The Conditions Are Not Neutral

After proving, despite themselves, that the winner of the Tour de France is the racer best suited to the conditions, and in an effort to dismiss the use of technology as long as everyone has access to it equally, the commentator says, "Les cyclistes les plus forts et les plus rapides remporteront toujours la compétition."

Take that in. He's just proven that his conclusion--reached after ample presentation of the evidence--is NOT true. And he punctuates his analysis with "the best man always wins."

There is no "best man." There is only "the best under these conditions." The Tour de France does NOT reveal the best cyclist in the world. It reveals the winner of the Tour de France. That's all. You can't generalize. At least you can't reach any absolute statement about the best. The best does not exist. There are no neutral conditions.

Why does this matter? There are no neutral conditions, period. For anything. Humans spend their lives trying to figure out where they fit in, how high in some pecking order they exist--sports, work, family, hobbies, church, social club--always confusing the essentially made-upness of these orders with some natural order, a great chain of being, that will give them their true and absolute value.

There's no accurate measure out there, none conceivable. Change the arbitrary rules of the game and you change the winner.

There is no activity or aesthetic that can judge you the greatest in the world. Or the most incompetent.

Thoughts Prayers and Ink

More guns equals more gun violence. A friend if mine told me I needed to say that again. There it is.

Words have proven as useless against gun violence as thoughts and prayers. Somehow the words that prevent action seem to work better. But I don't think they do. All words are pro forma at this point.