Saturn’s day. Week out. Muggish. Not much comfort in the park and I was having some problems loosening up. And the podcast was somewhere between banal and boring.
Which put me in mind of the philosophical idea of ‘Everything in Moderation’. What defines moderation? When does research and learning cross the line into lack of moderation. Also, on the other side, how much research and learning is enough to alleviate ignorance? And how do we know what ignorance to alleviate?
Somehow this all shines brightly of subjectivity. And maybe sociality. If my friends know less than I do does that mean I have exceeded moderation? Or are they criminally (socially, at least) ignorant?
And what of bogs and nerds? In a social context bogs are moderate by dint of mean so nerds have to be immoderate. Is this why bogs detest nerds? Or are nerds moderate and bogs terminally ignorant and ashamed of their handicap? For after all, inability to learn, the hallmark of the bog, is a handicap.
Are justicers and physicians immoderate?
Is there some sort of ensemble here and a distribution function of how much immoderation is acceptable?
Or is the whole social embedding artificial and inaccurate? Irrelevant? Since society is essentially a construct of bog incompetence and justification thereof of its supposed “normality”, a misuse of word and concept.
I am not at all sure this matter can be considered, accurately if not rationally. I suspect it’s a Cartesian thing. The old “I think therefore I am” and thereby the more I think and know the more I am? But does that mean they who know and think less are less? And what about those things I think not but others do? Which of us is moderate.
I have no good answers. But much grist for the cogitation mill. I think the only way the matter seems to have any measure is when it is in a social context and the dimensionality of that society is small and constrained. But I am not through thinking.
Is thinking that much immoderate?