The infinity scroll

This post isn't really about the infinity scroll, but you could argue that it is related to it. You see the infinity scroll was something I came across whilst scrolling (1) where someone was talking about how, in a fatasy setting, an infinity scroll would be really useful. It would contain all the spells and information instead of carrying many different scrolls with the relevant information on them. The subject explains to these beings that the infinity scroll is bad, but they don't understand why.

Until the subject calls the act of scrolling "Doomscrolling", and then they understand completely. Infinite usefulness is not bad, but infinite scrolling towards dooming oneself cannot be allowed.

This was all a work of fiction. I can't find the original post so I can't credit them (2) but these alternative realities that allow us to explore a thought such as the evils of 'the scroll' over the infinite use of an endless physical scroll can show the evil at play.

I accept that the internet is here to stay, I'm not against it at all, I wouldn't be writing this if it wasn't here, but there is something insidious about how its being used now. Its almost gripped every part of my life, and I'm sure its done the same to others, and I don't think thats what its there for. The internet is not good or bad, but those who control it kind of create its possibilities.

Those who control it want our attention. They want us focused on screen, attached to the content that, let's be honest, isn't that good. Attention is measured and commodified so that it can be held onto. That's why we have so many AI accounts and AI shortcuts in our lives now, to make everything go quicker so it can get out there and be seen. The problem with this is that none of it is actually useful, it's a doom machine.

The Infinity scroll I guess is the internet, but its becoming more and more difficult to differentiate between "The infinity Scroll" and "The Doomscroll" that you might as well throw it away. If you don't know if something is going to do you harm in an unknowable and insidious way, would you do it?

It's something I'm really struggling with lately. I'm not a fan of the AI bubble or my own personal relationship with my phone. I, however, cannot elect to not use it. Even though I know that Duolingo (3) only cares about the advertisement money and the courses are now AI drivel that aren't useful at all, even though I want to remove myself from the work emails that have nothing to do with my job, I have no choice but to keep it on me. Because if I don't, Information that could be useful will pass me by. My attention has been claimed by the algorithms that I'm not sure I've fully watched something to completion in the last year and a half.

The infinity scroll has been corrupted by those who gain to benefit from constant attention to the scroll. That is evil. It's like giving everyone bread for free but then giving everyone chalk instead of flour because they haven't paid the flour toll, or giving the bread out for free but saying you have to watch these rich people talk about their scams to gain another loaf.

As I'm writing this sentence, I've already lost my train of thought. I think this is what I mean. I use to be able to write essays and stories in a few days, but I can't because my attention span has had such a hit from the use of the internet. Maybe it's time to call it a day on the streak on duolingo? Time to look at how I'm useing my time and the instruments at my disposal? I don't know.

(1) Ironic, I know.

(2) If they find me, I'll edit this.

(3) As of writing, I have a 1615 day streak.

Mac Cuill, Son of the Hazel and the decline of Empire

If you know me, I'm getting into my folklore and mythology of the British Isles. The term "British Isles" is not as controversial as I think it should be and agree it's quite inaccurate, I've been very open that it should be the Insular Northern European Islands, but i will also admit that it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. The problem here is it does limit the area around Britain as somehow part of the large landmass that is England, Wales, Scotland and Cornwall(1).

So I bought a book with some of the Celtic myths and stories of the lands we often forget. There's a bit of Ireland, the posterboy everyone thinks of when they think of the Celts, a dash of wonderful Welsh, a spattering of sgionnel Scottish, and a corner of Cornwall.

But there's two lands we have forgotten haven't we? The Isle of Mann (Ellan Vannin) and Brittany (Breizh). Two great celtic worlds in the perifery of the discussion. And it's one of the stories of Ellan Vannin I want to talk about today.

Now, Mac Cuill is a god of the old world. Son of the Dagda, the gods that inhabited Ireland long ago, thousands of years ago, It's mythology, they exaggerate. Anyway, as the world changes and people begin to disbelieve in the gods of the land, their influence begins to wane. They stop being these great individuals of power, but are still beings to respect, many becoming the faerie folk, one called Lugh Lamfada becoming what we call a leprechaun now.

Why does this happen? The movement to Christianity of course. And Mac Cuill hates it.

This god becomes a bitter and resentful character, a being of spite and hate. It's said in the story(2) that his many rebirths, he slowly becomes lower and lower in the social standing because of this hate in his heart, that he finally becomes a thief. An individual that takes what he thinks he is owed and finds great joy in the harm that his actions do to others. He is an evil man.

But he gets caught!

Mac Cuill is thrown into a boat with no oars in iron cuffs with the key chucked into the sea with the instructions only to come back when he is truly repentant. The old god curses humanity, only saying that he is a thief and will never change.

I'm going to stop telling the story now, as I think you should read it yourself, its a great tale as well as the Isle of Mann getting its due. Main take away is complex, but as I worked it through my head, I think I see why it resonated with me. I read it and I couldn't help but see parallels between the decline of the gods and of empires.

I should point out, empire is not and should not be comparable to deification. But what is comparable is how those who had the privilege of being beneficiaries of a system struggle to adapt to the new ways of existing. Gods become small and spiteful, country folk become the past and are seen as threats to the progress of the future. The function of telling the story like that is to show that Christianity is the new thing that is both true and unifying like how the druids were the authority before. Around this time, druids and the spiritual leaders were no longer individuals of influence, slowly losing it to the likes of St Patrick and Columba, so it's a segue into a different worldview.

But why did I say Empire in the title if I'm talking about Christianity? I'm getting there!

Mac Cuill is a great stand in for an old social order that no one really believes in anymore. He is a being of power that is put to the sidelines and can no longer demand the same treatment as before. He is empire, he is Monarchy, he is Patriarchy. And just like when those systems are not valued, those who need them to justify their lifestyles or their worldviews, become resentful. How many times have you heard that traditional values are under threat, or that British values are being lost?

Its so much like Mac Cuill, and people who speak like that talk like Mac Cuill. The entitlement and the vitriol that comes out of the man is so relatable in today's political landscape. An indiviual who wants to regain his status but can't so makes it everyone else's problem. If you benefitted from a system of hierarchy where you were on top, you are going to mourn it. In Britain you can see that everywhere, with the rise of violence and racism against those who settle here from outside the island. Mac Cuill is a stand in for the destructive tendency for the old ways that are no longer applicable to the current world.

We have a worldview here in Britain that I would argue is very similar. And those in power want to hold onto that and not let go even though their damaging the very communities they claim to represent. Look at Reform, don't tell me that there's an image of Empire as this golden period that is both prosperous elegant, even though they would be in harms way equally as those they deem lesser(3).

So Mac Cuill can be seen as the bitter reminence of those who have nostalgia for the olden days. He was cast out into the sea for his crimes, should we do the same to those who commit crimes because of their bitterness?

No.

You see, in the end, Mac Cuill becomes human. He sheds his immortal body to embrace the finality of man. His god-kin mock him for it, but he is happier and loved by those on the Isle of Man afterwards, becoming it's patron saint. So what can we learn from this?

I would say that people can always change for the better, no matter their philosophy(4). This is a story of rehabilitation rather than punishment, and to reach that moment where a person is open to rehabilitation takes time. Our tiny, petty god is drifting around in the seas for years, reflecting on his past and what he had. He reaches a beach and is shown where the rest of the Danu underwater, eating the dead, claiming their lofty titles as gods through murder and fear. He is mortified(5), and finds out it is a dream, and is actually on the beach in cuffs again. He is humbled, repentant and spreads the message of the christian god(6). He sees people as themselves again and not as objects he can claim dominion over.

With this rehabilitation, could we not say that Mac Cuill is a hopeful tale where the damaging attitudes of empire can die so we can embrace a much more holistic and communal way with living with others? I would say so, as this is a character who not only gave up his bitterness, but became the figurehead of the Island of Man as Saint Maughold at the cost of not living forever. Should that not be where we need to go as a people?

The cynical around me would say that this can't happen. Britain is too deeply rooted in its colonial and imperialistic history, but what the story of the Island of the Ocean god teaches me is that people can move like water. It might take time, but it will happen. Hell, the amount of stories that are playing with this thought of challenging the status quo on history and its biases is breathtaking, and from England and Britain no less! We are not as sentimental on this history as we think we are.

But maybe thats hope. Maybe the truth is that we will just be a nation of theives filled with bitterness, with no way out of our own misery except the cold release of mutually assured destruction.

But screw that, that has never been the end of a story. Not a good one at least

(1) Oh yes, I'm one for the Cornish National Recognition.

(2) Story 8, Island of the Ocean God, page 155 of 'The Mammoth book of Celtic Myths and Legends' by Peter Berresford Ellis

(3) Right wing thought is counter productive, who would've thought?

(4) Philosophy here is the way people believe they should live.

(5) I cannot stress how much I am paraphrasing this story, read it please!

(6) This is a time where morality is linked to Christianity. I can't change this fact, it was a different time, though Peter Berresford Ellis has kept a more pagan attitude to the legends.

Are Owls evil?

The Oak must grow. The Deer must graze. The Owl must hunt.

A couple of weeks ago, Elizabeth and I went to a wedding. It was very hot and I was wearing a suit that always makes me look very VERY good but keeps the heat in, so I ended laying on the grass to cool down.

Here, Elizabeth noticed an owl sitting on a bale of hay. I didn't pay much attention to it as I was concentrating on cooling off, but I did glimpse it as it took off. It was massive. For most of the evening after that, when I went outside, I looked out on that field to try and notice it again.

And I did.

But when I saw it, it was later in the evening, around 9pm if I remember. It was still massive, and I was in awe, but I also wasn't alone. There was a boy who I assume lived on the site playing football. He seemed curious why I was looking out on an empty field.

"Are you ok?" he asked.

"I am," I replied, "just looking for the owl."

"The what?" the boy asked.

The question threw me a little, I knew what an owl was when I was his age. I didn't know all of them of course, but I knew they existed.

"The owl, it was on the bale there before it flew off."

"What is it?"

"It's a bird." I answered.

"Like a pheasant?"

"Yeah, like a pheasant, but a pheasant is more prey."

"What's an owl then?"

"A predator."

The boy seemed more comfortable after this, no longer curious but more matter-o-fact. The next words intrigued me.

"So it's evil."

I didn't really know what to say after this, but i needed to say something as I didn't agree with this response.

"Well, no. Owls just eat animals. It's not evil, it just does what's natural."

He then said that they get deers and foxes as well, and seemed to stop caring about the conversation, more interested in the football and tricks he was practicing. So I had to process this mindset on my own.

Because it's not a wrong idea that killing is bad. He lived on a farm with livestock, so things like wolves and foxes are seen as bad and to frame that as evil makes sense. But the wolf doesn't kill for divine(2) reasons, it kills out of neccesity to live. If the sheep didn't die, it would starve and so would the pack. The picture is more complex than the boy could see it, and if it doesn't effect his 7-10 year life(3), why would he care?

In history, we have seen predators and animals that kill by misinterpretation as these evil doers. Natural problems that must be ignored. I've just finished a book called 'the Deorhord' by Hana Videen where she discusses these things. The wolf is evil, as it only brings death to all that man cares for. The whale is evil, as it drowns sailors who think they have found land. It's very interesting, give it a read. I found it really inspiring as it shows how people viewed animals and their personalities in the past, pre-'enlightenment' (4).

Bringing it back these ideas of evil allow for a separation of responsibility. If the predator is evil, then it's okay to kill. Think Grendel or Smaug, they are a negative on the world, and therefore okay to get rid of as they only bring death.

But we are seeing that getting rid of predators because they are 'evil' is also bad. Here is Britain, we have gotten rid of our native wolf, lynx, and beaver(5) populations, causing massive ecological impacts. Red deer, prey, have exploded in numbers and have been a large reason why our forests are not growing as they eat all the saplings, meaning as the trees naturally die there is nothing to replace it. This is the problem with a lot of our temperate rainforests(6) as our old trees cannot be replaced, leading to just a bunch of dead stumps, and these are very important ecological areas!

But is the Red Deer evil? It's killing the environment, but not out of malice, it needs to eat. So why is it that predators are more negative when they control the population?

The answer here is obvious, it's control.

We, Humans, killed most of the more dangerous predators as we wanted to control the earth we use. We see ourselves in this Judeo-christian way as the stewards of the planet, needing to fix the problems we've been given. The thing is, the problems we are meant to fix are ones we've made for ourselves. Nature had a system that was both messy but also fuctional, and it's important to see ourselves as nature, because we are. We elevate the human species as somehow more important in the scheme of things, saying we are closer to god. But even if you don't beleive in a god, people like the atheists of the humanists fall into this category. There's this need to say we are the authority of the earth, but it's a bit of a fallacy in my opinion.

You see, if we climb off the pedestal we've placed under us, you will notice how precarious we are. We get rid of the problems we see, but the problems those problems were keeping in check are now the main problems, so now we have to sort those problems because we own the earth and must control it. The truth is much more humbling, the ecosystem is chaotic but self regulating and any change to it is catastophic, and it's childish to say that we are going to somehow fix all the problems. Hell! That's a whole theory of study in physics! Chaos theory!

So going back to the boy in the field, can we even say that evil exists? Things are so much more complicated than we are willing to even think about. The world of predator and prey doesn't exist in the human world anymore as we've dictated a separation of nature and the man made world. But that is a distinction that is not sustainable. Fences need maintaining, otherwise the two worlds mix. The real problem is that this mixture is true nature, as we are part of it. If we get rid of that distinction, everything will get scarier and unpredictable, but the beauty of the planet will show itself.

I will finish with this. The Oak must grow, the deer must graze, the owl must hunt. They will not ask for permission, they will not think about you and your personal world, they will not live conveniently. They will exist just as we have, and if they are inconvenient, so are we. If their actions are evil, then what are our cities? Our fields? Our cars and roads? The only difference is that we are doing so much more damage because of our need to control the world we see.

But when we disappear as we all must.

The Oak will grow.

The Deer will graze.

The Owl will hunt.

(1) Brilliant day, congrats Su and Dom!

(2) I'm using Divine from the Slavoj Zizek term 'Divine Violence'. The idea that there is violence that is only there for the sake of violence, and his refutation as violence usually comes from other factors. Either to take control or show a greivance. You can see this in the world right now, and divine violence is truly evil as it has no reason to happen except that it is.

(3) no idea how old he was. Not old enough for me to explain the ambiguity of morality in the universe. Let him kick the ball around for the time being.

(4) Just remember that enlightenment thought brought us medicine and scientific breakthroughs, but also justified racism and discrimination of the people who were neccesary for the said 'Enlightenment'.

(5) although not 'evil', they were a good source of waterproof fur. They also flooded areas that people were farming, causing problems.

(6) The rainforests of Britain, Guy Shrubsole. Good book, very important!