Readers may consider this my obligatory "Why is everyone getting married?" post.

I heard of two engagements within two days over this weekend.  I suppose that holiday weekends are a good time for taking one's SO out, and thus, there are more engagements conducted over them.  It still seems interesting, to me, that people are rushing to marriage. 

It is a truism that being married to be married is bad.  That is, too many seek to escape something, or enter a new phase of life, and think that marriage is a means to these ends.  In both cases I heard of, it does not seem this was the motivation.  It seems that life partnerships were actually formed.  However, in each case there was an element of newness.  There was an element of deliberation, of wanting a definite change.

All this has led me to think that it may not be all that bad to get married for the very purposes of the status shift itself.  Do have a care as to whom you choose, though.

Humanity+ has a fascinating article about whether transhuman enhancement - in this case, cognitive enhancement - would kill "you."

At heart this is a wordless fear that there is something inexplicable about us that will be violated if we apply a mysterious procedure to ourselves. The very same fear features in objections to teleportation: how do we know that the copy of ourselves which has arrived is really us? The answer is it is impossible to prove, but for all intents and purposes that matter, it is us. Worrying about it is unproductive.

Apparently in Indonesia anything explicitly non-Muslim is grouped together as undesirable.  In what may be the equivalent of the pejorative 1884 US phrase describing the Democratic Party as one of "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion," Indonesia Matters has depicted the PDI Perjuangan as "Thugs, Christians, and Communists."

Obviously, this would be fantastically unlikely to fly in any Western state.  The real question is, is this a statement about democracy in Indonesia, and for that matter, Islamic states in general?  Are non-Muslim beliefs forever going to be associated with lawless "street toughs?"

This explains much.

I consider myself fairly mentally flexible. I've blogged in the past about anthropomorphic rabbits reenacting the War in Iraq, Quantum Mechanics, and the subjectivity of experience.  However, there is one thing I can't wrap my head around:

"My friend."

His breath came ragged, in great gulps, and the shaking hands he splayed against the cold wall did little to steady his mind.  "Just . . . just one . . . "

"You are not well."

"One more . . . " he wheezed.  His pupils, wide, stared unseeing.

"Something troubles you?"

A terrible spasm wracked him, and he fought desperately for balance.  His mouth worked, and between the harsh rattling, the words formed. "Kick it up . . . a notch."

There is this:

Which has spawned this:

And now you're all just a bit more culturally aware.

Rob Frankel, branding expert, writes:

While there is a lot of merit in what he has to say, I have to wonder if it's truly tragic that people are substituting personal branding for personal identity. That is, is this desire for a "personal brand" a genuine inability to grasp something meaningful, or merely a mindset which uses available tools to find a different path to the same end?

Richard Feynman wrote about "cargo cult science," which copies the trappings of success instead of replicating the hard work and time needed to attain that success.  If this is a case of people similarly mistaking the trappings of success and self-worth for real success and self-worth, then Frankel is right on the money.  But on the other hand, what if they don't want to be enlightened or become better people?  What if they just want a polished website, a catchy slogan, and a decent promo pic?  In other words, what if they really just want the trappings?

Isn't it their right to determine that for themselves?  Isn't it a little arrogant of us to assume that they don't know what they're getting into?  Of course, I'm not an expert.  But while Frankel is an expert at branding, he isn't a Zen master (which would qualify him to talk about enlightenment) or a professional therapist: his degree is in economics (specifically, economic history.)  I wonder what gives him the basis to assume that everyone actually wants to be a better person.

I was reading a terribly uninformative review and thought, "How is it that professional reviewers can get away with writing crappy articles that are far worse than mine?"

Then I had the thought, "Well, I guess I am a professional reviewer too."

It was strange for me because after years of complaining about bad writing, using myself as a standard that all professionals should be above, I am now one myself.

Have you ever suddenly realized your own position?