Brady Helps

Apparently for the American Robin, age might be a sign of plumage (oversimplified: how feathers look), and the American Robin could make mating decisions based on plumage. It's highly speculative to claim that the American Robin selects their mate based on age, but there's credible evidence that they may make their selection based on plumage Source below.

Perhaps the American Robin does not engage in age'ism, but looksmaxxing seems like a worthy move for a single bird.

"The pattern of assortative mating by plumage traits we found could also arise if mate choice (mutual or by one sex only) is based on a correlated trait that co-varies with plumage, such as age. Numerous studies have suggested that expression of melanin-based ornaments can be age-dependent (Manning 1985, Andersson 1994, Sundberg and Larsson 1994, Gil et al. 2001), and assortative mating based on age is well documented (e.g., Sundberg and Larsson 1994, Komdeur et al. 2005). There is no way to age American Robins in the field, and because we examined this population for only two years, we had little information on the birds' age. That information did not indicate that plumage varied systematically with age, but a much more robust analysis is needed before a conclusion is warranted."

source: https://academic.oup.com/condor/article/113/4/881/5153070?searchresult=1

I'm wondering if an open mind is a mind that doesn't have a point of view.

And, I'm of the opinion that a point of view acts like a filter for us. When we receive new information about the world, the point of view filters that data into evidence we use to hopefully inform our beliefs about the world. The point of view doesn't inform the data, the data informs/mutates the point of view.

What does it mean to be open minded? And here, I claim that it means being open about your point of view, allowing that view to be challenged, and be willing to update it as you learn more.

My view on music is informed by my experience in music, my sense of taste and what I believe is correct. If I encounter some new music that I immediately judge as poor, I would acknowledge that and then do the following: state my point of view (perhaps to myself), invite the music to challenge me by giving it a few deep listens, maybe solicit input from listeners I know that like that music, and then decide if I need to change my view. Maybe I don't change my view, maybe I can hold my opinion and tolerate that there are other different things kinds of music out there. Maybe I do, maybe I change my view and I decide that what I experienced is better than what I believed before. Maybe I do something else.

What does it mean to be closed minded? I claim that means not being willing to allow data to update your beliefs about the world; and instead, looking for data to reinforce a belief.

I believe the world is much richer when we're willing to state our point of view, allow ourselves to be challenged, and be confident enough to challenge the views of others — and then, after all is said and done — get to decide if we need to make an update.

Waking up from a nightmare about tornadoes sweeping me off the ground, people shooting me, realizing that I am late for a gig, or — worse — realizing that I'm not dressed upon showing up for a gig are traumatic for me. Until recently.

Upon waking up from one of these dreams I challenged myself: what's my attitude towards a nightmare?

My attitude towards nightmares up until that point was to be frightened. I could feel that fright in my body — heart beating harder, pain around my neck, unease about falling back asleep. Except this time I decided I would adopt a posture of whimsical curiosity.

That particular night I woke up because someone was chasing me. I told myself that I'm going to fall back asleep, and when I see that person again I'm going to run to them, embrace them, invite them to shoot me if they'd like, and ask why. I did that.

Back asleep, and in the dream, I saw that person again. I remember going up to them, embracing them, and asking why. I learned from this dream character that they're not trying to shoot me, shooting me is just what they're supposed to do. And so I invited them to do something else... then the scene changed. I woke up calmly that morning.

Since then, I try to be open and whimsically curious about my nightmares. I write down what I hope to accomplish if I experience nightmares and I find myself accomplishing them in the dream sometimes. I also experience less nightmares.

I tried applying the same idea — towards traffic or life's frustrations. Changing my attitude towards the frustration, and finding that what frustrates me isn't often the bad traffic, it's my relationship to the traffic... traffic is just traffic, why should it be anything else?

I notice that there are others like me — scattered, too many things to do, not enough time to do it, and they wish everyone would just let them live the way they want to live. I got these people together, I see their pain, I hold unconditional love for them, and I decide to act on their behalf — I start a movement.

My movement, the Procrastinator Liberation Front (PLF), claims that concepts like "deadlines" and "punctuality" are oppressive constructs designed to unjustly marginalize my scattered mind. I demand that all people abolish calendars, time, and dates entirely.

Suppose I do field advocacy work and I find a passerby and ask them: "Do you wish the world stopped putting demands on you?" And suppose they respond yes. And then I say, "Do you wish you could do more of what you want to do?" And they say yes. And then I ask, "Would you want a world where you have total agency and control over what matters to you? Where you're free to live as you wish?" And they say yes. Then I tell: "It's clear you care about my cause. And if you truly care and love it, you'll put this sign on your lawn that says 'Stop the Timers Now'". The person says "no, that's crazy, get away from me, you're nuts..." In spite of the insults, I hold unconditional love for the passerby, and for myself and my mistake.

In the above scenario, unconditional love manifested in a few places:

• My unconditional love for a group of people like me
• My unconditional love for the passerby who insulted me
• My unconditional love for myself

I hold unconditional love for myself because I made a mistake. I gave the passerby an unfair offer: "if you care about [x], then you'll do [y]". That's not fair. Who am I to say how someone should act if they care about my case? I forgive myself for my mistake: I did what I did because it's what I thought was right at the time, reflecting now as a different person I know I'll act differently moving forward, and in spite of that, I love myself unconditionally.

I hold unconditional love for the person who insulted me. Yes, they called me nuts and crazy, that's okay though. I know I'm not nuts and I'm not crazy. And I know they're acting in a way they think is right at that moment. While I disagree with their word choice, it's okay, they're just words... they don't change me. I can still hold unconditional love for that person and hope they achieve their greatest possible fulfillment.

I hold unconditional love for my fellow PLF members. I see their plight, it's just like me. I want us to achieve our greatest fulfillment. And going forward, we won't be stopping people on the street and asking for their time.

The Gravity Abolitionists (TGA) are a group of Gen Z students arguing that gravity is inherently discriminatory because it disproportionately restricts literal upward mobility of flightless species and heavier people.

The TGA demands that the government fund massive anti-gravity chambers in every public park to ensure spatial equity. Their slogan is "don't let them keep you down."

The group labels people who do not support them as "Uppers", and claims their inherent hate of "Downers" causes them to enact policies to keep the "Downers" down. They say, "if you care about the people kept down and grounded, then you'll show your love by giving money to political action committee to lobby for a multi-trillion dollar federal appropriation to build an anti-gravity bounce house."

I love the TGA unconditionally. I hope they achieve their greatest fulfillment, whatever it might be. And, I do not agree that a multi-trillion dollar bounce house is a good use of money and won't be giving them money. However, I'll happily be any TGA's friend, listen to them, and let them know that I hope the best for them and their mission.

Do I hate the "Downers"?

I see drivers on the freeway driving so fast and so recklessly that I wonder if they care about us — the others. They maneuver in ways that suggest they're playing a video game in their heads — real life "Grand Theft Auto." I wonder, what is their maximum fulfillment they're reaching for? Perhaps its the reckless driving itself.

Thinking about myself. In the past, I drove aggressively. I don't remember caring too much about other drivers. I cared about myself — my experience getting from Point A to Point B fastest, overtaking everyone else, beating the traffic... feeling in control. Perhaps I thought I didn't have much control over my life then.

In the past, this type of driver might have puzzled me... even irritated me. Since thinking more about unconditional love, I think differently now. Now, I just think "I hope this driver achieves the greatest possible fulfillment, whatever that may be" and then I allow myself to feel unconditional love for the driver internally and I move out of the way and get safe. Unconditional love is about what's inside me — internal, it's not about how I behave or accept from others — external.

You ask: could the greatest possible fulfillment be more reckless driving that kills someone? Perhaps. Though, I suspect that reckless driving is a substitute for what that person actually misses — acceptance, autonomy, self-sufficiency, perhaps something else. And there are many ways to achieve those ends without risking the lives of others. I wish for the driver to achieve their ends. And I advocate for means that don't hurt other people's ability to achieve their greatest possible ends too.

This idea scales, and as it scales it gets harder. Think of the worst type of person you know. Yes, even they, have some type of fulfillment they're trying to achieve. And yes, you can internally hope they achieve that fulfillment without having to hurt other people in the process. And yes, you don't need to externally accept their behavior towards you and/or towards others. And yes, that's easier said than done.

Holding unconditional love for the worst of humanity ≠ accepting injustice and horrific behavior.

And the friction of feeling both at the same time is a major part of our experience here. And don't bother trying to strike a balance. Unconditional is unconditional.

While walking, I notice people and how they behave. I notice if they look at me. I notice if they just look ahead. In the past, I wrote about people looking away when I approached. It puzzled me. I now developed a clear idea of how to think about that — unconditional love.

I like Julia Mossbridge's definition for unconditional love: "The benevolent desire that you achieve the greatest possible fulfillment, whatever that might be." And, people while walking, may have a concept of personal fulfillment that involves a walk that's to themselves — focused on their thoughts, their world, and filtering out everything else. And, if I'm to be a practitioner of unconditional love, perhaps the best thing I can do is to develop a heartfelt desire that those people have that moment they need to themselves — nothing else needs to change.

You might call this practice "empathy" and perhaps it touches empathy; I prefer "unconditional love". I call it unconditional love because my desire for the person I'm thinking about to achieve their maximum fulfillment doesn't require me to do anything about it; and, it doesn't require the person to have to change. Said more simply: it's allowing things to be as they are without anything having to change. Philosophical readers might see this as a nod "Stoic de-attachment", products of Jesuit education might say sounds half-like "Ignatian indifference", others might see it as "loving kindness." However you see it, the simple act of allowing people and their journeys to be as fulfilling for them as it can be, is a beautiful and generous act.

I'll write more on unconditional love in a subsequent post... for now... these are my musings.

Playing piano is easy. The hardest part of playing at the Abbey Resort for Sunday Brunch is knowing what to play, how to play it, and when to play it. There are a lot of factors that go into those decisions: age, types of people, proximity of people to each other, temperature, weather, culture, what I played just before, etc. I decide what to do with reasonably high confidence because I have experience -- I know what's in good taste.

Another pianist could show up for Sunday Brunch with the same education, experience, and repertoire as me but come across horribly. They might not have good taste.

There are lots of pianists out there, all of them play great, and not all of them have great taste.

How do we know someone has good taste? That's not up to me, I can't decide that for myself. It's you -- the listener -- you tell me through your tips, your requests, your feedback that what I'm playing works, and is in good taste. The reason why any musician or artist becomes popular is not their skill or their education, it's their ability to produce something with good taste.

It's easy to build anything with AI now. There are so many people out there shopping their AI products. Just like pianists, there are so many AI products that all promise to revolutionize the world. What makes one better than the other? Taste, and the taste makers are humans.

And could AI replace humans as taste makers? I doubt that too; how do you program the experience you -- personally -- feel when you hear a great song and the memories it brings up? As far as I know; you can't.

Because being human is anything but artificial.

The difference between a pianist that charges $125-$150 an hour and the one that charges $75 an hour is not money; hopefully, it's quality. A premium product requires a premium price. If every pianist charges $1, then how do we differentiate the good ones from the bad ones? A human has to listen and discern.

AI is no different. It's easy to build anything in AI.

And since nearly anyone can build anything with it; how do we know what's good versus not good?

AI can't replace taste.

Suppose you are unable to go about your day because of a serious injury. Now suppose people come to help you -- cook for you, give you money to cover your bills, etc. You might think yourself undeserving of such kindness. Do you accept the gifts? Do you turn them away? Do you ask for help? Are you uncomfortable?

What if this wasn't about you, and entirely about self-interest?

The people who want to give to you want to be helpful to you. Is it possible they could also enjoy the feeling of being supportive to you? That the joy of giving and sharing and helping produces a feeling for them that makes them want to do more of it. That sounds to me like giving and sharing isn't for you, but it's for them. The outcome of this self-interest is an action that benefits you and possibly others -- it's not about you.

And since it's not about you, how do you deal with feeling undeserving? You'll probably express that you don't deserve this kindness, and your friends will tell you that you're wrong and you do. Don't let them gaslight you; you know your reality. Instead, channel this feeling of yours, take the gifts you receive, and pay it forward to those you believe DO deserve it. You leverage your undeservingness to help others; and your friends are never the wiser.

So let your friends be selfish, accept the meal you don't deserve, and have fun paying it forward to someone you believe does.