Fractal Radio| Episode 11 – Tim Berners-Lee, Solid, and the Future of the Internet

 


I review and discuss an article in Vanity Fair about internet luminary Tim Berners-Lee. Who according to livescience.com is responsible for HTML and as far as I understand, the general outline and process of WWW as we know it.

He has always favored decentralization and fears that human rights are threatened by unethical implementations of the technology he helped foster. I discuss some of these issues and his proposed solutions.


Sources

Vanity Fair (Katrina Brookers, August 2018)

https://www.livescience.com/20727-internet-history.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/news/la-mo-who-invented-internet-20120723


http://www.minds.com/Weirmellow – Follow me on Minds!

http://www.patreon.com/TheFractalJournal – Support independent media

Fractal Radio | Episode 10 – World Wide Problem Domain


I stall for time! In the coming days, I will post a fairly in-depth analysis of internet issues and the recent Vanity Fair Article about Tim Berners-Lee and his new project called ‘SOLID.’

For now, I just give a brief overview of the problem domain and my first impressions of the article.


http://www.fractlajournal.com | Essays, Stories, and More!
http://www.minds.com/Weirmellow| Follow me on Minds!
http://www.patreon.com/TheFractalJournal | Support Independent Media


References

Vanity Fair – The Web’s Inventor Plots a Do-Over

https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/ways-to-decentralize-the-web/

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/news/la-mo-who-invented-internet-20120723

What is linked data?

July 4th 2018 – Celebrating the Constitution (Vlog)


This Independence Day finds me stumbling across a recounting of a letter Washington wrote home during the Revolutionary War. I use the content of that letter as a springboard to discuss the merits of the revolution, the value of the constitution, and what it means to truly esteem those things.

Celebrations and fireworks are great but true appreciation and real patriotism can only come from the daily informed participation of citizens.


Social Media| http://www.minds.com/Weirmellow

Patreon| http://www.patreon.com/TheFractalJournal

More than a Right

Related image


Free speech is life.

Allow me to elaborate.

Breathing is not considered a right.

It’s not considered in the same category as rights, privileges, and all the myriad distinctions thereof.

No. Even prisoners and slaves are unquestionably reserved the right to draw air. Certainly, a hair-splitter might say ah but they are killed!

Yes, sometimes but until the point of termination, no one rations their air…sets restrictions on it…how much to inhale…how much to exhale…and where such a thing is appropriate.

Throughout our lifetimes we adopt and abdicate many a position. In so doing we exhale and inhale ideas. If it is bizarre to assume restriction on literal respiration why is it any less bizarre to restrict intellectual respiration?

Yes. But breathing and speaking are two different things. You don’t need to speak to live. I disagree. We are a social species. Our very existence depends on interaction.

Ok. But its only a certain sort of speaking that is absolutely essential. Why should we let fascists, and bigots, and all kinds of meanies be mean?

Throughout our lifetiems, we adopt and abdicate many a position. Its important to allow this to take place naturally. You will gain very little in the way of reforming someone’s position by telling them to shut up. Even less so with the might of the state behind you.

People often say erroneous and heinous things. But we cannot know the intent with certainty. Even when the certainty of intent is almost certainly established we cannot penalize someone for intellectual respiration. This somewhat foppish metaphor I’ve adopted has its merits. It is used because throughout our lifetimes we adopt and abdicate many a position.
Speaking is popularly considered unproductive. Busy people use terse language and do busy things like profit handsomely from exporting manufacturing to exotic locations with charmingly lax labor laws. But even these humanitarians need to speak to do so. In fact, the assembly of ideas into an actionable coherency is speech whether or not it is externalized as air passing over the vocal chords.

When people mull a problem they often mutter under their breaths. This is because they are breathing in and out ideas. They are engaging in something that is more than a right. They are engaging in intellectual respiration.

Many people say things they don’t mean. They’re exhaling bad air. Should an accident of fraught nerves be grounds for prosecution? Again even if the intent of malice is clear there is no guarantee that the expression of an offensive and wrongheaded notion isn’t entirely or at leas in part representative of a misapprehension of the offendee.
Exhaling an idea is an inextricable part of processing that idea. Those who do so may process the idea entirely out of their being. It is not our business to force their breathing. You don’t do CPR on someone merely because they have a cough.

Let people be let people breathe.

But what if they shout fire in a theater? There is a difference between libel and speech. If you accuse the theater of being on fire when it clearly isn’t…I’m of course joking but I think this defense still holds.

Let people be let people breathe.

Anyone that’s around the age of thirty is likely well aware of the distance between the ideas and politics of their early twenties and their present outlook.
Should you have been throttled for thinking skinny jeans were cool?

Well, perhaps so. But then you have become the bully you wish to resist.


Social Media | http://www.minds.com/Weirmellow

Patreon| http://www.patreon.com/TheFractalJournal

Murica Month | Party Spirit


George Washington did not seem to truly belong to any particular party and cautioned about ‘party spirit’ in his farewell address. Is a democratic republic possible without robust parties? Please share your thoughts below.

Note: Federalism is the balancing act between state and federal power. It’s basically how the U.S. functions. So when I contrasted state’s rights and federalism I misspoke. I think it’s still intelligible enough. 


Social Media| http://www.minds.com/Weirmellow

Patreon| http://www.patreon.com/TheFractalJournal

The Schlossberg Fractal

Image result for aaron schlossberg


I run a website called The Fractal Journal.

So I tend to see things fractally.

Everyone does. Because everyone understands that no action occurs in a vaccum and is thus inherently multifaceted.

There’s a New York attorney called Aaron Schlossberg who was recently the subject of much controversy.

He took issue with some employees at an eatery. The issue was that they spoke Spanish. He went on a bit of a rant about how he as an American pays for the welfare of these potentially illegal immigrants. That they should speak English etc.

This tirade went viral. The publicity caused Schlossberg so much professional damage that he was even at risk of being disbarred.

This little episode has so many implications that I feel it would be irresponsible for me as a writer and citizen to pass it up.

First, it is demonstrative of a great many things. The impact of social media, the by now tiresome talking point of political polarization, and the nature of modern social expectations.

Let’s unpack that.

Social media is what allowed the incident to gain traction so quickly and in such numbers that it was able to put pressure on Schlossberg’s employers. Social media is also the technology that allowed those who took issue with Schlossberg’s actions to coordinate what can only be described as harrasment.

Political polarization is the fuel that powered both Schlossberg’s ire and the reaction of those seeking the destruction of both his professional and personal life. These two sides of the same coin only reach this sort of fever pitch in the presence of heavy ideological conditioning.

Social expectations today seem to include an insistence on certain points of politesse while completely flaunting general timeworn standards of civil interaction. Schlossberg said something politically unpopular in an aggressive way. Given the overwhelming abundance of casual swearing, in your face banter, and general penchant for sarcasm that permeates American society, it’s not unreasonable to assume that Schlossberg’crucifixionon likely resulted from unpopularity rather than aggression.

All these implications raise questions that I feel are essential to make.

First, social media, is it destructive and if so what can we do about it?

Like any other tool, I don’t think that social media is inherently destructive. The nature of social media seems to tend toward being a catalyst. A catalyst can produce either a favorable or unfavorable reaction. The swelling of outrage that culminated in trolling a private citizen with live Mariachi music and fiestas around his apartment can also be quelled by voices advocating for rationality.

One subcaveat of this social media thing is privacy. Is it fair to take a private citizens outburst and post it online?

Is it fair to then use this evidence to coordinate harassment?

It is true that Mr. Schlossberg was in a public area, behaving very rudely, and that people certainly have the right to film others in public. But does this make it alright for the offended to magnify the event through social media, and in essence involve the entire world in one man losing his cool?

Mr. Schlossberg was not acting civilly but he certainly wasn’t doing anything illegal.

Should we put restrictions on social media posts about private citizens controversial behavior? Should we put restrictions on using such videos to coordinate retribution. Should losing your cool or acting uncouth be so easy to shame from the rooftops?

This technology raises a lot of policy questions which seem to only increase in both number and scope.

I think that it’s a subject that will likely warrant its own article and video.

The second question then is what can be done about political polarization? I think the answer is obvious. Those of us that favor nuanced discussions need to become more vocal and advocate for rational discourse in greater numbers. The popularity of tactics like memes and trolling while fun and not necessarily out of line with the spirit of effective discourse shouldn’t be at the forefront of discourse.

The final question is related to social expectations. Both the public and employers have social expectations. Where, how, and to what extent should such expectations impact the lives of individual citizens?

Wherein does a professional get leeway to act unprofessionally? Being rude certainly falls well within the protection of the first amendment. But, companies can and do exercise the right to fire employees for misconduct. This right is also well within the bounds of the US Constitution.

However, an interesting subcategory emerges here. Namely, should a company be allowed to fire an employee for unprofessional behavior outside of work? If Mr. Schlossberg is good at his job, and reasonably civil in the confines thereof, should his social and political views and faux-pas be cause for termination? If so, then on what legal grounds can he contest the termination?

Image result for ellen simonetti

There do seem to be precedents for firing folks for extracurricular activities. In 2004, Ellen Simonetti was fired for taking pictures of herself in her Delta uniform as she lounged across the backs of airplane seats. The photograph which she posted to a blog about stewardessing, that she’d started in order to cope with the loss of her mother, wasn’t racy even by 1950’s standards. But nonetheless, Delta considered it unprofessional and sacked her.

My position is that Simonetti should not have been fired. Schlossberg has even less reason to be fired/evicted/disbarred etc. than she does. This is because he was not on company property, representing his company, or wearing company paraphernalia when he had his outburst.

His history of outbursts, including one where he ran into a radnomer with his bag and called him a ‘dirty foreigner’ might be a minor case of harassment or perhaps assault. Which I could see as being unsavory for an employer. But, again where should the line be drawn? There wasn’t really any battery, and the harassment was brief, akin to a middle finger on a busy street.

Should a line be drawn at all? Or should employers/landlords continue to wield carte blanche to terminate otherwise competent employees on grounds of unsavory conduct?

When looking at this case I ran across the notion that Schlossberg’s career was destroyed by the people he’d offended. This, to me, is where it gets a tad murky. Schlossberg initiated the aggression, in a public space, he is aware of cell phones, and he is aware of social media. While I 100% sympathize with the notion that the possibility of backlash shouldn’t intimidate Schlossberg or anyone into silence or even politesse, I can’t really view him as a victim. Even if I did, the link between those who posted the video and coordinated the harassment and his termination remains tenuous. Because it was still up to his employer to make the decision, and more importantly, it was up to him to avoid being confrontational.

Running up to randomers to call them dirty foreigners, haranguing Spanish speaking employees, and similar hijinks aren’t really public discourse. They’re outbursts and while they are protected under freedom of speech, that freedom doesn’t necessarily shield you form things like social ostracization, or job loss.

I don’t think either of those things should be the result of making an ass of yourself. However, if you work in a sector that requires a great deal of civic responsibility, being consistently combative, is likely a poor career choice. Whether that’s done on your own time or not.

As you can see, this is a really multifaceted issue that raises many questions. I encourage everyone to comment below, whether you agree or disagree with this analysis.


Sources 

http://excelle.monster.com/news/articles/1348-delta-flight-attendant-fired-for-blogging

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Simonetti


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fiesta-protest-for-aaron-schlossberg_us_5aff7423e4b07309e058125f

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/8xenxv/honey-im-calling-ice-says-white-guy-at-a-manhattan-restaurant

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/8xeggb/retribution-has-been-swift-for-im-calling-ice-lawyer-aaron-schlossberg


Social: http://www.minds.com/Weirmellow
Help a Hipster: http://www.patreon.com/TheFractalJournal

TAP # 11 – Glib, Glam, and Guano (Vlog)


In this installment of TAP (The Audity Podcast), I discuss pitfalls in reasoning that come from the way that information is popularly presented.

Presented in gloriously anachronistic black and white because I am a shameless hep-cat hypocrite!


Example One: http://psychologyofeating.com/mind-over-food/

Example Two: http://reason.com/archives/2002/09/25/i-dont-care-where-my-food-come


Further reading:

Antonio Damasio’s – Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AFY2XVK/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Jamie Whyte’s – Crime’s Against Logic

https://www.amazon.com/Crimes-Against-Logic-Politicians-Journalists/dp/0071446435

The DOD’s Position on your Beerbelly

 

Image result for beer belly cartoon                                                                                                     Image result for nuclear bomb explosion

Gut Bomb Indeed!

There’s trouble Jim!

Our plush lovable beer holsters are a threat to national security.

By the year 2040, 100% of the federal budget will be on Medicare and Medicaid.

Sick people are a liability, which is why the DOD has put a sick nation on par with nuclear war.

According to Chris Kresser, an author and health researcher, the DOD has in fact named health care as an existential threat.

That’s truly wild.

While I do think it reasonable to make conservative guesses, on the potential future outcomes of trends, based on solid data and interpretative frameworks (I’m real fun at parties!); I’m generally cautious about taking predictions completely on board, no matter the source.

Despite the click-baitiness of Kresser’s claims* they’re probably not far off target.

What makes me say this is the data that we already have.

Kresser threw down some hard facts on his recent appearance, on a popular podcast known as The Joe Rogan Experience.

One in two American’s has a chronic disease. That’s either you or the guy next to you.

One of the most common chronic diseases is diabetes.

1/3 of Americans are either pre-diabetic or diabetic. Diabetes-like all chronic diseases is expensive, with treatment costs adding up to 630, 000 dollars over an average lifespan – 45 years at an average of $14k/yr.

Add that to our other well known financial woes and a truly cataclysmic outcome doesn’t seem unlikely.

Catastrophist I am not. I am cataclysm averse. I don’t think they happen that often. I know they don’t happen as often as people who stand to profit, from the various doomsday cottage industries, would like you to believe.

But catastrophes do occur. Floods, hurricanes, stock market crashes, wars, such things aren’t uncommon. And when one such thing gets sufficiently out of hand, then it approaches the parameters of cataclysm.

‘1/3 of Americans’ is getting parametrically awkward.

I call this the calculus of: Oh shit.

So what’s to be done?

Fixing the federal budget is beyond the scope of this article.

The answer to this looming disaster is simple. It is far simpler than becoming vigilant and educated citizens.

It is the doctrine of personal responsibility. Ok, doctrine doesn’t sound simple. I promise I’m not a libertarian...So…. how about eat less pasta, play more Tennis. Or just good ol’ ‘Put down that cheeseburger.’

While it’s simple it’s not necessarily easy. One of Kresser’s more plausible tidbits was informing us that food companies paid scientists, to exploit our penchant for the yummies to create hyper-addictive foods.

Fortunately, it seems that the more good choices you make the easier it is to make good choices. Knowing that your Cheetos are engineered to make you buy Cheetos will probably help along the rocky path to healthier living.

One aspect of Kresser’s recent appearance that I especially appreciated was his focus on the psychology of change.

Preaching of the virtues of vigor and promising the Valhalla of washboard abs isn’t really helpful. And despite Milo Yinappolis’s claims to the contrary, ‘shaming’ didn’t work terribly well when I tried the tactic on my heavier brethren.

Kresser skipped these standard pitches and instead focused on laying out methods for working with your biology to build better habits. Stuff like the potato hack. (To get more on this I recommend you visit his website and listen to JRE #1037.)

Kresser stressed the need to take people on a case by case basis since each person’s body responds to various techniques differently. Joe Rogan hammered this point home by pointing out how Robb Wolf’s wife was healthier despite the couple living and eating almost exactly the same.

There is, of course, a bit more than dietary changes and commitments to exercise needed to resolve today’s grim health issues. What we need to do is undergo a paradigm shift in how we approach our health.

The impression I have is that despite all the organic brick-a-brac and Yoga, we’re still functioning under the idea that we’re eventually ‘just going to get sick.’ That the first thing to do when this happens is to go to the doctor and get some pills, the sooner the better.

You should, of course, go to the doctor if you’re feeling sick but you have to understand that the doctor isn’t there to ‘fix you.’ You should understand that you don’t want the doctor to fix you. Just like you don’t want the mechanic to fix your car. The doctor should be there to help you when accidents happen or when certain specialized maintenance should be done. The doctor is not a magical backup.

I really don’t mean to be patronizing. I know this is simple stuff and most people know it. But as Rogan and Kresser pointed out knowing something and putting it into practice are two different ballgames.

There are various cultural assumptions and lifestyle habits that lead us to a somewhat mystical notion of modern medicine.

We must remember that modern medicine is a specific science for solving specific problems. We must understand that ‘repair’ is not the same thing as ‘maintenance.’

Putting that knowledge into practice means educating yourself on the limits of medical intervention and its true role: a method to get you back to ‘LIVING’ healthily rather than ‘MAKING’ you healthy.

What you’ll find if you listen to the podcast will have you buying potatoes and signing up for the gym post haste.


* These may well be true but my lackadaisical Googling has yielded several think tank studies which will just have to wait.

– This article was brought to you by Big Potato. They’re not paying. Simply threatening me with vague warnings about being careful where my chips fall, something about the Knights Tuber, and Spudtaneous Combustion. Therefore I’m scared and need a drink so visit my Patreon.

Image result for potato mafia

Forever Fluid – The Strange Case of Renewable Limits

img_20160828_185033

This is an updated version of a draft for the introduction to my upcoming book: Forever Fluid – The Strange Case of Renewable Limits. © (Originally titled: ‘It Moves You Know’)
I consider it copyrighted, as I plan to publish it, or a version of it as part of the aforementioned book. That doesn’t mean you can’t link or do whatever. Just that you can’t do it commercially and that I’d prefer to know about it.

This book is dedicated to Galina V.W., who twice the mother, raised her grandson as lovingly as she raised her son.

The Case for Care

How does one begin to care about water?  Water being a thing generally only thought about when you’re thirsty or need a wash. How does one begin to care about something that just falls from the sky? Care enough to write a book on it?

Sometimes life’s projects spring out of nowhere. That is until you take the trouble to track ‘em back to their source.

This particular endeavor may have started when Doctor Walter (Pseudonym), my HS Earth Science teacher, mentioned that water might become an issue in coming decades.

That idea sat in the back of my mind for years. Dormant and drowned out by all the usual business and distraction of being a young man. It wasn’t til I stumbled upon Consilience, The Unity of Knowledge, nearly a decade later, that I was reminded of the reality of limited resources.

Consilience isn’t an environmental book. It’s more one of those intellectual adventures. The sort that scientists set out on when facing the seductively beckoning sea of life’s mysteries. Consilience is biologist E.O. Wilson’s ‘all-in-one’ foray into the history of philosophy and science. It’s a highlighting of how this history reveals an inherent overlap, or ‘jumping together’ of knowledge from various disciplines. One that occurs in concert with his own insightful musings, on how such consilience may soon more fully occur. Though I disagree with much found in its pages, I’d highly recommend it as a fascinating read.

The work’s pertinent part for this particular project came at the end of the book. Which at one point discusses the vast expenditures of energy and resources necessary to sustain life today. Discovering the sheer amount of water involved is what triggered the memory of old Doctor Walter’s cautioning.

This recall and its attendant realizations are the reason for why I learned to care about water and why I wish to impart that care to readers of this book.

Care is often stigmatized by the twin burdens of trouble and responsibility. Yet care can also be fascinating. It can in fact be a great deal of fun. It can animate certain dormant sensibilities, that nourish and revitalize the spirit, and lead you to myriad adventures and discoveries.

Another natural consequence of care is of course cultivation. Care leads to the cultivation of spiritual, intellectual, and physical powers. Powers that are indispensable in the most precious and precarious sort of cultivation. A cultivation called agriculture and industry. Twin disciplines upon which all of our lives depend and which are in turn wholly dependent on water.

There will be much on this in coming chapters. For now I ask that you be so kind as to humor my penchant for introspection.

Catalyst

Lord, how our information increaseth. (Keith Waldrop. Transcendental Studies: A Trilogy)

I like to introspect. I find it to be an excellent exercise for developing strong creative and critical thinking faculties. These skills have always been essential. Perhaps it is a mistake to say that they are needed now more than ever. But, I’m going to say it.

I’m saying it because although the world is as complicated as it always was, we are more complicated than we have ever been before. The machinery and administration of our societies is vast, labyrinthine, and interdependent. For these reasons, and perhaps ‘just because we can,’ we developed the ability to communicate instantly across oceans and continents. As a result information bombards us at an unprecedented rate.

Lord, how our information increaseth. Indeed.

Our familiar manner of relating to one another, of interacting with the environment, and the ‘qualia’ of our institutions have all undergone drastic changes.

All of these things call for well developed faculties. It will take strength, wit, compassion, and resolve to continuously thrive in a world of 7.6 billion people, large hadron colliders, and dead zones. It will take introspection.

This is why I weave psychological, philosophical, and sociological analysis into a basket, that would already be complete, even if assembled from the barest essentials of science and reporting.

I would not be able to practice such a delicate art. The art called ‘integrative analysis’ without a healthy dose of introspection.

‘Integrative analysis’ is the multifaceted discipline foreshadowed by the catalyst for this work: E.O. Wilson’s Consilience. It is consilience.

Nowhere is it more necessary than today’s interdependent, overlapping, high speed world. A world that produces words like Biogeochemical.

Biogeochemical should have been the watchword of the 20th century. The passage of chemicals between living things and the environment is a cycle that requires rapt attention. Perhaps if such attention was given there would have been yet more geniuses and poets. There is much to unpack in the latter statement. For the purpose of the introduction I will simply say: Preventing illness and death is why we must strive to make Biogeochemical the watchword of the 21st century.

The very nature of the word is multifaceted. It is a testament to the increasing complexity of living in a universe that is inherently, unfathomably intricate. It is why I practice and stress the need for developing a strong capacity for integrative analysis.

I think it worth mentioning that good analysis requires hard work and resolve. Neither hard work nor resolve are possible if you fall into the trendy nihilism that’s still somewhat in vogue. This nihilism has at its core a bizarre sort of overdeveloped minimalism. It is a bastardization of utilitarianism. One that has kept me, and I dare wager a good deal of others; from accessing the energy, resources, and will necessary to fight the good fight.

It is in the interest of providing an example of how this mindset plays out and is resolved that I offer the next passage. I do so in the hopes that it will produce more authors, more cultivators, more passion.

Fortuitous

It was recalling Doctor Walter’s words as I was reading Wilson’s work that led to this present volume.

This recall came at a fortuitous time. That is if you consider the creation of a book fortuitous. I was looking for something to do. I knew that I had to do something. I’d spent too much time looking and studying and not enough time doing. I weighed the merits of various enterprises and remembered that I’d always intended to write.

While, you’re welcome to disagree with my self-assessmsent. Writing is something I consider myself good at. Words and ideas come with ease and coherency. Something more the result of having a love of reading instilled in me early than any inherent braininess.

The fact that writing came naturally, the idea that books didn’t have utility in the same way an algorithm does, and the saturation of the writing market; are some of the reasons I viewed a writing career dimly.

I needed to get a ‘real job’ and build ‘real skills.’ Not do something that was ‘easy’ and fun. I bounced about from odd-job to odd-job, attempting to teach myself computer programming, because things have to have ‘utility’ you know.

Rediscovering the water issue was a fortuitous catalyst. It was an issue that my skill could shake a stick at. Even better it was an issue that had utility.

How does writing solve issues? Well, it doesn’t but it may help along the process. (The very fact that I feel the need to say this is testament to the trendy utilitarian nihilism mentioned last section.)

Part of solving a problem is having a good grasp of it and that only comes from thinking. Writing being formalized thinking seems perfect for the job. While I may not solve anything per se, I can serve as a signpost for professionals and laypeople alike.

The Flavor

Many readers pore through the introduction to see if a book is up their alley. They’re always trying to get a taste for the flavor of it. To see if they like it.

I’ll flat out save you the time and give you a taste.

It is true. Every book has a flavor. This book is no different. It will take you on a journey through the fascinating intersections defined by the axis resource known as water. It will be both a lesson and a story.

This is my first non-fiction book. It is narrative journalism. According to thebalance.com narrative journalism is:

“An immersive style of storytelling, narrative journalism is used to captivate readers by drawing them into a story with greater detail than is found in traditional news stories. It is a popular format for magazines such as the New Yorker and can difficult to define and write.”

I love stories, I love finding things out, and I dig a challenge. So this medium seems exactly up my alley.

I don’t think that any of the above traits are special. They’re up everybody’s alley. There’s a lot of joy to be had in reading a hard-won story about the real world. It’s a joy that’s on par with creating the story. One that I was delighted to experience as I did the background research necessary to launch this project.

The works of Alex Prud’ homme, Fred Pearce, and Jacques Leslie. Works like The Ripple Effect, When The Rivers Run Dry, and Deep Water are all superb examples of narrative journalism.

This book is written in a similar vein.

A Little Extra

Since the New Yorker was mentioned, I’d like to suggest that my readers whet their appetite for narrative journalism, by reading The Lost City of Z by David Grann. It is free to access on their website.

The spirit of exploration is one that I’ve always held in high regard. A flame that needs stoking, in a world that believes it’s been mapped and mounted, like some hapless gossamer butterfly in a Victorian collection.

It is in the interest of rekindling such time-honored passions, that I began writing a jungle adventure inspired by all the Doyle, Crichton, and Lovecraft I pored over in my adolescence. (Of course Alan Watts and Terrence McKenna played a role as well.) Researching for The Sketch of Sam Monroe (estimated completion: 1st Quarter, 2019 ) led me to Grann’s article. It is a worthy read.

If you dig jungle books, and aren’t too uncomfortable with salty language, and psychedelic silliness, please check out the intro and first couple of chapters on my website: fractaljournal.com.

I believe that jungles are useful metaphors for getting to grips with things and for kindling the spirit of exploration.

Getting a grip on the water issue is a jungle in its own right.

Time to set up base-camp!


© [Alexander V. Weir] and [fractaljournal.com], [2017]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to [Alexander V. Weir] and [fractaljournal.com] with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.