Some of my mood concepts

Mood is very individual but is key to my functional definition of entertainment which focuses on SAFE mood control.

Performers must craft SAFE mood with exquisite skill even when...no, ESPECIALLY when dealing with scary subjects.

If audience does not feel SAFE then audience is not entertained. Check me on that one, carefully.

You may surprise yourself.

Science fiction can really range with moods in this time. Ok, I really like sci fi. But still, it can!

Technology is part of it, but research is key to the science mood. Other moods can flow around that framework.

Research to solve problems: science mood.

There are of course many moods and humor is a mood. Which I list for an easy point of reference. (Yes, if follow my Twitter jstevh am copying tweets from it verbatim. Is MY writing.)

Moods are often complex constellations of emotion. And the FEELING is key to any mood. So, like Star Trek is best example of a brilliant show with military and science mood.

If pay close attention: scientific research, often done by Spock, is key to success! While StarFleet is a military organization dedicated to peaceful exploration.

(Ok, still using tweets but no longer verbatim. Is editing time.)

So then, science mood involves use of research to solve problems.

Military mood involves a hierarchical organization of people dedicated to something larger than themselves willing to sacrifice themselves for others.

That is so cool and ended up longer than I thought it would be when began crafting it.

Figuring out my moods has helped me self-calibrate my mood discernment engine. Which means of course, know what am searching for in any particular entertainment.

You might work on your own mood palette. Where for myself routinely reference comedic mood when trying to find a handle on mood concepts.

Social disruption is good for your attention

Finally have a better handle on how the web is transforming our globe with respect to our attention, which also involves our time. And for YEARS have hyped that wonder of efficient and easy distribution of information that the web provides, but the attention reality is about finding quality content.

That is disrupting prior attention industries. Where I no longer have to talk about the hypothetical of whether or not television shows were good or not, as we can just watch which ones are still here.

Like Star Trek was better than I even realized. And so many other television shows were SO much worse, and people are deciding on the constant now. The pressure against current television shows is not just with each other, but with whatever content is available, including from the past.

The television model was not what I thought, and is now evolving as web completes absorption of television, and folks can learn how such shows actually become successful.

The correct attention model learned with my own content is rather constant, with bursts of attention happening here or there in a way I now consider not terribly interesting. Have had things of mine in their own way go viral for a bit. Have dealt with bursts of celebrity in certain areas here and there.

And realized is a very big world, when you consider billions of people, and what interests them.

Have focused so much on television often and in this post as was so dominant in my life. And I learned some really wrong lessons from what I thought I knew about television. While now I rarely talk in detail and especially stay away from current shows--as I do not wish to accidently crush them.

Being able to channel the interests of millions with such a limited thing as television is, gave a lot of power to certain people and helped fuel a lot of industry, especially advertising. Now advertising has to evolve, and I think is great.

While I had to invest vast amounts of time and attention in figuring out web systems, with the money thing in the distance, until it became the biggest thing. Where I found out you do not need money to be global if you have interesting content.

Right now am stuck in a homeless shelter in Macon, GA, USA as try to figure out the money thing. Yet I can shift the reality for just about anything on television without much effort. And I no longer think being on TV would be a big deal. Am more global than much.

How can someone like me consistently put up content that draws attention from around planet Earth, year after year after year? And how do I connect that safely to some way to make money?

Such things I ponder.

Our species I think is very peculiar. More I pay attention to what from me keeps getting global attention? More I wonder. To me now television industry is tiny, but still kind of interesting, some times. They DO still try. Maybe now they will learn to be much better.

They had better, if television industry wishes to survive and am sure it will. I have an odd faith I think where maybe should question more why. Television industry is competing with a web of attention from all over. And people have standards now unlike before.

Today we can compare past as well as present in our decisions on best content. And choose at a moment what best moves us, or maybe those close to us. And it IS important to each, as is about how best to spend precious time.

Is yours--your time. You only have so much in a life.


James Harris

Art reality and 50 years of Star Trek

Questions about art fascinate me to some extent but also frustrate me, as people can focus on populism or elitism with no clue that longevity rules. So for instance classical music which is revered today was the pop music of its times.

And can do a quick post now as pushed forward my thinking on art and entertainment already, as consider growing evidence that Star Trek is art.

For those who don't know, show originally aired 50 years ago today.

However, with my own definition of art, find myself pondering why would it be art.

The gist of it is that I think that Gene Roddenberry, a warrior who as a soldier in World War II flew 89 combat missions, was sick and tired of human on human conflict so he imagined a time when it was rare.

And look at SO much fiction and you see--human on human conflict. Relentlessly.

The idea that people might eventually for the most part get along is a rare one I think in fiction. And for most is a religious notion maybe, while the most cynical maybe think human beings will always be the worst enemies of human beings along maybe with some other monsters tossed in as well.

Star Trek dared to go where primarily religion has gone before, expressing a vision of humanity as one species united, in peace with itself.

— James Harris (@jstevh) September 8, 2016

So if you wonder why Star Trek can be so popular, I suggest to you, you may be a cynic, convinced that some human will always be a horror on other humans, while others dream of better.

That better to me is a concept which resonates with the human soul as an abstract entity which permeates our existence as human beings and operates as a timeless concept, making it art.

But time will tell.


James Harris

Why not problem solve health insurance?

Growing up I was fascinated by the fictional character Spock on Star Trek. His obsession with logic fascinated me, and lead me to the library where I was disappointed by the reality of how logic is taught. Nonetheless I have remained interested in the subject and with problem solving as well, so I find it weird when I come across relatively simple analysis in big areas, where logic dictates.

Like health insurance is a major issue and in the US it has been problematic to properly provide it for our citizenry for quite some time. So I sat down some years back and analyzed the problem space and came to some simple conclusions.

And I concluded that if you boil down all the debate in the US around health insurance it is just about who pays.

The way insurance is supposed to work is you insure against risk by pooling funds in advance of it.

If a person is sick then they have already incurred risk.

It's like, if you already wrecked your car then you can't exactly insure it, correct?

But what if a wealthy uncle pays for your car to be fixed anyway? Well that's not insurance, it's charity.

So it's impossible from the business side to "insure" people when you are actually giving them charity if they are already sick. But from society's perspective it's important to give them that benefit, and insurance companies are the best at delivering payment on claims as it's their business.

But they don't have to be the ones actually paying.

For instance a wealthy person can hire an insurance company to administer claims made against him, even though he is actually paying out, because he lacks the experience to process the claim.

For instance, his chauffeur might run his vehicle into the back end of someone's car. Should he hire lawyers himself and fight the case in court?

What if instead his insurance company handles it, and determines that the accident was engineered because they've seen such things many times before? And they also determine that the supposedly injured party is in the database as someone who has been in many such accidents and is merely a con artist?

How would the wealthy person know on his own without the insurance company's help? He might get lucky and figure it out. And hire attorneys who could figure it out, and properly fight the case or he could end up taken as he does not have that kind of information and why would he? For instance, he couldn't have a database of insurance claims to search on to find the name of the person who had engineered such accidents in the past!

How does all of the above relate to health insurance?

Well, what if? What if the US Government or some other government entity paid for people who aren't really insurable, but the health insurance companies administer? Just like with the wealthy person example above you get the benefits of their expertise but someone else actually pays.

Years ago I put it all together in a tweet of exactly 140 characters:

My healthcare plan: Preventive Care--everybody, Core Care--insurables, Expected Care--not easily insured, Elder Care--quality of life at end
— James Harris (@jstevh) July 27, 2009

Part of the way I use Twitter is to store ideas. And now it's easy to put them back up later by embedding the tweets, which I think is an efficient way to propagate the information.

If that tweet doesn't make sense you can read it all explained on one of my blogs:

lostincomment.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-healthcare-plan.html

I've explained in various ways since then, but I like showing how long I've had this approach out there.

I feel confident that eventually something like it will be the way health insurance will work in the US, but getting there will take some time.

Why? Because unlike the fictional Spock, who loved logic, politicians tend to love other things. As things play out in the US along a predictable path, it will take some time before people get frustrated enough with how things are done to do them better.


James Harris