Slutligt svenskt valresultat

Så mycket för Wallströms "största nazistmobilisering sedan andra världskriget". Det verkade väldigt fel när hon sa det och det visade sig ännu mer fel. Jag undrade om det skulle gå att mäta i promille, det blev alltså hela 0,7 promille. Kanske det kan ligga på den lägsta nivån sedan andra världskriget, 4000 nazister kan nog vara rekordlågt.
Förringar ju inte det faktum att vi har 4000 dårar, varav ett par hundra militanta och farliga, men det bör väl sättas i proportion.

"Enhet" är förutom ett miljöparti också ett flumparti, med stor ansamling av foliehattar inom chemtrails med mera.

Jag har aldrig kunnat tolerera politiker och politik. Jag blev påmind av detta nyligen när jag hittade en antropologisk uppsats jag skrev i min gröna ungdom, där jag i marginalen hade antecknat min avsky för en bufflig skränig lokalpolitiker jag hade råkat ut för i en landsbygdshåla i Oklahoma. Inget har ändrats med åren alltså.

Sedan hittade jag Graeber, och jag har börjat försöka tänka om.

The possibility of political pleasure: David Graeber at TEDxWhitechapel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eR_95slEFw

Relaterad artikel:

What’s the Point If We Can’t Have Fun?
file:///D:/William/Invest/Graeber/What%E2%80%99s%20the%20Point%20If%20We%20Can%E2%80%99t%20Have%20Fun%20%20_%20David%20Graeber%20_%20The%20Baffler.htm

. . .

If an electron is acting freely—if it, as Richard Feynman is supposed to have said, “does anything it likes”—it can only be acting freely as an end in itself. Which would mean that at the very foundations of physical reality, we encounter freedom for its own sake—which also means we encounter the most rudimentary form of play.

. . .

Nor, I think, does seeing play as a principle of nature necessarily mean adopting any sort of milky utopian view. The play principle can help explain why sex is fun, but it can also explain why cruelty is fun. (As anyone who has watched a cat play with a mouse can attest, a lot of animal play is not particularly nice.) But it gives us ground to unthink the world around us.

Years ago, when I taught at Yale, I would sometimes assign a reading containing a famous Taoist story. I offered an automatic “A” to any student who could tell me why the last line made sense. (None ever succeeded.)

Zhuangzi and Huizi were strolling on a bridge over the River Hao, when the former observed, “See how the minnows dart between the rocks! Such is the happiness of fishes.”

“You not being a fish,” said Huizi, “how can you possibly know what makes fish happy?”

“And you not being I,” said Zhuangzi, “how can you know that I don’t know what makes fish happy?”

“If I, not being you, cannot know what you know,” replied Huizi, “does it not follow from that very fact that you, not being a fish, cannot know what makes fish happy?”

“Let us go back,” said Zhuangzi, “to your original question. You asked me how I knew what makes fish happy. The very fact you asked shows that you knew I knew—as I did know, from my own feelings on this bridge.”

The anecdote is usually taken as a confrontation between two irreconcilable approaches to the world: the logician versus the mystic. But if that’s true, then why did Zhuangzi, who wrote it down, show himself to be defeated by his logician friend?

After thinking about the story for years, it struck me that this was the entire point. By all accounts, Zhuangzi and Huizi were the best of friends. They liked to spend hours arguing like this. Surely, that was what Zhuangzi was really getting at. We can each understand what the other is feeling because, arguing about the fish, we are doing exactly what the fish are doing: having fun, doing something we do well for the sheer pleasure of doing it. Engaging in a form of play.

Det ryktas om ett 130%-igt valdeltagsnde i Täby. Stämmer detta?