Thanks for the insight – and now found time to reply! Yes, agree very much with what you say about graphs. However, the graphs here are ultra simple and barely in context in order to lure an audience to a post that is not a be all and end all.
I appreciate the mathematic analogy and contextualising, but the main issue is the raising of awareness of a supposed audience with an alarming degree of ignorance and either designed or triumphant “laissez-faire” attittude to news of the conflict: designed if they have religious caprices that include god’s chosen people and all that, and triumphant if they actually believe that North American media is actually merely reporting the conflict.
The analysis of the graphs come from the mathmetician, my alarm comes from your acknowledgement that among many you have some lack of understanding of the conflict and have minimal acquaintance with the background. To me that makes your position inevitable. Allow me further reading of your well written comment to further digress shortly – thanks!
via Christians: Instead of Swallowing – Look First | Tea with a Pirate.
you are welcome. And thank you. For, as Bayes Theorem applied here, would also predict, were you a random person–which I feel very strongly you are not–that you might very well take such a comment as mine much too personally. I am very happy that you do not. It may, or may not, have taken effort on your part, but regardless, I so appreciate it, because, as I mentioned in my post, I do believe you to be a quite genuine person, and as such, not at all duplicitous. Regardless of our relative interests in some current event,; I really do feel that you “call ‘em as you see ‘em.”
My interest in the abstract eschewing current events is more than a whim or a default state, however, but one inspired also by abstract mathematics:
If, for example I am made quite miserable by being involved emotionally in some issue (in which my involvement will have very little impact) I am, in fact being used by those, whoever they may be, who have a greater interest and/or desire and/or ability to impact said issue. This puts a bit of a lie–at least in my mind–to the concept of the “if we all know/do a little then maybe ultimately…” type of argument. If the sum total of my impact is far less than the sum total of my personal misery (even when simply emotional duress) Then it is reasonable to assume there are many like me–that is, in the same position. This is true whether they court or approve of their state of misery or not–or might count themselves (vainly) among the activists in such an event, or not.
Now take the sum total of all the impact all of us “minimal impact” people will have. While it is true, it may be significant, it is also true that the sum total of all our miseries together is a huge sum. Such a sum cannot help but having–in a most unpredictable way (owing to catastrophe mathematics)–a profoundly negative effect on society in general, and in particular, the immediate world of each of us “marginals impact” people.
Think on this for a moment. We all may be being used as a cog in someone else’s wheel; and whether this cause is just or not–whether or not this wheel is rolling in a just direction (if indeed such is even possible)– the sum total of the misery, due to the method and amount of our impact vs. the some total of our misery will have a far greater negative impact on the world–and each of our individual slices of it.
I am not imparting to you any of this in order that you might change your opinion on whether you, or I for that matter, should or should not participate in some cause or interest; I am simply explaining, in as succinct a manner as I can, why I pay attention to that which I pay attention, and why I take no interest in such things as those in which I take no interest.
Then again, our hearts and minds are fair enough one thing, in reality. And one must follow ones heart, I think. Which can in this case, be reframed to mean we must do what we think right. This is not a contradiction. I am not what one might call “neurotypical,” and as such, I see patterns in complex interactions which, I am constantly reminded, others do not, or cannot see–at least not without some careful explanation.
This might make me seem heartless to some: however, if I perceive the pattern as I have outlined above, and chose instead to do the opposite, I may not appear heartless to they who might think me heartless as I am now; but I would in actual point of fact be quite heartless–and quite deliberately so. I therefore chose not to be heartless, all the while risking the appearance of such; because, I am not heartless–which I think, like them or not, one could not help but know from reading my sonnets.