Geoffrey West has captured my free mind space with his book “Scale”. It’s a bit of a scientific lecture distilled down for somewhat less than a scientific audience. The underlying premise is the innate mathematical correlation between the growth of all life, and the systems from which it prevails. Conveying the same mathematical foundation supporting chemistry and physics to the discipline of biology opens up a conversation about life itself.  Overlaying this scientific connection with ideological mythology brings about much emotionally charged controversy. Seemingly, for everything we don’t have concrete answers for, we reach for mystical support from faith, absent of fact. Then, as the facts evolve through better understanding supported by innovation and scientific discovery, we rationalize and adjust the parameters of that faith. For example, Galileo was arrested and convicted of heiricy for his theories of early scientific discovery. Placed under house arrest by the Roman Catholic Church, he spent his final days isolated and publicly disgraced. Ultimately, his theoretical hypothesis were given credibility as the dawn of modern science, and the church apologized in the 1990’s. Devout followers didn’t discredit the institution as unsubstantiated gossip, but rather made Rationalized excuses for how it attempted to suppress revolutionary discovery. The miracle lies in the fact anyone ever attempted to discredit their mythological teachings. In spite of all these ideological pitfalls, varying perspectives on semantics concerning faith, and even the misguided threat of imprisonment, or even death, humanity has pushed forward with innovation and discovery. Social order comes from evolutionary tendencies, not ideological restraints. 


The realization that all living organisms are fundamentally extricably connected beyond a Devine construct is quite progressive. Scaling validates this correlation through logarithmic computation to link biological structure and their systems by their metabolic capacity. All mammals share an average total number of heartbeats over their lifetimes. Scaled up or down using the quarter power connection, and we know why mice and whales live distinctly different lifetimes. Apply this to social structure such as cities and organizations, and we can gain insight as to how we derive a better existence. Conversely, the dissemination of understanding and knowledge isn’t linear amongst our species. Distribution of any piece of information doesn’t spread evenly. Varying degrees of capacity, along with cultural distinctions, and language barriers make this process a bumpy disproportionate one. For me, it shifts to awareness and leveling those barriers with increased diversity among our species. These exclusionary roadblocks have risen from the ideological dogma of only the most recent time period. More innovative ideas have come about in the past 100 years, than the previous 100,000 years combined. We have yet to as a species resolve the barrier of distribution in regards to innovation and benefits. Ideological entities don’t like being challenged (remember Galileo) so delivery of change is slower than its creation. Progress on this front is cumbersome and slow as well, given the cloak of ideological influence that blankets so many of those available for engagement, verses the vast majority who won't benefit short of a grand awakening throughout all of Asia, Africa, and South America. Cultural influences have supported the massive increases in population among these regions in just the last century, thus challenging the political and economic capacity to distribute resources to all of these people living there. We are finally realizing our planet has physical and biological limitations for its capacity to support the excesses of this mythology driven trajectory for our species, and averting a future of forced scarcity for the laggards lies in the hands of today’s progressive visionaries, not the faithful. 


Seemingly everywhere you turn these days, there are encounters with people supposedly doing their jobs, yet the experience leaves you feeling like they simply didn't give a shit about fulfilling your expectations of them. These disenfranchised individuals lack enthusiasm for our perspectives of their worlds. It’s like sitting through someone else’s photo exhibit of their vacation, it lacks the emotional correlation for you, because you weren’t a part of that experience. Income inequality is a component of this separation on a societal level, but it doesn’t reverse itself whenever we trickle down minute particles of resources via government redistribution mechanisms. Building better understandings via supporting more even childhoods is a much better tool to enhance more lives, yet getting that message to tenor with more people is extremely challenging as well. Being a gossip driven species, homo sapiens lean more on hearsay than reality for support. We tend to address what strikes our emotional buttons with whatever makes us feel better, than doing the much harder work of digging through this cloak of bullshit for these particles of truth. Sprinkle a bit of ideology over all of this, and encouraging individuals to simply accept this assigned station of life replaces that hope I talked about previously. 


Humans are inherently emotionally lazy critters, whenever it comes to pushing outside of what’s comfortable for us. This is evident in the explosion of media/entertainment engagement over my lifetime.  Rather than spending time in introspective thoughts, we spend huge amounts of time in mind numbing watching of precisely choreographed make believe pseudo reality. Because it’s so compelling to us, we ultimately create huge pockets of wasted financial resources to support this lunacy, only to ponder the problems of why our society has real life inequalities. I’m not even suggesting that there’s not substantial benefit from what is truly art and the creative process here. There is a significant role for social benefit from how that molds the human experience. I’m merely suggesting on an individual basis, we shift our attitude towards personal growth by acknowledging the current status quo is a bit fucked up. It’s exactly what’s transpired in my life over the past fifty-five years. I don’t consider myself any kind of role model here, but if a guy from Arkansas without a string of college degrees can gain a better perspective than the one supported by the average person surrounding me. It makes me believe anyone with a thirst for more from life can attain similar results. For me it all started with someone encouraging me to have higher expectations for myself in whatever I do. Remember the disenfranchised person I described in the beginning of this writing, put yourself in their shoes, then instead of cowering to the expectations of those around you, start trying to exceed them. After a while, you begin to set that bar just beyond your accepted comfort zone, and the evolution has begun. 


I was scrolling down through all the titles of my previous posts, and noticed some commonality of the usage of words and the letters they begin with. Given the architecture of the English language and the rules for which we use the letters of the alphabet to form our words and sentences, there are letters that receive much less love than the dominant most common ones. In celebration of the underdogs of the alphabet, I bring you "Xanadu/Zoo" bring some recognition to the back of the bus. There are somewhere around 400 words beginning with X, and 832 beginning with Z. The most common initial letter used in the English language is S. In researching the facts behind my inquiry of letter usage, I was surprised by how vague the Google search responses were to my questions. "How many words begin with the letter X" yielded a first response of 400, but whenever I changed the X to Z, it took me to a litany of other responses related to Scrabble results, Words with Friends points, and everything but how many actual words begin with Z. I then queried most common letter used to begin words, and got the results for S, but upon further requests to find a specific number to apply its status, failed to locate anything resembling my first inquiry. I had no real concept or thought to flush out in this writing, so I guess by searching for information to support the title, I've gotten sucked into thinking about search engines and how we engage their functionality. 

I'm going to take you down memory lane with my personal experience of becoming tech savvy to the extent I am with how all things computer/internet are concerned. In 1984, I took a class called "Basic Computer Programing" at Arkansas State Universities Beebe, AR campus. This was my very first exposure to anything with higher functionality than a calculator. Archaic hand held computer games, and Atari were the modern technology of that day. We got to construct rudimentary Doss programs on a Radio Shack TRS-80 that accomplished very little. Today complex algorithms crunch incredible amounts of data to compile your requests typed into the search bar. All of these entities behind their version of this proprietary math formula are for profit organizations, and actually bid out the results based upon who will pay the most to respond to key words. It’s not an accident that the sentence structure of your search query determines the results you see. 


There you have it...a post with a X/Z title😎