Carlyle's Vocabulary

Word	Definition
culminant	Of a heavenly body: That has reached its greatest altitude, that is on the meridian; hence fig. that is at its greatest height.
whinstone	A name for various very hard dark-coloured rocks or stones, as greenstone, basalt, chert, or quartzose sandstone.
shaveling	A contemptuous epithet for a tonsured ecclesiastic. (Very common in 16th and 17th c.)
fingent	Given to fashioning or moulding.
losel	A worthless person; a profligate, rake, scoundrel; in weaker sense, a ragamuffin, ne'er-do-well.
edacity	The quality of being edacious; capacity for eating; good appetite. or Corrosive quality, destructive power. Obs.
gulosity	Gluttony, greediness, voracity.
eleutheromaniac	one possessed by a mad zeal for freedom
fremescence	An incipient roaring.
fremescent	Murmuring, growing noisy.
grunsel	groundsel OR ground-sill
tripudiation	the action of dancing or leaping, esp. in token of joy or excitement; exultation.
weasand	The œsophagus or gullet.
obtest	To call upon in the name of something sacred; to charge solemnly, adjure; to beg earnestly, beseech, entreat, or implore (a person). Freq. with infinitive or that-clause as complement.
spontoon	A species of half-pike or halberd carried by infantry officers in the 18th century (from about 1740).
furibund	Furious, raging, mad.
scorine	????
bando	A public proclamation. Obs.
divulsive	Tending to tear apart or asunder.
handsel	To give (a person) a gift at the beginning of the year or day, on a birthday, etc., as a token of good luck. Also more generally: to give a gift on any occasion. Formerly also in ironic use: †to present or greet with something unwelcome (obs.).
scission	Division of a previously united body of people into mutually opposing parties; a split, a schism.
passe-partout	Originally: †a person who may go anywhere (obs.). Subsequently: a thing giving a person the right or opportunity to go anywhere; spec. a key that opens any or many doors, a master key; (occas.) a passport. Freq. in extended use and fig.
footling	Trivial, pointless; (of a person) that footles or trifles.
adust	Originally: affected with, or having a temperament determined by, adust humours (see sense 1a). In later use: having a melancholy character or appearance; gloomy; sallow. Obs. or That is in a dusty condition; covered in dust. or To burn, to scorch; to desiccate by exposing to strong heat. Also fig.
demit	trans. To send, put, or let down; to cause to descend; to lower.
phasis	esp. any particular aspect of a thing of varying appearances. Obs.
bob-miner	????
mittimus	Law. A warrant issued by a justice of the peace, etc., committing a person to custody. Now hist. exc. in U.S. or trans. To commit to prison by a warrant. Obs. rare.
apophthegm	A terse, pointed saying, embodying an important truth in few words; a pithy or sententious maxim.
brayed ware	a confusion for braided ware = damaged or faded goods;
epicedium	A funeral ode; a lament over a dead person. Also in figurative contexts.
ferula	The giant fennel or From the use of the fennel-stalk in Roman times: A cane, rod, or other instrument of punishment, esp. a flat piece of wood (see ferule n. 2); fig. school discipline.
abutment	The point at which something abuts upon something else; a point of junction or meeting; a boundary. Also: a property or piece of land that abuts upon another; a description or record of how one property abuts upon another.
escarpment	Geol. ‘The abrupt face or cliff of a ridge or hill range’ (Page). Also attrib.
hodden	Woollen cloth of a coarse quality such as used to be made by country weavers on their hand-looms.
door-rabbet	A piece of stone (or occasionally timber) cut and shaped so as to form one side of an opening in a wall and accommodate a door, gate, window, or chimney;
fugle	To cheat, trick.
glen	A mountain-valley, usually narrow and forming the course of a stream.
shackly	Shaky, rickety; ramshackle.
hobbledehoy	A youth at the age between boyhood and manhood, a stripling; esp. a clumsy or awkward youth.
wynd	A narrow street or passage turning off from a main thoroughfare; a narrow cross-street; a lane or alley.
gillies	An attendant on a Highland chief. Now hist.
forehanded	That has made provision for the future; in easy circumstances, ‘well-to-do’. Now only U.S.
puncheon	A tool or machine for stamping a design on an object or A short upright piece of timber in a wooden framing to provide stiffening or support; a supporting post, spec. a post supporting the roof in a coal mine. or A split log or rough piece of timber with one smoothed surface, used esp. for flooring and corduroy roads, and formerly for buildings;
cheval-de-frise	A defensive appliance of war, employed chiefly to check cavalry charges, and stop breaches; a large piece of Timber pierc'd, and travers'd with wooden Spikes, arm'd or pointed with Iron, five or six Foot long.

On being likable

It's occurred to me lately that some people like me. I don't mean people being friendly to me because they want to have sex with me, or because they're trying to be professional, or because they're generally friendly people. I think--and bear with me here--that some people actually enjoy my company for its own sake. So much of our socializing is somewhat forced--you hang out with people because they are in the same school, or workplace, or social group. I always thought that I was being tolerated as part of the group. But--maybe--not always?

This opens up whole new vistas for me. The best I generally expect of other people is that they will tolerate me if I am quiet and don't cause trouble. (Legacy of a childhood being told to talk more, and then told I was crazy when I talked.) What would it be like if I instead believed that there was a real possibility some people would enjoy being around me?

Deep question. I wish I had known this earlier. I've started reaching out to people a bit more as a result. A friend called me this morning and I called him right back. On the telephone!

Ideologies are Teams

If an ideology is correct, everyone who believes in that ideology is a good person. Therefore, a feminist can never do bad things to women. And a conservative can never break the law.

If an ideology is correct, it must disagree with every incorrect ideology. If you believe in an incorrect ideology, you cannot simultaneously believe in a correct one, even on different topics.

The Victim/Villain Fallacy

There are two sides to every question: Red Team and Blue Team. You get to pick which side you're on, but you have to be on a side. You can't be neutral and you can't be for or against both sides.

What if I really, really hate them both? Response: If you were a right-thinking person, you'd be on the Red Team. Staying neutral means you must be Blue.

Can I be on Team Blue and still think their coach sucks? No. Picking a team means you are endorsing everything they currently do and everything they've done in the past, even before you were born.

One team is 100% innocent, the other team is 100% guilty. I say, "Red Team cheated!" This reveals I am on Team Blue. What if Red Team really did cheat? Doesn't matter. My saying something bad about Red is enough to establish I am Blue. The truth value of what I said, or whether I believe it to be true, doesn't matter.

Another way to play this game is the "How can you compare?" tack.

Me: "Red Team Player got arrested for beating up his girlfriend. They should fire him!" 


Response: "That's nothing! Blue Team Player murdered six women! How can you compare them?"


Me: "Murder is indeed worse than assault. Okay, fire Blue Team Player too."


Response: "Good. I'm glad we agree Red Team Player did nothing wrong."

What if I try to say something nuanced, like "Red Team has a great goalie but Blue Team has better offense"?

Two possible responses: you can choose not to remember part of this statement. "She said, AND I QUOTE, "Red Team has a great goalie." Therefore, she's on the Red side."

Or, you can assume bad faith. "She's trying to sound fair and balanced, but she can't really believe Blue has good offensive players; if she did, she'd be Blue, and we know she's not Blue, because she said something good about Red."

I don't know how to win this game. So far I just settle for pointing it out.

Psychosomatic illness: final post

Physical manifestations of unhappiness are something we all experience; they are not personality flaws or signs of weakness, they are a part of life. Life is hard sometimes. It is harder for some than for others. We all manifest that hardship in different ways.

Each of these diagnoses is considered either entirely medically unexplained or only partially explained and with a large psychological component:
 
Amalgam poisoning, irritable bowel syndrome, candida syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, chronic Lyme disease, Morgellon's syndrome, formication, electromagnetic poisoning, environmental or chemical sensitivities, food intolerance.

 I recently went to a dinner party where every person bar two, at a table of ten, reported that they had an intolerance of or allergy to at least one foodstuff. Most had developed the allergy in middle age, which is not how an allergy typically behaves...People look for explanations for changes in their bodies, something to account for every unpleasant feeling. There is an unwillingness to accept behavioral or emotional factors, or the effects of aging, as an explanation. Society and the media are often available to provide a more agreeable answer and to add to the symptom pool available

The question that we, the unaffected, must answer for ourselves is, can we give a disability that has its roots in behavioral or psychological factors the same respect that we offer to a physical disease? If the answer is yes, then none of the other controversies matter any longer.

The placebo effect is another illustration of the mind-body connection--you might call it the psychogenic cure. Also widely and deeply misunderstood. Did you know, for instance, that the placebo effect works even if you are aware of it? Understanding this makes me skeptical of some of the self-experimentation people sometimes do. "Try X, it worked for me!" is a terrible, terrible argument. And it remains terrible no matter how much useless precision the author gives you about so many milligrams of whatever at whatever time of day immediately after exercise. I'm looking at you, Tim Ferriss! (Scott Alexander is also guilty of this to a lesser extent.) Did you do a randomized double-blind study on yourself? I don't fucking think so. You have no idea whether a given treatment worked on your body or your mind.

This doesn't mean that you should never try unproven remedies. My personal conclusion is that we should pay a lot more attention to the costs of the treatments we choose. Lots of home remedies are acceptable for this reason. If you think that valerian tea helps you sleep or ginger ale alleviates nausea, go ahead and use it without worrying too much about randomized controlled trials—your cost is only a small amount of money and trouble. In other words, the cost-benefit ratio is more likely favorable when the cost is negligible.

But with treatments that are much more costly, such as surgery, medications with serious side effects, and any involvement with the mental/behavioral health system, you need to be a lot more careful in assessing the likely benefits. For example, do you think the doubtful benefit of antidepressants is worth the 40-60% chance of loss of libido, to name just one of their costs?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108697/

I have my own answer to this, of course (sex is great), but my real message is to pay attention to the costs, and to be skeptical of the success stories you hear.

The Victim/Villain Fallacy

There are two sides to every question: Red Team and Blue Team. You get to pick which side you're on, but you have to be on a side. You can't be neutral and you can't be for or against both sides.

What if I really, really hate them both? Well, if you're not on the Red Team, all the Red Teamers will assume you're a dirty Blue Teamer. And, if you're not on the Blue Team, all the Blue Teamers will assume you're an ignorant Red Teamer.

He was constantly defending his Communist friends to his right-wing enemies and his right-wing friends to his Communist enemies, and he was thoroughly detested by both groups, who never defended him to anyone because they thought he was a dope.

—Catch-22

Can I be on Team Blue and still think their coach sucks? No. Picking a team means you are endorsing everything they currently do and everything they've done in the past, even before you were born.

One team is 100% innocent, the other team is 100% guilty. I say, "Red Team cheated!" This reveals I am on Team Blue. What if Red Team really did cheat? Doesn't matter. My saying something bad about Red is enough to establish I am Blue. The truth value of what I said, or whether I believe it to be true, doesn't matter.

Another way to play this game is the "How can you compare?" tack.

Me: "Red Team Player got arrested for beating up his girlfriend. They should fire him!"
Response: "That's nothing! Blue Team Player murdered six women! How can you compare them?"
Me: "Murder is indeed worse than assault. Okay, fire Blue Team Player too."
Response: "Good. I'm glad we agree Red Team Player did nothing wrong."

What if I try to say something nuanced, like "Red Team has a great goalie but Blue Team has better offense"?

Two possible responses: you can choose not to remember part of this statement. "She said, AND I QUOTE, "Red Team has a great goalie." Therefore, she's on the Red side."
Or, you can assume bad faith. "She's trying to sound fair and balanced, but she can't really believe Blue has good offensive players; if she did, she'd be Blue, and we know she's not Blue, because she said something good about Red."

It's easy enough, for leftists, to imagine confronting a mob of racial bigots, McCarthyites, or religious fundamentalists. The harder test is resistance to public opinion in one's own camp.

--Hitchens

I don't know how to win this game. So far I just settle for pointing it out.

Psychosomatic illness 6: the feminist position

I'd like to devote a special post to the feminist objection to the concept of psychosomatic illness. This objection deserves some respect, drawing as it does upon the long and troubled history of women being labelled mentally ill for specious and doubtful reasons. The concept of mental illness is of course a means of social control, and one that has weighed particularly heavily on women. Female eccentrics such as me have often been defined as mad. And of course, women are sometimes called “hysterical” as a pure insult, with no factual content, as when Kamala Harris, the new Senator, was called “hysterical” for her prosecutorial style of questioning a witness. (For more, see Phyllis Chesler, Women and Madness, or Elaine Showalter).

This line of thinking has been popularized in the feminist blogosphere, so that many people have a kneejerk negative reaction to any suggestion that a woman's illness is “all in her head.” Some have gone so far as to conclude that the very word “hysteria” ought to be banned as sexist. These people have never read Breuer.

Because if you read Breuer, or Freud, Charcot, or Janet (okay I've never read Janet), you get the other side of the story of hysteria. Of course mental illness is a means of social control, and I'm generally the first to make that point. But mental illness also causes people to suffer, which is why, even today, most adults who are treated for mental illness undergo that treatment voluntarily. And many of them would still be suffering even in the Feminist Utopia. The vast majority of cases of Victorian/Edwardian hysteria weren't a matter of "she wants a job, she must be crazy," they involved painful and disabling symptoms that any doctor in any era would identify as meaning that Something Is Wrong. Symptoms like paralyzed limbs, weeks of catatonia, hysterical blindness and muteness, inability to eat, seizures, fainting, as well as abilities that some observers saw as supernatural, such as gaining the ability to speak new languages, withstanding needle wounds with no sign of pain, and sustaining bizarre arched postures for hours at a time.

We need, therefore, to treat mental illness, including psychosomatic illness, if we want to help suffering people, but we also need to rein in those who would use mental health care as a tool of oppression. A good rule of thumb is the libertarian principle; let others do what they want with their own minds and bodies as long as they don't harm anyone else. Don't call the police on your suicidal friend; he has the right to die if she wishes. And be very, very skeptical when children, the elderly, or institutionalized people have “treatment” forced upon them by their keepers.

I rate this objection: Half-right.