Victor had dutifully visited John Le'Treue in his class room and met Milton,
the head of the electronics department, and Art, the assistant.  Milton made a
big show of writing Victor's name next to a digital logic and intro-computer
programming courses.  He sensed that these people, like John, were trying to
impress him with their importance.  There was also the feeling that something
was hidden.  Victor tried to be natural and honest but came away with the
feeling he was being put on.  Something was wrong.
   The interviews were strained and Victor guessed that Milton and Art had been
filled in by John, prior to the meetings.  Maybe they were just reacting to
Victor's insistence on several weeks of prep time.  Although John may be that
naive about the social effect of gossip.
   Maybe that is why Victor was also let to know the need for teachers was not
so great as John had indicated.  That may all have been a bullshit posture or
it may be that John had unwittingly created a glut in the market by recruiting
Vic plus half the unemployed physicists in Tucson.  Milton just used John's
naivety to create a managers dream.  Some of John's friends have Phds. and all
but Vic and John have at least Masters.  What an idiot!  He may have put himself
out of the running for these part time, no benifits service economy nightmare
positions that are the only thing available to a frighteningly fast growing
segment of the population.
   Victor has been rude to John at times, ridiculing him during sometimes
heated discussions on the state of the world.  Vic has a lot of practice
responding sarcastically to the incredualty that his ideas are most often
greeted with.  Does John feel the necessity to get even?  But surely this setup
would be out of proportion to Victor's crimes.  Could it be that John feels
Victor somehow threatens his identity?
  Perhaps he didn't pay the expected homage to the academic pretentiousness
that John only confusedly affects.  A pretentiousness, by the way, which is
only slightly more absurd than the self image of the economically powerful,
who, rightly or wrongly, are potent enough to deny survival to people like
Victor or anyone who defies them or they have no use for.   Like the academics,
the wealthy pretend to intellectual superiority.  The rich also affect Darwinian
and moral superiority which, to be honest, is a game the academics are not as
likely to play.  The irony is: whatever power anyone has within society is
given to them by all of us.  Whoever controls such power usually considers it
personal when it is really part of the group dynamic.  We give it to them by
believing their bullshit!  That notion extends to all identity and personality.
They are rarely if ever individual or personal in any way.  They're based on
the expected pattern of interaction with others and are, therefore, a group
phenomenon.  The notion of individuality is a denial of this reality.  We are
forced to accept personal responsibility and forced to conform to society's
societies assignment of identity.
   So is John consciously trying to get even because Victor has failed
recognise his superiority?  Is he mad because Victor won't reinforce John's
conditioned delusions about society by admitting Vic's homelessness is his own
fault and that he can't have been a good engineer or morally upstanding enough
or has failed to conform sufficiently while not being a strong enough individual?
In short, what is John trying to prove and how aware is he that he is trying to
prove anything.  Does John, in some inconsistently twisted way, percieve Victor's
attacks on the culture to be assaults on his own self image?
   Then came the following email.


  Victor:
   Most instructors at the Community College's Electronics Dept. are
  overloaded, so if you pick on Milton Malman and Art Reeching often enough
  the next few weeks, you'll probably teach two courses next semester.
   Teaching there is different from my experiences as a TA at
  U-Physics. You have more freedom which means you have to work at planning the
  course at least a few weeks ahead of time. Getting started can be difficult,
  so I'll share a few ideas about how you might start the first few weeks.

   Most students are VERY WEAK on math; High School algebra and Trig will
  usually be their limit initially. So for programming, the math has to start
  very simple.

   The programming course: TEC-160, is many student's first experience
  doing ANYTHING with a computer. The first week, you might discuss DOS,
  define the words "file", "directory", "subdirectory" "disk", and discuss
  suffixes on filenames:What's an executable file?? Try to get the students
  to read the first two chapters of the QBASIC text. The second week of
  TEC-160, you might have them type in and run some simple programs:
   1)  PRINT "Hello" END
   2)  FOR i=1 TO 10 PRINT i END
   NEW 2)  FOR i=1 TO 10 PRINT i NEXT i END
   3)  FOR i=1 TO 10 x=SQR(i) n=i*i PRINT i,n,x NEXT i END
   The third program can then be modified to add headings to the table.

   If you're doing half QBASIC and half C, you'll probably want to get
  them to study (read and run example programs) Chapters 3,4 and 5 from the
  QBASIC text the first 5 weeks. Chapter 6(Subprograms) and Chapter 7(ARRays)
  would probably be good lead-in before starting C.

   While I was in High School, I attended a 3-day seminar at Purdue about
  Engineering and Technology. One part I attended was for E.E.T. In that
  meeting, we were each given a printed circuit board, 2 resistors, 2
  capacitors, 2 LEDs and a 9-volt battery. Once assembled, these components
  formed a "FLIP-FLOP"-the LEDs alternately flashed on and off, timed by
  the RC time constant as the capacitors charged and discharged. This is a
  very simple circuit, but the flashing LEDs make it exciting, and if a
  student watched it on an oscilloscope, it would introduce the facts that:
   1) A circuit powered by a battery CAN oscillate. 2) An analog circuit can be
   made to spend most of it's time in one "saturation" state or the other- the
   basis of digital circuitry.

   So if you teach digital logic, you might have your students build and
  study this type of circuit the first week. That same first week, you might
  discuss the base-10 number system and the base-2 number system. Have the
  students choose either there thumb or their pinky as the one's place, the
  next finger as the two's. The middle finger is phuck you=4, and so on. Show them
  how to count to 31 on one hand and they can practice with it. They can count
  to 1023 with both hands. Maybe the second week of digital logic you would
  want to discuss Boolean Algebra. Maybe that second week you can have them
  build some 4-transistor "from scratch" TTL gates and drive them first with
  DC and then with a squarewave. Verify their "NAND" operation. The third
  week might involve an introduction to small TTL IC's-handling them and
  testing their "NAND" operation. Your lecture might start to discuss truth
  tables for things like binary addition.

   I wouldn't have suggested that you teach if I didn't believe you
  were very bright and knowledgeable, but sometimes we all need help
  getting started.

		Sincerely, John Le'Treue

   "Instructors are overloaded".  Is John just plain stupid?  Victor also
wonders how John has time to plan his own life.  But I'll let Vic narrate
his own thoughts on that, only commenting that his reply to John was curt
and very sarcastic.

   I don't think John has any idea how offensive I find his arrogant
patronization.  I don't think he has a clue that he is arrogant and patronizing,
though he must have some notion that he is condescending.  I think he has
internalized some sort of complex system of thought that is connected to
identity and the desire for acceptance and approval.   Am I dealing with a
social instinct rather than a learned behavior?  I don't know.  I do know his
attempt to instruct me in how to teach digital logic and programming is
taken straight from any texts on the subjects and so superficial that it exposes
John's lack of depth in the field.  In short it's a crock!
   The social game he seems to be trying to play with little understanding and
not very good instinct is more interesting a phenomena to consider.  For now,
let's say it originates in a "Social Thought-Template" and stipulate that it
is not necessary to have a clear (or any?) awareness of the template in order
to express ideas that originate from it.  As a matter of fact I believe
knowledge of it is rare and possibly negates it.  It is more than morality or
principals of behavior.  Those words and actions are conscious and voluntary
and the social template I envision prescribes allowable limits to the thought
behind them.  Has it always been part of the group dynamic or is it an
artifact of electronic media?  Nature or nurture is irrelevant to the fact
that something exists.  It infects most people and I don't like it!
   [Since I wrote the preceding paragraph I've read Aldous Huxley's "Devils
of Loudun" in which he talked about "unthinkable thoughts" in a given social or
historical "frame of reference".  In the epilog he speaks of "mob hysteria" and
"mob intoxication" as phenomena exploited by religious and political leaders.
He speaks of the practice of instilling what are basically post hypnotic
suggestions that control the behaviour and thoughts of the participants in
some gathering long after they have dispersed.  The use of electronic media
to propagate these thought templates is also mentioned in this 1952 book along
with a warning to academics to protect their minds!]
   Is it fair to single out John for this attention.  After all he's the normal
one.  But I have access to John and he has provided the stimulus to which I feel
compelled to respond.  I don't care that he is only trying, in his own mind, to
help.  His conscious intention is only the measure of how little he knows of
himself.  If he wasn't on my case he would get no grief from me.  He is
pretentious and presumptuous enough to think he knows what is good for me.  I
think he needs to be made aware of how controlling he tries to be.  The
memories of interactions with people like him can be like an alien presence in
the mind.  That is especially true if ideas are mixed with emotions.  There is
enough conflict in the arena of my mind, or anyones, without the need for
someone like John to go out of their way to create more.

   Victor's metaphore about "alien presence" made me think of an interesting
side passage to explore.  What if, beside a media induced thought-template
controlling our minds we are all alien presences struggling for control of the
ape-essence of our souls (bodies and minds).  We, meaning the thought beings,
have taken over the bodies of a species of ape on the Planet Earth.  Though,
we control the mind and the movement of the body the ape still controls the
emotions through the endocrine system.  The reason our children take so long
to develop motor and other skills, as compared to other mammals, is the
struggle to control the ape within.  It is rare for even very old humans to
have complete control over emotions but of those who do we can infer the
annihilation of the essential ape.  Wouldn't the Christian right have a time
with this "evilution" notion?  Would they condemn the host murderers for
killing the essential, created, being?  However, since self control to that
degree is rare, it would never be a big issue.
   But consider an even more insidious scenario.  Our individual personalities
are not voluntary but assigned by a conscious group mind which supplies the
social thought-template.  From this viewpoint, we see society, the system, as
our own abstract thought invention, therefore us, and at the same time alien
with respect to individuals and in total controll of our thoughts.  In the best
case our identities are consistant postures we adopt, with the consent of
others, and are more interaction than individual.  However what's the liklihood
of ralizing a best case?  In this "real world" alternate universe we are
considering all the voluntary part of our personlity has been removed and we
are forced to conform to social norms.  Now, you ask, what is the difference
between those thralls and post modern Americans?  Beats me! I hope we're
merely working towards a little self control and I intend to change the
subject quickly.
   The struggle for self control implies opposition by some other source of
motivation, though it only be impulses.  Volumes could probably be written on
the sources and varieties of impulses but I want to move on.  More orderly
emotions which oppose control of one's self originate in the body and social
instincts or conventional mores.  Media induced social thought-templates;
personally powerful individuals (which are more rare than people with self
control, though many pretend to such power); directed group pressure (as
distinguished from the social instinct etc.) and complexes of all the above,
also tend to compete with self control for ownership of your mind.  That may
not cover all the possibilities but it is a large enough set to consider for
now.
   There is no need to consider the complete set.  I intend to ignore anything
I can in order to reduce opposition to my desire to control myself.  By limiting
the definition of the adversary I minimize the strength of the enemy and maximise
my own power density. That is, the power I can bring to bear.  Of course , it
makes it easier for me to succeed in disciplining myself, as I choose, and to
reject control by others.  Exclusive self control is what I want.
   If, for now, I focus on the alien as the sole outside influence and define
myself as the alien, the task becomes simple.  If I am the enemy I control
both sides and the game is mine as long as I choose well between the opponents.
Pretty schizy, hunh?  Oh well, this game's hard even if you cheat.  And to some
extent I still have to play by the rules anyway.
   If I don't acknowledge group mores, social instincts, thought-templates or
whatever, others will persecute me in order to make the group known to me.  If
I don't create at least the appearance of conformity I must change the group
dynamic into something I like.  The first is hard to maintain and the latter
is generally believed to be impossible.  History shows it is merely highly
improbable.  But I'm driven to try in any case.
   I'm personally offended by the post modern norm of petty, pretentious
posturing based on a foundation of greed, hidden by deception and self
delusion.  I pity the fools who believe the lies.  I have no respect for them.
I have less respect for the cowards who refuse to confront them.  If I must
choose between delusion and starvation, I'll choose a self delusion that makes
me feel good and die happy.
   I must take care to make it consistant enough with "reality" or I will
create stresses that will result in confusion.  That is, if I drive myself
insane I will negate self control and lose true consciousness.  Real self
control and unconscious delusion are incompatable. Well, that sounds like a
plan!

   But back to the real world.  In that flight of fancy I alluded to the need
to deal with the group dynamic in it's current incarnation as the entity I
named, "Social Thought-Template".  But to really do that requires some knowledge
of what I'm dealing with.  However, I've been trying to expose it bit by bit
since very early in this book.  No profound insights are occurring to me at the
moment so let's get back to the blow by blow for a while.
   A second visit to the college produced a second interview with Art.  Victor
was soon apprised of the fact that the second "pressing need" for teachers had
been relieved.  "What is this shit?", he thought.  After Art beats around the
bush a while, and finally hints, but hedgedly, that Victor isn't suitable for
the job, Vic says, "I'll take that as a definite don't count on it!"  And walked
out still wondering if this is just John's game or is there more to it?  Why do
they have to bother?  He'd adjusted to the fact that society has no use for him
now they hold out this bait just to tease him?  Or so it seems.  Why is it
necessary to make him feel like shit or do they do this to everyone.  Is this
a normal management tactic that no one should be upset over.  Do they think it's
funny to make this half crazy bum jump through hoops.  How childishly stupid and
cruel can people be?
  "No, Victor, don't answer that.  I'm beginning to agree with you that there
is no limit to the stupidity that is called normal.  That makes it a rhetorical
question."
   Victor smiles his best sardonic smile. "While you appear to be somewhat
vulnerable to the truth, let this humble representative press the advantage.
If we worry about what they think or worse, join in the game, we lose.  That
only helps them to rationalize their greed.  They aren't necessarily aware of
of what they are doing but they fear anyone who doesn't play along.  A
non-player must, therefore, be perceived as a fool.  That is how they hide
their foolishness from themselves.  If another is lucid and doesn't play, then
that person sees them for what they really are and there is a danger they
might see themselves.  They couldn't handle the conflict with their professed
moral values and economic and social beliefs.  Those could, in turn trigger
questions about nationalism and religion.  It is so much easier to just accept
the system as a package deal and never think about anything but how to get
ahead.  If the delusion is complete enough then the persecution of heretics
becomes a moral duty.  The troubling facts of downsizing, part time jobs, no
medical coverage and other signs of a declining standard of living and the
eventual need to thin the population can be hidden behind the burning stakes.
Hell, they even expect me to believe this shit.  The fact that I am reputed
to throw it back in their faces is enough to explain what this particular
little part of the game is about.  So, there it is, Catch 22, the only thing
that is certain is that we lose!
   "But what do we lose by playing the game?  More important than self respect
is lucidity.  We must agree to believe the delusion that this is the best people
can do and, in fact, it is positively good. To allow that bullshit is weakness
but we must convince ourselves it is strength.  When lucidity and strength are
gone there will be no autonomy.  We will be doing as everyone else does and,
also like the rest, believing we are individuals.  To me that is the most
increadble part of all: knowing we are surrendering to the herd and 'knowing',
at the same time, we are 'individuals'.  Knowing we do as we must and as we have
been told but believing we are free.  Is it all done with mirrors?
   "No, to answer my own rhetorical question, it is done with bait.  By
convincing us we have a chance of being rich and, if we aren't, it is due to
some failing on our own part, we shift the responsibility from the system and prove any
complaints are merely jealousy.  Forget the fact that the odds of getting rich
by playing the game are probably lower than winning the lottery.  If we play,
win or lose, we help the five per centers to rationalize the perpetuation of
their system."
   "Victor, if we don't play we starve.  And aren't there a lot of good people
out there.  John may be ingenuous but he does want to help.  Maybe, if you check
in just before the start of the semester, there will be a class for you and you
can make some money.  Besides, you said it your self, we are victims of our own
greed.  Don't you see it is natural and right."
   "What, natural and right that we all sink to the lowest common denominator of
morality and scruples?  Most rural people weren't like this a hundred and fifty
years ago (when most people were rural), before the industrial revolution.
They lured us away from extended families on farms to build and people their
factories and now they are almost finished consolidating the food producing
land under corporations.  And they're destroying the lands ability to produce
food, by the way, in the name of profit.  That's only one of the ways the
system offends us.  Another is how it defines right and natural to serve itself
and the hell with us.  I don't care what words are used.  I care about what is
happening to us and I don't like it.  It offends me!"

   Victor returned to camp for a few weeks over Christmas.  He used the time to
rest, hike, hunt and write.  All that was done between the playoff games that
he could get his radio tuned in for.  He also explored a question.   "What is
it All About?"
   It is about a greedy minority looting our Planet (our reality) in general
and our economy (our abstraction) in particular.  The seemingly eternal game
is played across the racial/ethnic spectrum by a small percentage of us all.
The rest of us are complicit in the sin by our cooperation and submission to
the elite who exploit us.
   It is about the delusion that we are just like them and would do the same
given the chance; about the belief that we are only jealous of their condign
superiority.
   It is about them filling their pockets at our expense and ignoring the
consequences to the Planet and to us.
   It's about people, victims of downsizing and the "service economy", either
struggling miserably to hang on or letting go and dying defeated and homeless.
   It is about the real consequences of greed; whether anyone intended them
or not; whether anyone notices or not.
   Ultimately, it is about: who's side are you on?!

   If you choose them, their consequences will be your reward.

   When one has very little resources the best way to conserve them is to stay
out of crowds.  In fact, living fifteen miles from the nearest town with no
motor vehicle is extremely thrifty.  But he eventually runs out of tobacco,
candy or some staple food item and is forced to return to the city to get money
and supplies.  Besides, the playoff games and superbowl are much better on
television at the student union.  But, he still has a week before the
division playoffs and enough food to comfortably survive at least that long.