The Atom Analogy

In my mind and less in my speech, and of course also in the writing and speech of others, I really enjoy and admire the atom analogy. Steak and gravy go together like carbon and hydrogen atoms. People are really like atoms. Really. They are lone individuals but they form compounds and bonds. And since everything is made of atoms the analogy is undeniable. You'd have to be contrary and perverse and maybe even ignorant to deny it.

You have essential unity via essentially individual units [chaotic unity, of course, but you get what you get]. The universe and its near-infinite children. Surely this is a cliche so utterly used up that it can no longer be regarded for its innate profundity. And this is an era in which truly profound things are rarely unexploited, and many go unnoticed, and explanations are plentiful but useless.

This is no trick of relativity, either; it is the flow of energy in a near-infinite system, a constant. So humans are like atoms and minds are like particle waves, and it makes sense to an ignoramus such as myself because there are particle waves and atoms which constitute existence. And a dam in the flow, another cliche: the river of life, of time, as symbol.

And what happens when too many atoms get together? When they are large atoms in a small space, strange things may be known to happen. Weird events unfold and pathetic explanations are offered half-heartedly. In the face of such overwhelming reality any response is valid, but no response is perfect. So an atomic blast can be likened to the cultural, but especially political and scientific, mentality that created and employed them.

It could also be likened to any crisis, or any situation. All it would take is a little ingenuity and time and flexibility. The analogy doesn't have to be terrifying, or depressing, or uplifting. In the end it is only so much information, among so much other information, that may or may not convey an idea or relation.

The information cliche has to be recalled - information age, intellectual property, the internet. The fatal overdose and over-reliance on indirect information. And yet without indirect information we would be as good as blind, liable to agree to any sort of political or social manipulation. And 'chemical realism' proposes: a statistically mediocre, unfair, yet still incredible life that may or may not be understandable. Everything else is secondary, to use another cliche.

In such a reality, runaway events are not unknown. Their products can be disturbing or beautiful. All outcomes are possible and likely, variety and monotony are equals, there is the positive sense of an open-ended question that has been posed since our eyes opened. Status is part illusion and part deception when elementary similarity is the only trustworthy rule. The question is do we use Occam's Razor, or Occam's Lathe?

Geez. Wow.

It's a good thing I tried to catch up to the internet news lately. Doubtless you have heard this story, or a story like it, plenty of times: noxious blog post is posted, public gets upset, author is a remedial celebrity and spin doctor, spin doesn't take, offense is broadcast – everyone chuckles in the end, because it's kind of funny.

Even Scott Adams knows there are some kinds of shit you don't touch. Not even as a blogger. Not even satirically. I blog anonymous and I wouldn't get in anyone's face or talk lightly about retardation or gender or any stupid thing. I prefer the borderlands of insensitivity and general curmugeonliness. There is one stinking turd that is so bloated with gas that even looking at it wrong can set it off. Even looking at an opposing turd the wrong way can set it off. You don't even look at this turd, let alone blog about it on your smug, high-class, oft-visited blog (which is solely buoyed by celebrity and little-more-than-average writing skills).

Anyways, the poor fellow took the nebulous, cringe-worthy subject of 'Men's Rights' to task in the most circumlocutory style possible: in short he pissed off everybody but his most dedicated fans, and even those have put at least one Dilbert mug at the back of cupboard. The irony of Men's Rights does not need to be brought up, and the ire of feminists has been alluded to by other sources covering the story and how it has been covered. It's been covered to death, and the best part is it makes me realize I am out of the loop. How do I generate controversy, gain blog hits, and become infamous?