizing by use of an absurd contrivance has no effect. It just seems silly. Indeed, I think it insults the intelligence of the viewers

The moralists in this case tried much too hard.