Human psychology is so weird. Normally I am happy to reduce our thought patterns to "One of these things is not like the other," and our social relations to "iterated prisoner's dilemna."
On this occasion, neither of these psychological theories (oooh, complex ones at that) can explain how we go through lives as associated monads. As we travel from pond to pond, sometimes we are the big fish and sometimes we are the little fish. Wherever we are, as humans we need to connect with other humans, which we do. These connections may be managed through prisoner's dilemna logic (ie. Tit for Tat), but the connections themselves aren't explained by such reasoning.
If you take a person and ignore how long they live, or how extroverted they are, and you add up all the social relation(ing) that they do, it adds up to 100%. How a person divides all the time they spend in relationships to others varies. Some spend a little time with a lot of people, some spend a lot of time with a few people. Other distinctions can be made, such as the friend I have for one semester while enrolled in the same class, or the friend that I have had for neigh 20 years. (I'm a geezer, what can I say?)
Eventually, we all come to a time in our life when we hop from one pond to another, which means we have to alter in some way our time spent relating to our fellow man. It's easier to say goodbye to some fellow students or coworkers than others. Sometimes departures from the latter are tearful and filled with great intentions to not lose touch, yet somehow for all these great intentions this takes place anyway.
What can we say about this, logically? Well, who gives a rat's ass about logic? Okay, someone might, so here goes.... If you only have so much time to spend relating, you either have to not add new people (ie. never go anywhere new), give some people up, or spend increasingly less time with everyone you've previously known in order to spend time with everyone you know. Well it is obviously impractical to spend 10 seconds per week with everyone you've ever met. Clearly it is impractical to not meet -any- new people because your life is already full. That leaves with departing from people that you have met, and probably ones you care about. In other words, it's unavoidable.
What psychology explains this? "You can't have your cake and eat it too," "life isn't fair," and "out of sight, out of mind."
Or, in other words, "the integral of d%/dt is 100%."
Showing posts with label Existential. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Existential. Show all posts
April 25, 2007
March 21, 2007
How to Save the World from Certain Catastrophe...
There are a number of problems present in our world today, and that is a very large number. However, we can write up a top X list of some of the worst. Some favourites may be:
i) There is too much CO2 going into the air, resulting in increased global warming, melting of the ice caps, asthma, flood and storms, and the destruction of the human species.
ii) By burning petroleum at an increased rate we are depleting our petroluem stocks rabidly. This is resulting in increased atmospheric CO2 (see i) as well as increasing the price of gas. Not only will it be unaffordable to drive a car and huff gasoline, it will also be impractical for industry to create huge amounts of non-biodegradable plastics.
iii) Yadda yadda yadda. Yaddas reproducing in triplicate is a terrible crime, and soon we will all be drowing in useless nothings representative of anythings. A fate worse than life.
At any rate, humanity can be saved easily (although not cheaply). A scheme for this is already available, devised by an insane genius with too much time on his hands (mostly due to poor time management) and too little electro-shock therapy. This scheme has several important parts, subparts, division, curricula, compartments and subtituents. The most important of which will be described below:
Part 1, section iii, division A23bravo: The Source
The majority of the problem rests entirely with petroleum, which is to say, it is entirely underground. Now, a mere literal interpretation of such a statement is likely to cause befuddlement, but an interpretation resulting in comprehension of the intrinsic meaning might be useful at some temporal location. The problem, namly, is that petroleum is the buffer from which we drag our energy. The energy stored in petroleum was dragged forcefully, kicking and screaming, which is why it was buried in the first place -- to dampen the noise, from trees and other plant vegetation. Or at least, that's how the pseudo-scientific untestable and non-predictive theory goes. Right. Now, there is the more scientific and less pseudo theory which is not really predictive but almost testable, which... describes the absorption of stuff called radiation (although it never responds to that name) by those very trees and plant vegetation which I was already discussing. As you know, have three whichs together makes a coven, and it is important to burn whichs, which is the historic process of causing our now-realized mass consumption of petroleum. Note that it is realised in Britain as opposed to North America. This so-called radiation is supplied by the Sun, which we blame entirely for its poor raising and lack of response when called.
Instead of allowing this ill-begotten and poorly behaved radiation to trickle to us through a complex array of pain, burial, and cremation, we can instead harness it directly. Harnesses are best used young, and in fact can be used to train young elephants not to leave, as well as human children in shopping malls. Harnesses, best used young, can be used on new and young radiation directly coming from the sun. Of course, entering the world distinctly ages people, and why should we expect it to be different for anyone else? Thus, we can clearly see how important it is to harness this radiation while it is still flying straight and true outside the world.
For this task I recommend a satel. Of course, in order for a satel to get off the ground, it would have to be very light, so from now on I'll refer to this specific satel as a satellite. This satellite must be able to bring young and wild radiation into order, and as we all know, spanking is the best way to do that. For that reason I recommend large paddles be attached to the satellite capable of slapping the radiation coming from the sun silly. Or at least into a good humour. All that energy is going to be tiring, so we'd best cover the paddles with solar cells so that our good little discipliner doesn't give up.
Of course, once we have harnessed all this radiation, we need to set it to some important, preferably world-saving, task. As well all know, idle hands are the devil's workshop. I don't know when the last time he got into outer space is, but I don't want him doing any woodwork above my head -- he might drop something. So, we could have our radiation do something important like wash all our cars, but we still need to direct its attention somehow. Now, when you shine a laser pointer on the wall or floor, you get the attention and activity of any nearby dog or cat or human. Indeed, many university professors use this to their advantage whenever they run out of things to say. They just point a laser at the wall and wave it back and forth and watch in amusement as all the humans (Professors aren't human, they are android computers with evil intentions and a bent for the cruel) move their heads back and forth following the laser dot. Therefore, the best way to get the radiation to get to work is to shine a big laser pointer at the Earth wherever you want it to go. So, I figure a big laser pointed at the Earth will get all the radiation going to one spot. Of course, you don't want to blow a hole in the Earth or all the water will drain out of the oceans like a big bathtub. By that illogic, we definated need a big dish to catch the laser. Why a dish? Well, we use dishes to hold just about anything, and they prevent splashing, too. Besides, they look so sci-fi.
Well, now that we're catching a huge laser at the Earth, we need to DO something with it. I figure we'll just do what we do with everything else that is useless, and mass produce it for sale. In this case, we'll just claim that it's worth a lot, and sell a piece at a time. Hopefully this would be worthwhile enough that we can make enough money to take over the world, or at least save it.
Not only that, but we can sell pieces of our laser to special plants. Some plants like to eat flies, some like to eat radiation. Hopefully we can convince a really big one to reduce our CO2(g) to C(s). I mean, graphite is really slippery, so we naturally want to make a really big graphite mountain so that we can go skiing. Ironically this will remove a lot of CO2 from our air and save us from certain death.
Of course, with all this energy we'll have we will be able to electrolyze water or reduce Boron in order to run many vehicles without having to burn any petrol. And you know what? That means we can have polymer couches with polymer beerhats and polymer dogs (no feeding!) and polymer people that are always smiling. Three cheers for plastic surgery!
i) There is too much CO2 going into the air, resulting in increased global warming, melting of the ice caps, asthma, flood and storms, and the destruction of the human species.
ii) By burning petroleum at an increased rate we are depleting our petroluem stocks rabidly. This is resulting in increased atmospheric CO2 (see i) as well as increasing the price of gas. Not only will it be unaffordable to drive a car and huff gasoline, it will also be impractical for industry to create huge amounts of non-biodegradable plastics.
iii) Yadda yadda yadda. Yaddas reproducing in triplicate is a terrible crime, and soon we will all be drowing in useless nothings representative of anythings. A fate worse than life.
At any rate, humanity can be saved easily (although not cheaply). A scheme for this is already available, devised by an insane genius with too much time on his hands (mostly due to poor time management) and too little electro-shock therapy. This scheme has several important parts, subparts, division, curricula, compartments and subtituents. The most important of which will be described below:
Part 1, section iii, division A23bravo: The Source
The majority of the problem rests entirely with petroleum, which is to say, it is entirely underground. Now, a mere literal interpretation of such a statement is likely to cause befuddlement, but an interpretation resulting in comprehension of the intrinsic meaning might be useful at some temporal location. The problem, namly, is that petroleum is the buffer from which we drag our energy. The energy stored in petroleum was dragged forcefully, kicking and screaming, which is why it was buried in the first place -- to dampen the noise, from trees and other plant vegetation. Or at least, that's how the pseudo-scientific untestable and non-predictive theory goes. Right. Now, there is the more scientific and less pseudo theory which is not really predictive but almost testable, which... describes the absorption of stuff called radiation (although it never responds to that name) by those very trees and plant vegetation which I was already discussing. As you know, have three whichs together makes a coven, and it is important to burn whichs, which is the historic process of causing our now-realized mass consumption of petroleum. Note that it is realised in Britain as opposed to North America. This so-called radiation is supplied by the Sun, which we blame entirely for its poor raising and lack of response when called.
Instead of allowing this ill-begotten and poorly behaved radiation to trickle to us through a complex array of pain, burial, and cremation, we can instead harness it directly. Harnesses are best used young, and in fact can be used to train young elephants not to leave, as well as human children in shopping malls. Harnesses, best used young, can be used on new and young radiation directly coming from the sun. Of course, entering the world distinctly ages people, and why should we expect it to be different for anyone else? Thus, we can clearly see how important it is to harness this radiation while it is still flying straight and true outside the world.
For this task I recommend a satel. Of course, in order for a satel to get off the ground, it would have to be very light, so from now on I'll refer to this specific satel as a satellite. This satellite must be able to bring young and wild radiation into order, and as we all know, spanking is the best way to do that. For that reason I recommend large paddles be attached to the satellite capable of slapping the radiation coming from the sun silly. Or at least into a good humour. All that energy is going to be tiring, so we'd best cover the paddles with solar cells so that our good little discipliner doesn't give up.
Of course, once we have harnessed all this radiation, we need to set it to some important, preferably world-saving, task. As well all know, idle hands are the devil's workshop. I don't know when the last time he got into outer space is, but I don't want him doing any woodwork above my head -- he might drop something. So, we could have our radiation do something important like wash all our cars, but we still need to direct its attention somehow. Now, when you shine a laser pointer on the wall or floor, you get the attention and activity of any nearby dog or cat or human. Indeed, many university professors use this to their advantage whenever they run out of things to say. They just point a laser at the wall and wave it back and forth and watch in amusement as all the humans (Professors aren't human, they are android computers with evil intentions and a bent for the cruel) move their heads back and forth following the laser dot. Therefore, the best way to get the radiation to get to work is to shine a big laser pointer at the Earth wherever you want it to go. So, I figure a big laser pointed at the Earth will get all the radiation going to one spot. Of course, you don't want to blow a hole in the Earth or all the water will drain out of the oceans like a big bathtub. By that illogic, we definated need a big dish to catch the laser. Why a dish? Well, we use dishes to hold just about anything, and they prevent splashing, too. Besides, they look so sci-fi.
Well, now that we're catching a huge laser at the Earth, we need to DO something with it. I figure we'll just do what we do with everything else that is useless, and mass produce it for sale. In this case, we'll just claim that it's worth a lot, and sell a piece at a time. Hopefully this would be worthwhile enough that we can make enough money to take over the world, or at least save it.
Not only that, but we can sell pieces of our laser to special plants. Some plants like to eat flies, some like to eat radiation. Hopefully we can convince a really big one to reduce our CO2(g) to C(s). I mean, graphite is really slippery, so we naturally want to make a really big graphite mountain so that we can go skiing. Ironically this will remove a lot of CO2 from our air and save us from certain death.
Of course, with all this energy we'll have we will be able to electrolyze water or reduce Boron in order to run many vehicles without having to burn any petrol. And you know what? That means we can have polymer couches with polymer beerhats and polymer dogs (no feeding!) and polymer people that are always smiling. Three cheers for plastic surgery!
February 13, 2007
Be a Good Dictator
"My research for the past 30 years or so was devoted to examine whether cells have such signal integration and control center(s). The results suggest that mammalian cells, indeed, possess intelligence. "
Guenter Albrecht-Buehler, Ph.D. Fellow, European Academy of Sciences, Brussels Fellow, Institute for Advanced Studies, Berlin Robert Laughlin Rea Professor of Cell Biology Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago
The intelligence of individual cells is fascinating. I haven't read the above doctor's website, but I have heard of interesting experiments. For example, a living heart cell will beat, as can be seen with a microscope. Furthermore, two living heart cells in a petri dish will beat out of rythm with one another, but place them beside each other, and they quickly beat as one. Consider the fact that we are told as early as high school that when you step on a nail, it is not your brain that tells your foot to lift, but your spine. It is explained to us that our spine acts as a mini-brain or mid-body brain for "lesser" functions. Perhaps one of the weirdest anecdotes I've been told is that bacteria placed into a perfect environment, not a perfect growing environment, will actually die because they do not need to struggle to survive. How bizarre.
Suppose for a minute, though, that individual cells are intelligent. That would imply that each of our bodies is an excellent example of a perfect society. Our cells do not rebel, do not mutiny. They each do their task in perfect socialist obedience, like little smurfs.
Of course, if they are indeed intelligent, then perhaps they feel pain, and suffer, or perhaps they have a desire to survive. As a sentient moral agent, are we not responsible for the lives of these cells, devoted to us, subject to our will?
Do the rest of the philosophy on your own....
Be a Good Dictator!
Guenter Albrecht-Buehler, Ph.D. Fellow, European Academy of Sciences, Brussels Fellow, Institute for Advanced Studies, Berlin Robert Laughlin Rea Professor of Cell Biology Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago
The intelligence of individual cells is fascinating. I haven't read the above doctor's website, but I have heard of interesting experiments. For example, a living heart cell will beat, as can be seen with a microscope. Furthermore, two living heart cells in a petri dish will beat out of rythm with one another, but place them beside each other, and they quickly beat as one. Consider the fact that we are told as early as high school that when you step on a nail, it is not your brain that tells your foot to lift, but your spine. It is explained to us that our spine acts as a mini-brain or mid-body brain for "lesser" functions. Perhaps one of the weirdest anecdotes I've been told is that bacteria placed into a perfect environment, not a perfect growing environment, will actually die because they do not need to struggle to survive. How bizarre.
Suppose for a minute, though, that individual cells are intelligent. That would imply that each of our bodies is an excellent example of a perfect society. Our cells do not rebel, do not mutiny. They each do their task in perfect socialist obedience, like little smurfs.
Of course, if they are indeed intelligent, then perhaps they feel pain, and suffer, or perhaps they have a desire to survive. As a sentient moral agent, are we not responsible for the lives of these cells, devoted to us, subject to our will?
Do the rest of the philosophy on your own....
Be a Good Dictator!
February 10, 2007
My Favourite Books/Movies/Video Games
This is a list that I may update at random.
Note that not all titles will be suitable for all, or any, viewers.
Books
Anonymous - Maximum Linux Security
John Acorn/Ian Sheldon - Bugs of British Columbia
Piers Anthony - Kilobyte
Steven Brust - [Most of what I've read]
Steven Brust - Cowboy Feng's Space Bar and Grille
Steven Brust - Five Hundred Years After
Steven Brust - The Phoenix Guards
Steven Brust - To Reign in Hell
Susanna Clarke - Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell
Diane Duane - [Most of It, including with other authors]
Fyodor Dostoevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Eve Forward - Villains by Necessity
Robert Gray - The Colon Health Handbook
Stephen Herrero - Bear Attacks: their causes and avoidance
Nina Kiriki Hoffman - The Silent Strength of Stones
Nina Kiriki Hoffman - The Thread that Binds the Bones
Franz Kafka - Metamorphosis
Immanuel Kant - At least his three Critiques
Milan Kundera - Immortality
Freidrich Nietzsche - [All of It]
Robert Pirsig - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Edgar Allan Poe - [Most of It]
Lawrence Scanlan - Little Horse of Iron
JRR Tolkien - [All of It]
Miguel de Unamuno - [All of It]
Elizabeth Willey - A Sorcerer and a Gentleman
Movies
Howl's Walking Castle
An Inconvenient Truth
Pitch Black
The Transporter
True Lies
The Usual Suspects
V for Vendetta
Video Games
Phantasi (Strategic Simulations, 1985)
Wing Commander: Privateer (Origin Systems 1993)
Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness (Blizzard Entertainment, 1995)
Master of Orion 2 (Simtex 1996)
Planescape: Torment (Black Isle Studios, 1999)
Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath (Oddworld Inhabitants, 2005)
Note that not all titles will be suitable for all, or any, viewers.
Books
Anonymous - Maximum Linux Security
John Acorn/Ian Sheldon - Bugs of British Columbia
Piers Anthony - Kilobyte
Steven Brust - [Most of what I've read]
Steven Brust - Cowboy Feng's Space Bar and Grille
Steven Brust - Five Hundred Years After
Steven Brust - The Phoenix Guards
Steven Brust - To Reign in Hell
Susanna Clarke - Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell
Diane Duane - [Most of It, including with other authors]
Fyodor Dostoevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Eve Forward - Villains by Necessity
Robert Gray - The Colon Health Handbook
Stephen Herrero - Bear Attacks: their causes and avoidance
Nina Kiriki Hoffman - The Silent Strength of Stones
Nina Kiriki Hoffman - The Thread that Binds the Bones
Franz Kafka - Metamorphosis
Immanuel Kant - At least his three Critiques
Milan Kundera - Immortality
Freidrich Nietzsche - [All of It]
Robert Pirsig - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Edgar Allan Poe - [Most of It]
Lawrence Scanlan - Little Horse of Iron
JRR Tolkien - [All of It]
Miguel de Unamuno - [All of It]
Elizabeth Willey - A Sorcerer and a Gentleman
Movies
Howl's Walking Castle
An Inconvenient Truth
Pitch Black
The Transporter
True Lies
The Usual Suspects
V for Vendetta
Video Games
Phantasi (Strategic Simulations, 1985)
Wing Commander: Privateer (Origin Systems 1993)
Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness (Blizzard Entertainment, 1995)
Master of Orion 2 (Simtex 1996)
Planescape: Torment (Black Isle Studios, 1999)
Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath (Oddworld Inhabitants, 2005)
December 16, 2006
Communication, Relation, and some Nice Warm Sheets
So it's currently 5 mintues to 1 am, and I have a final exam in 8 hours. I should be asleep. Or if I'm not sleeping, I should be studying, right?
Well, I was sleeping, but then a thought struck me, and it struck me so hard I was jolted from my nice warm waterbed. (Yeah, it's sexy.) I was pondering an old catchphrase from common society of a few years back... you know, all that promotional material about men learning to communicate. Well, I thought to myself, Men already know how to communicate, it's women that don't, ironically. If you consider communication to be the transfer of information, that's what men do when they talk, mostly. On the other hand, women mostly relate when they talk. I suppose all that gibberish, which has thankfully mostly faded, was really about two people in a relationship transferring information on how they felt about the relationship. Wait a sec... is that communication or relating. Here's the kicker: If it's done in a way that expresses feeling more than fact, it's relating. If it's done in a way that expresses fact, position, opinion, etc, then it is communication more than relating. Relating is more subjective, and communicating is more objective.
That's it! I've solved the battle of the sexes! Except... I think this whoooole thing was communication.... darnit.
Well, I was sleeping, but then a thought struck me, and it struck me so hard I was jolted from my nice warm waterbed. (Yeah, it's sexy.) I was pondering an old catchphrase from common society of a few years back... you know, all that promotional material about men learning to communicate. Well, I thought to myself, Men already know how to communicate, it's women that don't, ironically. If you consider communication to be the transfer of information, that's what men do when they talk, mostly. On the other hand, women mostly relate when they talk. I suppose all that gibberish, which has thankfully mostly faded, was really about two people in a relationship transferring information on how they felt about the relationship. Wait a sec... is that communication or relating. Here's the kicker: If it's done in a way that expresses feeling more than fact, it's relating. If it's done in a way that expresses fact, position, opinion, etc, then it is communication more than relating. Relating is more subjective, and communicating is more objective.
That's it! I've solved the battle of the sexes! Except... I think this whoooole thing was communication.... darnit.
December 14, 2006
Eating (and Cooking) Habits
So as I was sitting in the kitchen, eating some of the soup I made last week, I began thinking about why I cook the way I do, and why I eat the way I do. So this post is mostly a reflective exercise on my part. The first thing I actually did was examine how I cook and eat. I realized that the two are combined and form a fundamental part of my life, and I think that this is true for many people. I firmly believe diet is fundamental to who a person is, and it is remarkably malleable, at that. But I'll get to defending that later.
How do I eat?
Well, first of all, I eat a lot. I reached an all time low in bodyweight in Aug 05 and for the last year and a bit have been trying to put weight back on, something I wasn't really successful with until the last month or so. For most of my life, when I have been doing hard physical work, I have eaten enormous amounts. For one period in particular, I would start the day with a pound of bacon and 6 eggs. Actually, when I eat eggs I typically eat half a dozen anyway. I never skip breakfast, and if I do, or even delay it, I feel awful and am absolutely wretched to those around me.
How do I cook?
My cooking style is pretty dependent on the other aspects of my life. My schedule is pretty busy. Spending time with my family has been important to me since I was about 5, and it remains a powerful motivator for me. Like most people, I have friends and like to spend time with them too, of course that is a little different from when I was 5, as I now have a car, a cell phone, and credit cards. And finally, there's school/work. Between spending time slaving, studying, or socializing, how do I find the time to cook? Well, mostly I cook in large homogenous batches. I cook stew or soup in a crockpot and eat it throughout the week. I like chili and pasta and will cook a very large pot. I keep the pasta sauce in the fridge and cook noodles every other day or so until it's gone. These "homogenous" dishes are easy to transport, and if you avoid plasticware and use a glass dish with a lid, you can microwave it anywhere too.
So why is all that important, and why did I say it was fundamental to who someone is?
Well, if you hate cooking because it's a lot of work for little reward, I would agree with you. I don't cook things so that they taste good... because then you eat them and they're gone, and that sucks. Of course I try to make the things I cook taste good, but that's not the primary reason I cook. I see food as having two effects: there is a short term effect of taste, while it is being eaten. Then there is a long term effect of what it does to you after you've eaten it. So if you think in the latter fashion, then you might like cooking because it's a lot of work for a lot of reward. For me, the reward of cooking is being healthy and feeling good. I like being full of energy and spunk. The taste-good part of eating is not enough to motivate me... when I know I'm going to get a headache or feel like crap later because I ate 3 cakes and tray of brownies, it's not worth it. On the other hand, I can eat raw broccoli for breakfast because I know I'm going to be doing backflips off my coffee table later.
How do I eat?
Well, first of all, I eat a lot. I reached an all time low in bodyweight in Aug 05 and for the last year and a bit have been trying to put weight back on, something I wasn't really successful with until the last month or so. For most of my life, when I have been doing hard physical work, I have eaten enormous amounts. For one period in particular, I would start the day with a pound of bacon and 6 eggs. Actually, when I eat eggs I typically eat half a dozen anyway. I never skip breakfast, and if I do, or even delay it, I feel awful and am absolutely wretched to those around me.
How do I cook?
My cooking style is pretty dependent on the other aspects of my life. My schedule is pretty busy. Spending time with my family has been important to me since I was about 5, and it remains a powerful motivator for me. Like most people, I have friends and like to spend time with them too, of course that is a little different from when I was 5, as I now have a car, a cell phone, and credit cards. And finally, there's school/work. Between spending time slaving, studying, or socializing, how do I find the time to cook? Well, mostly I cook in large homogenous batches. I cook stew or soup in a crockpot and eat it throughout the week. I like chili and pasta and will cook a very large pot. I keep the pasta sauce in the fridge and cook noodles every other day or so until it's gone. These "homogenous" dishes are easy to transport, and if you avoid plasticware and use a glass dish with a lid, you can microwave it anywhere too.
So why is all that important, and why did I say it was fundamental to who someone is?
Well, if you hate cooking because it's a lot of work for little reward, I would agree with you. I don't cook things so that they taste good... because then you eat them and they're gone, and that sucks. Of course I try to make the things I cook taste good, but that's not the primary reason I cook. I see food as having two effects: there is a short term effect of taste, while it is being eaten. Then there is a long term effect of what it does to you after you've eaten it. So if you think in the latter fashion, then you might like cooking because it's a lot of work for a lot of reward. For me, the reward of cooking is being healthy and feeling good. I like being full of energy and spunk. The taste-good part of eating is not enough to motivate me... when I know I'm going to get a headache or feel like crap later because I ate 3 cakes and tray of brownies, it's not worth it. On the other hand, I can eat raw broccoli for breakfast because I know I'm going to be doing backflips off my coffee table later.
December 12, 2006
Incensed... and drawn to Orthodoxy
Instead of studying for my Physics final, I stayed up all evening reading about the historical origins of various canticles and hymns. I find myself inexorably drawn to Orthodox Christianity. (There is a little pun there in inexorably... inexorable comes from the Latin inexorabilis, which literally translates to "ouside of prayer" ie: beyond hope that prayer can prevent what is going to happen next.)
Long ago I passed judgment on the Catholic church in my personal life. Although I give them freedom to worship as they please, I can never be a Catholic for various theological reasons. I find that many of these reasons do not exist in the Orthodox church. Furthermore, and moreover, there is a response in my being to an immediate and primal demand for accountability. Did you know that an Orthodox Christian can expect to spend approximately half the year in at least some form of fasting? Why does that appeal to me so much? Perhaps it is because I am ill by protestants that go to church on sunday and keep their Christianity in the back pocket of the pants they wear on that day. Perhaps it is because of Galatians (4:10-11)
Worship is for every day of every week, not for Christmas day, and not for sunday. Even with that, it is better to believe and not attend, than to attend for show, and not believe. Perhaps the monastery is for me after all.
Long ago I passed judgment on the Catholic church in my personal life. Although I give them freedom to worship as they please, I can never be a Catholic for various theological reasons. I find that many of these reasons do not exist in the Orthodox church. Furthermore, and moreover, there is a response in my being to an immediate and primal demand for accountability. Did you know that an Orthodox Christian can expect to spend approximately half the year in at least some form of fasting? Why does that appeal to me so much? Perhaps it is because I am ill by protestants that go to church on sunday and keep their Christianity in the back pocket of the pants they wear on that day. Perhaps it is because of Galatians (4:10-11)
10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.
December 11, 2006
The Real Meaning of Christmas:
What is the real meaning of Christmas?
Surely not the birth of Christ, something often pointed to as the real meaning of christmas. After all, there have been Winter solstices celebrated year after year centuries before Christ came into this world. In fact, "late December" celebrations were common in many cultures as the shortest day of the year, and thus the day representing the rebirth of the Sun-God in the standard death and rebirth cycle. At some time, the organized church decided to "overwrite" these pagan traditions with one of their own. Their success?
Surely not the commercialism that goes on and Santa Claus. Actually, I always find it funny that you can spell Santa and Satan with the same letters, ever since I saw a *NIX suite of tools called either satan or santa depending on your preference. (Security Administrator's Tool for Analyzing Networks, which comes with a pre-packaged tool for converting the name to Santa... the alteration tool is called repent.) At any rate, this rampant commercialization and desire for MORE is not getting anyone anywhere. Even the profiteering capitalists get nowhere, really.
What else is there? Oh yeah, family. If it's about family, try telling that to the homeless, the drug addicts, the fatherless, and those born with AIDS. Tell it to the poor, who do not have food, and tell it to the emotionally destitute, regardless of whether their destitution comes from genes beyond their control, or the of actions of man, equally beyond their control.
What is it about? Beats me.
POSTSCRIPT: I recommend reading this webpage... http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/carol.html
Christians aren't necessarily called to a political interest in communism or any socialist state, although they may be called to independent and free action that would be consistant with that executed under such legislation. I think the voluntary aspect is important, however. (Further note on Christmas: how much of this commercialism is voluntary? Try not giving presents and see how people respond!)
PPS. Mass is a celebration of the death of Christ, not the birth. Christmas is a misnomer, and in actually should represent the celebration of Mass in a Catholic or Greek Orthodox church, or Communion in a protestant church, I think. At any rate, a quick search in the bible for the word Birthday gives only 3 results: 1 for Pharoah in Joseph's time, and 2 (Matt, Mark) for Herod's Birthday. Apparently celebrating birthdays is something the pagans do. How many times did Jesus say to remember him, his death, and how to do it? I don't remember seeing anything about his birthday... which was definately not in December.
Surely not the birth of Christ, something often pointed to as the real meaning of christmas. After all, there have been Winter solstices celebrated year after year centuries before Christ came into this world. In fact, "late December" celebrations were common in many cultures as the shortest day of the year, and thus the day representing the rebirth of the Sun-God in the standard death and rebirth cycle. At some time, the organized church decided to "overwrite" these pagan traditions with one of their own. Their success?
Surely not the commercialism that goes on and Santa Claus. Actually, I always find it funny that you can spell Santa and Satan with the same letters, ever since I saw a *NIX suite of tools called either satan or santa depending on your preference. (Security Administrator's Tool for Analyzing Networks, which comes with a pre-packaged tool for converting the name to Santa... the alteration tool is called repent.) At any rate, this rampant commercialization and desire for MORE is not getting anyone anywhere. Even the profiteering capitalists get nowhere, really.
What else is there? Oh yeah, family. If it's about family, try telling that to the homeless, the drug addicts, the fatherless, and those born with AIDS. Tell it to the poor, who do not have food, and tell it to the emotionally destitute, regardless of whether their destitution comes from genes beyond their control, or the of actions of man, equally beyond their control.
What is it about? Beats me.
POSTSCRIPT: I recommend reading this webpage... http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/carol.html
Christians aren't necessarily called to a political interest in communism or any socialist state, although they may be called to independent and free action that would be consistant with that executed under such legislation. I think the voluntary aspect is important, however. (Further note on Christmas: how much of this commercialism is voluntary? Try not giving presents and see how people respond!)
PPS. Mass is a celebration of the death of Christ, not the birth. Christmas is a misnomer, and in actually should represent the celebration of Mass in a Catholic or Greek Orthodox church, or Communion in a protestant church, I think. At any rate, a quick search in the bible for the word Birthday gives only 3 results: 1 for Pharoah in Joseph's time, and 2 (Matt, Mark) for Herod's Birthday. Apparently celebrating birthdays is something the pagans do. How many times did Jesus say to remember him, his death, and how to do it? I don't remember seeing anything about his birthday... which was definately not in December.
Free Immanence
It's funny when something happens that disrupts daily life. Like when the power went out today. At first, you're not sure what to do, because you can't do what you were doing... so if you're like me, you lie (lay?) down and think a little. However, the disruption maintains your attention and you cannot but help be drawn into beautiful immanence. And it goes on, too. You can light candles, but that only augments the intesity by which your thoughts are held captive in the present. It's a shame that disruption is the only bottled form of immanence. Well, I suppose there are people too.
December 10, 2006
Some People are not Smart... Or rather: Smart People are not Some
It is only natural that people who read, "Some people are not smart" to take it to mean that certain people lack the characteristic of smartness*. However, it can also be read to mean that smartness cannot apply to some people, that is to say, it must apply to all people or to none.
That is exactly what my view is. Whatever 'smart' means, it applies to everyone equally. To date, no one has agreed to me, much to my chagrin. Hopefully that will change, if and when people read this.
Alexiphanes: What does it mean to be smart, that is, to have the characteristic of smartness?
Akakios: A certain state of being, where one is mentally capable.
Alexiphanes: So this state would depend on many things?
Akakios: Oh yes, many things, such as diet, or tiredness, or emotional state. . .
Alexiphanes: If one's degree of smartness is affected by these things, then surely it must pre-exist independently to be affected.
Akakios: Well, I should agree that it is an intrinsic quality, one not dependent on any other.
Alexiphanes: So these things are not foundational for smartness; it pre-existed them and is merely modified.
Akakios: Absolutely.
Alexiphanes: And can other mental characteristics affect smartness?
Akakios: I imagine they would.
Alexiphanes: Such as attitude, or interest?
Akakios: I don't see how attitude would affect the degree to which someone is smart, merely the application of it.
Alexiphanes: Well that is exactly it, I should think: If an individual were to suddenly acquire a car, which is red, and of a certain make and model, then that individual would experience a phenomenon whereas they begin to see other red cars, or of that make and model, everywhere they go.
Akakios: I've experienced that myself.
Alexiphanes: Likewise, when an individual has bias within an issue, suppose they are of a minority, they then discover that issue everywhere they go. However, on issues of which they have no opinion or interest, regardless of how polluted their environment is with instances, they barely register notice.
Akakios: I cannot say I've experienced that, however. . .
Alexiphanes: Naturally not, as before now, it has never been an issue which your attention was drawn to. However, now that you are driving a brand new vehicle of the Make: Smart and Model: Interest, you will begin to see clearly, those around you that ignore or respond to issues, and in which fashion or mannner.
*Please note that I use smart and smartness particularly as their common usage suits my message and meaning while fulfilling accuracy. I would use intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, cognizance, or so on if I desired greater precision.
That is exactly what my view is. Whatever 'smart' means, it applies to everyone equally. To date, no one has agreed to me, much to my chagrin. Hopefully that will change, if and when people read this.
Alexiphanes: What does it mean to be smart, that is, to have the characteristic of smartness?
Akakios: A certain state of being, where one is mentally capable.
Alexiphanes: So this state would depend on many things?
Akakios: Oh yes, many things, such as diet, or tiredness, or emotional state. . .
Alexiphanes: If one's degree of smartness is affected by these things, then surely it must pre-exist independently to be affected.
Akakios: Well, I should agree that it is an intrinsic quality, one not dependent on any other.
Alexiphanes: So these things are not foundational for smartness; it pre-existed them and is merely modified.
Akakios: Absolutely.
Alexiphanes: And can other mental characteristics affect smartness?
Akakios: I imagine they would.
Alexiphanes: Such as attitude, or interest?
Akakios: I don't see how attitude would affect the degree to which someone is smart, merely the application of it.
Alexiphanes: Well that is exactly it, I should think: If an individual were to suddenly acquire a car, which is red, and of a certain make and model, then that individual would experience a phenomenon whereas they begin to see other red cars, or of that make and model, everywhere they go.
Akakios: I've experienced that myself.
Alexiphanes: Likewise, when an individual has bias within an issue, suppose they are of a minority, they then discover that issue everywhere they go. However, on issues of which they have no opinion or interest, regardless of how polluted their environment is with instances, they barely register notice.
Akakios: I cannot say I've experienced that, however. . .
Alexiphanes: Naturally not, as before now, it has never been an issue which your attention was drawn to. However, now that you are driving a brand new vehicle of the Make: Smart and Model: Interest, you will begin to see clearly, those around you that ignore or respond to issues, and in which fashion or mannner.
*Please note that I use smart and smartness particularly as their common usage suits my message and meaning while fulfilling accuracy. I would use intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, cognizance, or so on if I desired greater precision.
Wisdom and Knowledge
Wisdom and Knowledge are enemies:
Knowledge is a hot burning blade. It's a piece of scrap metal that is hammered repeatedly until you get it through your thick skull.
Wisdom is the tepid tank of silky oil that tempers it. Wisdom takes all that work and turns it into something useful. Like all enemies, they serve a purpose to one another.
The Nature of Confidence
Whilst Instant Messaging with my Mother, she asked me, "is confidence an action or a feeling?"
This question set me up in an odd manner for an epiphany of sorts. My mind couldn't fit confidence into either category neatly enough. So I started working out the idea of what confidence really is, when it hit me.
I decided that Confidence is the purposeful (not necessarily conscious) mental deadening of possible stimuli.
As my brother and I have already agreed, this definition also describes false confidence and arrogance. This is a description of the result of confidence, but it's also the result of other bad mental states such as arrogance. (Perhaps this is why it's easily confused by an observer.) When an individual has sufficient reason to support blocking out certain negative things, such as excellent research and background knowledge blocking out the fear of public speaking about that subject, then they are acting confident that they will succeed. When an individual doesn't have sufficient reason to support that mental action, but instead is blocking possible stimuli out of fear, or worse motivations, they would then be acting arrogant or similar.
I suppose I should revisit this idea in the future when I have more time.
This question set me up in an odd manner for an epiphany of sorts. My mind couldn't fit confidence into either category neatly enough. So I started working out the idea of what confidence really is, when it hit me.
I decided that Confidence is the purposeful (not necessarily conscious) mental deadening of possible stimuli.
As my brother and I have already agreed, this definition also describes false confidence and arrogance. This is a description of the result of confidence, but it's also the result of other bad mental states such as arrogance. (Perhaps this is why it's easily confused by an observer.) When an individual has sufficient reason to support blocking out certain negative things, such as excellent research and background knowledge blocking out the fear of public speaking about that subject, then they are acting confident that they will succeed. When an individual doesn't have sufficient reason to support that mental action, but instead is blocking possible stimuli out of fear, or worse motivations, they would then be acting arrogant or similar.
I suppose I should revisit this idea in the future when I have more time.