The persistent western drought, water shortages, heat dome in the Pacific Northwest, Hurricanes Ida/Henri, the flash flooding in Tennesee, the bootleg and dixie fires, yeah, the environment continues to weigh heavily on my thinking. Environmental destruction, pollution, and habitat reduction continue to be a problem with no real plan for a slow down either.

对堕胎、边境儿童/家庭(仍是一个问题)的既定先例的推搡，以及大学入学丑闻，以及无家可归的流行，都是虚伪和政治性质的，这让我开始思考人格和身份。布兰妮·斯皮尔斯(Brittney Spears)让我思考，我是如何侵犯了那些需要自主权的年轻人的生活(也许是更快的、更广泛的)。

The ethics around work issues, mask-wearing, when and where to get a shot, working from home, keeping work-life boundaries, and reaching out to family and neighbors again, have pushed my thinking.

How we make decisions, gerrymandering, voter rights, ranked voting, the recount in Arizona – both real and cyber ninja'd have me reaching for new ideas for the public process.

自由和正义一直萦绕在我的脑海里，因为我居住的社区发生了枪支暴力事件——主要与帮派有关，当然，还有对首都的袭击。什么时候可以带枪?，什么时候可以使用?凯尔·里滕豪斯让我想到治安维持会，如果我应该加强自卫，是时候退给警察了。对警察力量的反思还不够迅速。

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and What's App have me thinking about mis/disinformation. Who can I trust? Not just in the US but the world. The Chinese lockdown of the media, repression in Hong Kong, and pressure on Taiwan have me worried.

The push of Covid biological research to pre-prints, closed public libraries, defunding of general science, and overall poor public access to current research/information and data has me concerned. Science, in general, has been poorly communicated to the masses, causing a lack of trust and confusion.

情绪研究一直在哲学上存在分歧，即情绪是具有物理本质还是被构建出来的。这一根本的哲学分歧没有得到足够的思考，如果我们在这一点上出错，它将对我们的公共生活以及数十亿美元的人工智能研究产生真正的影响。

关于头脑/大脑的辩论已经停止了。然而，关于我们的意识在我们身体中的位置的问题仍然占用了我大量的时间来阅读和思考上述所有问题的影响，并影响我对身份和人工智能的思考。

Finally, property rights are an issue for me on an intellectual, personal, and civic front. Loss of IP to China and Russia has cut our ability to protect our business and human rights in the world at large. The trash in our streets, houseless encampments, and property crimes as a form of political speech are hard to fathom, but I face and think about these pretty much every day in my experience.

All this is is just the positive stuff. I'm saving the more depressing thoughts for others to chime in.

All kidding aside, I'm pretty happy working from home. My family life is different but better overall. If we could lock down some positives for all citizens, it could make for a very interesting 2022. Extending Justice, liberty, and equity will go a long way to bridging climate, business, and political concerns.

对2021年主题建议的初步回应:第一个主题:1月份的未遂政变是一个戏剧性的例子，它利用企业权力的受害者来庇护跨国财富摧毁劳动人民生活的能力。第二个主题:由于“太空计划”不过是将地球轨道军事化，只留下一点纯科学的副产品，所以所谓的“太空旅游”显然是将国家安全利益从国有部门转移到私营部门的努力，因此是对国际稳定和公共利益的总体威胁。第三个话题:大流行后的工作场所最好是模仿大流行时期的工作场所，至少就历史上真正掌权的苹果落在谁的手里而言:国际基本工作者联盟。

These outline prominent current events regarding which all or most readers will be familiar. Perhaps our business here is asking "what is philosophical here?"; or better, "can philosophy offer any assistance in analyzing them clearly?" In this regard I've decided to offer a brief review of some of the questions and discussions around the shows topics and related forums and then revisit the above topic suggestions in view of the foregoing.

对我来说，参与一般性讨论始于2020年9月的怀疑论节目，在节目中，我清楚地发现，真正的怀疑者是几乎相信一切事物的人，也就是说，一切都是容易并习惯地自我证实的。例如，我在散步时穿鞋的事实，就是许多这样的信念之一。但是，如果缺乏这种现成的可证实性，就必须求助于外部权威，那么怀疑性审讯就有了合法的理由。例如，一种流行的说法是，地球唯一的月球卫星上存在人类的足迹。因此，仅仅接受这种对权威的非同寻常的主张，在性质上不是科学的，而是文化的，与其他纯粹的文化信仰，如那些由牧师或萨满证明的信仰，有同样的特点。由此得出了一个矛盾的结果，即科学文化实际上对独立的科学工作构成了危险，因为它阻止了对科学权威的更流行主张的怀疑。

下一集《全民艺术》于2020年11月播出。鉴于正在讨论的物品具有独特的意义，即尽管它们实际上毫无用处，但仍被热情地保存下来，人们提出三个问题:接触这些物品应被视为一项人权吗?它们的生产者有义务分销这些物品吗?而且，关于这些物品的价值主张是否贬低了由世俗的，但实际上有用的物品，甚至更糟的，可能产生的审美反应，构成了对它们的制造商拒绝生产任何真正有用的东西的道歉?

第一个问题由于其重要性很低而被忽略了。其他人权是第一位的，比如刑事调查中的嫌疑人不受酷刑的权利。制作人通常不知道作品的价值，这就排除了第二种可能性。这是消费者的事，或者更确切地说，是策展人的事。第三个是真正的行动所在。为什么这样的物品会有特殊的价值呢?这个问题的答案必须在偏好分析中找到;总的来说，人类更喜欢自由，即使许多人无法完全适应自由带来的责任，面对各种不同的选择，一种比另一种效果。正是因为这些对象实际上是无用的，才允许有另一种优先元素的关联空间。当然，关于这一点还有很多要说的，但这里应该足以说明的是，将它们的价值转化为一种单纯的市场交换，就等于摧毁了物品本身，从而构成了一种精神上的破坏。

然后是2021年1月17日的投票问题，它直接或默认地提出了投票作为一种制度是否是决定民主结果的最佳方式。如果你不能决定谁是船长，就在船员中平等地轮换工作。这里不需要做任何总结，因为我建议的模式已经在26:10的广播中读过了，而只是说需要一项宪法修正案，就像废除公司人格的倡导者在克服法庭先例方面所建议的那样。

2021年5月播出的关于错误信息和民主的节目让我觉得这是一个与哲学特别相关的话题。然而，我非常怀疑“另类事实”会在时间上压倒真实事实的想法。原因在于，真实的事实是有历史的。它们就像大脑中的事件，虽然失去了记忆，但仍有它们的历史。替代事实是虚构的，因此没有历史。现在，由于我们所知道的事实的总和可以被称为“世界”，世界上的任何变化都必须导致构成世界的事实的历史发生变化。在我看来，任何其他事实的收集都无法做到这一点。虽然交替的事实问题构成了哲学的真正问题，但它本身对民主制度构成的威胁很小。

The show on the Vienna Circle of May 2021 raised a question which to my mind I still am unable to answer. It derives from the Guest's (Professor Edmonds) book on page 154: Does a statement's means of verification condition its potential meaning; (does the horse of verifiability pull the cart of intelligibility), as Carnap says? Or does a statement's meaning determine the only place you can find verifiability; (does the horse of intelligibility pull the only kind of cart, among the many that can be pulled, that verifiability can travel in), as Wittgenstein argues? Although I tend to favor the latter solution, my view thereof is by no means decided. Perhaps another participant may offer some assistance.

The broadcast on Advaita philosophy of June 2021 raised the question for me of how to fit the products of human design into a world described as a singular non-duality. If you don't keep nature (described by determination by continuous causal processes), and human design (described by determination by discrete causal processes), apart, how could one still distinguish compatibility from hostility with and to human design in comportment towards and regarding natural processes? It occurred to me that the question was asking about what the place of humans in nature is, which in turn brought up the solvability or insolubility of crises of the natural environment, and whether their relation to human social institutions is an informative one. The problem for me of classical non-duality is it reflects an individualism characteristic of centralized organizations. The Parmenidean One, for example, is as an apology for the dualism of Being and Not-being, the latter not non-existent, but "disappearing", i.e. adding to or increasing the original appearance, and as such is always the same beginning. As more than a casual semantic relation, the Greek word "archon", mayor, is derived from "arche", meaning both "beginning" and "chief governor". The implication is that if you cut out the distinction between natural and human design, you hand over the solving of environmental problems to whoever is in power at the moment, with the practical valence being that under current conditions that looks ill-advised.

为了更清晰地了解非二象性，节目页面上提出了对普特曼著名的大脑在水箱中的思想实验的修改:如果你把大脑从水箱中取出，但留下思考者，会改变什么吗?如果是，那么与大脑的关系是偶然的。不知道它们之间的关系是什么，我们就知道有一个。如果没有，那么与大脑的关系是偶然的，不能找到关系。但请注意，即使在后一种情况下，容器本身也不能思考，只能思考它的全部内容。非二元性始终未能建立起它自己，我认为这是集体利益压倒个人野心的历史规律中始终如一的哲学组成部分。这只是说，就奇点的分析而言，哲学的一元论与政治的非二元性是一致的。

The show on literature and the brain aired in July of 2021, and suggested the question of whether reading fiction was an escape from the world or a preparation for the proper emotional responses to it, as Aristotle suggests regarding music at the end of the Politics. This I found mentionable for the reason that fiction must be about something real because the reader's responses to it are involuntary, (laughter, tears, etc.). So what's real in it, the reader or the story, (the argument being that if they were both real, it would be non-fiction)? If it's the reader, then it's defined as a literary Nominalism of arbitrary story-stimuli by varied yet essential responses. If the story by contrast is what truly exists, then it's defined as a literary Realism of a varied and non-essential series of accidental effects of the same identical story independent of the reader. The introduction of the distinction between logical Nominalism and ontological Realism may inform the topics suggested at the beginning.

The July 25, 2021 program on Ken Taylor's posthumously published book Referring to the World posed the question of how, if the assumption of at least some genuine reference contents is made, the reference itself is not permanently stuck in a self-reference loop; with all reference-contents therefore being like windows through which one sees another window, the objects referred to constituted by the mere cumulative shape of the frame, glare, or one's own diaphanous reflection. The way out of such a dilemma was offered in the form of the lyrical contents of Rupert Holmes' famous Pena Colada song, where an object is sought in or by a set of preferences thought by the seeker to be different from an object included in the set which is referred to as something the seeker prefers to get away from. And as it turns out, this latter object is quantitatively identical with the sought object, indicated by the pleasant discovery that all the other preferences in the set are shared by it. The incorrect reference was simply absorbed by the sheer volume of the correct ones, which I took to be the point of the analogy. The occasional failure of objective reference due to overbearing subjective contribution does not abolish the general reliability of common reference-claims.

The program on Microaggressions of August 15, 2021 is closely related to issues of class. If an upper class person compliments a lower class person on how "upper class" he/she looks, it's microaggressive in the case that the lower class person likes being lower class. I think many problems that are often described as intractable can be much more easily managed by reducing the conflicts within them to conflicts of class, independent from the various masks that distinction may put on.

The show on "awesomeness and ethics" of August 29. 2021 stresses linguistic superlatives. It's not a descriptive word in the sense that it adds something to its reference more than most others. Rather it is primarily prescriptive. It tells you how to look at something. The question arises, then, how important is that to the object? Do some objects need to be called awesome in order to be awesome? I would suggest that's the case. That further suggests that it's primarily up to the caller of the name, rather than the object the name belongs to, which determines its reality or genuine existence. I suppose it's a question of philosophical anthropology whether and how the relatively small class of awesome objects is limited. It is certainly however a matter of choice to some considerable degree.

2021年10月24日的阿坎哲学和人格节目在节目页面上对人格概念进行了分析，值得回顾。关于人格的核心问题是，“什么是人?”，这意味着寻找定义。Three attempts at a definition are made:
1) Personhood is a plant with two roots: Right to self-determination, and agency independence of the self-determiner, (to wit: liberty of instrumentality). The example of a spider sitting in its web clearly has the first but not the second. It's got a right to its own web but it's not free not to spin a web. Still, a homeowner can treat it as a person simply by respecting its rights as a person in the first sense. So the definition is inadequate.
2) Second attempt: Personhood is time-friendly. The perception of time is added as fundamental, described phenomenologically by memory and anticipation, with the result that any pre-condition by location in space is precluded. This solves the problem of how a spider can be respected as a person, (as remembering and anticipating the web it's got a right to), without being one, (as limited by a location in space: the center of its web). But that's a somewhat negative result, so that a third attempt is required.
3)第三次尝试:记忆和期待的因素被扩展，以适应随后对共同现象学形式、物质或“物质”(如果你愿意的话)的尊重，因为它们是一个在未来自愿单独决定的共享对象。也就是说，在记忆和期待的条件下，相互尊重对方自愿决定共享对象的能力，诚然，这些共享对象在本体论上有点奇怪，因为它们不存在。因此，目标的自主，手段的自由选择，以及以记忆和期待的形式对时间的感知，都融入了对不存在的、集体的或共享的对象的其他自主者的相互尊重。我愿意论证的是，这一特征在不同文化表达之间的不同描述中占上风，因此被描述为人类的一种普遍属性，并在建设性集体行为中成为一个强有力的解释因素。

Although the program on Professor John Perry's book, Frege's Detour, of November 2021, had far too many fascinating aspects to touch here on even a few, I thought the mention of Russel's paradox, sometimes called the "barber's paradox", was a virtuously bold move, as this paradox is often claimed to have undermined Frege's project of making mathematics a branch of logic. I'm however quite skeptical of this assertion, as the paradox seems to me not to do what it says it does. The bare bones version runs: If the set of all sets which aren't members of themselves is a member of itself, then it is and it isn't. The problem here as I see it is that, in order to make sense, this set of sets has to be distinguished from another set of sets: those which are members of themselves. By definition however only one set of such a kind is possible. Saying it's a member of itself is analogous to saying "Ceasar crossing the Rubicon is a member of all sets of Ceasars crossing Rubicons". Russel has created the paradox on the basis of an identity-statement masked linguistically as one of set membership. By this I draw the implication that Frege's project is rehabilitatable.

上述内容是否在某种程度上有助于充分解决开头三个建议主题所带来的问题和困惑?在我看来，一个可靠的应用程序是不可能的。然而，这项任务可以说是留给未来的时间，也许在即将到来的新年。

2021年，进步的车轮开始转动。或者，更确切地说，电路被激活了。在我们这个公平的州，达成一笔大交易的计划正在成形。一家价值数十亿美元的公司将在该州首府附近建造一家制造工厂。这是几十年来在这里登陆的最大的一次冒险。
There is pushback from neighbors whose nominally idyllic lives will change. I wrote a letter to the local newspaper, something I have done several times in the past twenty years. Got a reply: something that has not happened often. They are planning to publish it. Well, more or less I guess.
Such letters often are dissected beyond recognition. The newspaper is, of course, ardently pro-business. Most are. Advertising supplies the bulk of their economic bread-and-butter. I will be surprised by publication of any part of my rant, editorializing notwithstanding. My thinking is it will not be the only such missive they receive. Those neighbors are understandably worried. Big money generally gets what it wants here. And everywhere else it plans to spend billions.