/**
 * file: karbytes_14_april_2024.txt
 * type: plain-text
 * date: 10_APRIL_2024
 * author: karbytes
 * license: PUBLIC_DOMAIN
 */

Approximately twelve hours after publishing TWO_MODES_OF_HUMANITY, I felt the need to follow up that blog post with a newer blog post in order to "correct" some "errors" I made in that older blog post.

The first of such errors is insinuating that the sciences are superior to humanities. What I prefer to insinuate now is that both academic domains are equally important to humanity because each one of those domains contributes knowledge which the other domain does not and which is useful to humanity's survival and thrival. For instance, I personally glean a lot of value from listening to music, observing visual art, and reading about human history and culture via Wikipedia and other information sources. If I only paid attention to STEM-related subject matter, I would probably be more likely to regard humans as mere machines instead of as sentient animals with complex subjectivities and traditions which are interesting to me to learn about. If I only focused on STEM, I would likely treat most other humans as mere utilities at best and parasites at worst. The truth is that I don't think any one human being is worth more than any other human being because worth is subjective and relative and a solipsistic phenomenon. Each human individual has a unique role to play in this universe. Therefore, no human individual can be replaced by any other human being no matter how similar that other human being is to the one supposedly being replaced (because each human individual is the product of a unique set of space-time coordinates and hence that person is tied to exactly one unique history and future-oriented trajectory (though I could be wrong)).

Secondly, I did not mean to suggest that science majors are any less annoying or stupid or animalistic than their humanities major counterparts. I have personally interacted with and embodied STEM majors who were arrogant and violent assholes who cheated in board games (and elsewhere) and who insinuated that women were inferior to men in terms of intellect and morality (which is easy to find counter examples to) and who was generally not as helpful and kind to other people as I have seen many non-STEM majors be (and I understand that such people may have wanted to go to university but could not afford it or had other logistical challenges making it hard for them to do anything but work full time for relatively low pay or as a caregiver to kin when funds for outsourcing such care were not readily available).

Finally, I don't think merely counting objects really works to subdue mounting anger. Anger exists for a reason. Humans acquired the capacity to feel righteously indignant in response to their sense of boundaries getting violated. Anger is a survival-oriented mechanism which prepares the body to defend itself against whatever is threatening to violate its boundaries. The only "cure" to anger I know to work is attempting to fix what I consider to be examples of injustice (which is, to some degree of abstraction, a violation of my personal boundaries). In other words, I recommend always DOING SOMETHING in response to feeling angry, anxious, or depressed instead of merely trying to subdue such "negative" emotions because taking action is moving in accordance to those life-affirming physiological cues instead of disregarding them while they continue to fester or threaten to keep returning until the "root cause" boundary violation is resolved (which might be as simple as updating one's knowledge of what is happening).