the future relies on ingenutity. economy. and a whole bunch else.
what happened to logic, pragmatism, and causality. I do miss 'dem bitches.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
the future
the future relies on ingenutity. economy. and a whole bunch else.
what happened to logic, pragmatism, and causality. I do miss 'dem bitches.
My new theme song for winter
http://youtu.be/Q3gQSPMHPm0
Takes me back to their break-out hit from Romeo + Juliet.
Ahh young love.
It's ok.
We're better now.
Takes me back to their break-out hit from Romeo + Juliet.
Ahh young love.
It's ok.
We're better now.
The day of lies
Once upon a time several years ago, I realized that those in positions of authority have little reason to be there.
A sad thought indeed. Even worse because I was thirteen. No, it wasn't the ridiculously ugly divorce my parents were in the middle of. Nor was it the jarring transition from a school with a grade size of under thirty to a school where that was the size of a class. And there were four times as many strange faces.
Nope, it was science class. The teacher, a geeky kinda crusty personality with graying hair and the body of his middle-sized late middle-aged frame. He was giving a lecture on the planets, solar system, etc.
He way saying how 'space' was a vacuum. there was nothing.
This struck me as just flat-out ridiculous. How can the sun be 149,000,000 miles away and yet there be nothing in-between, separating the two.
So, i asked him about it.
He stuck to his guns. It was all just empty space. Nothing.
So, i said something along the lines of, "o.k. so it appears there is nothing in between us, empty space right...? but we know that there are actually a bunch of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, blah, blah blah.... so even though we cannot see it there is something there. So, what are the particles that make up space? It has to be something, otherwise all the stars and planets and such would be touching - if there were in fact nothing, a complete vacuum, in between all these objects. So, what's that stuff?"
He stuck to his guns.
I stuck to mine.
He stayed in class.
He sent me to the office.
Yup, i've always been punished, in some way, for asking questions.
Try it! Ask actual questions of people? A good one to start with is why are you buying that? Or did you ever really stop and realize that you are what you eat? Chew on that one.
If you do....... Your life will suck like a carp with a top model Shark stuck up its ass trying to vacuum out its little fish-balls.
And you'll be scared and alone, but deep down who already isn't anyway...
People will begin to dismiss you just as a status quo, because your sentences are to long, theories to abstract or big.... and you may start drinking a lot. More.
But the one thing you won't be without anymore is a cool sense of comfort. Cool like a February on the west side of Ireland. Each day will be fairly gray, but when the sun pokes through the clouds everything is lush and green and magic and deafening beauty swirling with blinding music. Tomorrow may be a bitch, but eternity is pretty awesome.
Ciao 4 Now. Box wine & BBQ ribs.
A sad thought indeed. Even worse because I was thirteen. No, it wasn't the ridiculously ugly divorce my parents were in the middle of. Nor was it the jarring transition from a school with a grade size of under thirty to a school where that was the size of a class. And there were four times as many strange faces.
Nope, it was science class. The teacher, a geeky kinda crusty personality with graying hair and the body of his middle-sized late middle-aged frame. He was giving a lecture on the planets, solar system, etc.
He way saying how 'space' was a vacuum. there was nothing.
This struck me as just flat-out ridiculous. How can the sun be 149,000,000 miles away and yet there be nothing in-between, separating the two.
So, i asked him about it.
He stuck to his guns. It was all just empty space. Nothing.
So, i said something along the lines of, "o.k. so it appears there is nothing in between us, empty space right...? but we know that there are actually a bunch of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, blah, blah blah.... so even though we cannot see it there is something there. So, what are the particles that make up space? It has to be something, otherwise all the stars and planets and such would be touching - if there were in fact nothing, a complete vacuum, in between all these objects. So, what's that stuff?"
He stuck to his guns.
I stuck to mine.
He stayed in class.
He sent me to the office.
Yup, i've always been punished, in some way, for asking questions.
Try it! Ask actual questions of people? A good one to start with is why are you buying that? Or did you ever really stop and realize that you are what you eat? Chew on that one.
If you do....... Your life will suck like a carp with a top model Shark stuck up its ass trying to vacuum out its little fish-balls.
And you'll be scared and alone, but deep down who already isn't anyway...
People will begin to dismiss you just as a status quo, because your sentences are to long, theories to abstract or big.... and you may start drinking a lot. More.
But the one thing you won't be without anymore is a cool sense of comfort. Cool like a February on the west side of Ireland. Each day will be fairly gray, but when the sun pokes through the clouds everything is lush and green and magic and deafening beauty swirling with blinding music. Tomorrow may be a bitch, but eternity is pretty awesome.
Ciao 4 Now. Box wine & BBQ ribs.
poor liars
Holy choir tigers and tinker bells!!!
i just figured why i can be both the worst liar in the world and at the same time convince others with moonlight and manure (much like many NOLA tour guides) as if it were gospel...
the poles of variance are: desperation for meaning vs. the fear of a paradigm shift.
i.e. ....
1) shit ain't workin' out for me in any reasonable way.... so, if you have an answer that seems slightly less unreasonable than what I've been raised to believe.. I'll be inclined to explore any seemingly less miserable option...
vs.
2) if i cling to the rosy remnants of my parents creed or that of the lousey- (lousy or louse-y? same dif.. lol) majority that is clearly not serving the needs of.. well most anything....
personally i feel much more a champion of my own existence when i can survive with and despite the challenges of being alone, self-reliant, and as in tune with the world around me as i can be...
.. but humans are social creatures... this is true, i cannot refute the bliss of true companionship with another human...
...however, true companionship is not limited to a singe species to species contact. Ever hear of "Mans' best friend?"
... I'm sure there are those out there (in reality or on TV) that can claim companionship with a broader sense of a communion with nature, something beyond themselves, larger, more spiritual, than a one-on-one experience...
...have you ever just stood somewhere and watched the world happen?...
"alone in a field at twilight, at dusk?"
Alone among mesas
and
witnessed that passage of eons
as ancient waters submerge the landscape and giant icthians escape the receding tides,
receding tides and slow currents
scraping out monuments to that which came before leaving only you, alone a speck among a vast
cosmic ocean of meaningless sand,
and it is there when stripped of all conscience and meaning and desire and hope
that one can finally begin to grasp ones own finality...
and that. right there, actually, is a reason, a purpose, something other than the motions to live for....
and that's what it's all about.
i just figured why i can be both the worst liar in the world and at the same time convince others with moonlight and manure (much like many NOLA tour guides) as if it were gospel...
the poles of variance are: desperation for meaning vs. the fear of a paradigm shift.
i.e. ....
1) shit ain't workin' out for me in any reasonable way.... so, if you have an answer that seems slightly less unreasonable than what I've been raised to believe.. I'll be inclined to explore any seemingly less miserable option...
vs.
2) if i cling to the rosy remnants of my parents creed or that of the lousey- (lousy or louse-y? same dif.. lol) majority that is clearly not serving the needs of.. well most anything....
personally i feel much more a champion of my own existence when i can survive with and despite the challenges of being alone, self-reliant, and as in tune with the world around me as i can be...
.. but humans are social creatures... this is true, i cannot refute the bliss of true companionship with another human...
...however, true companionship is not limited to a singe species to species contact. Ever hear of "Mans' best friend?"
... I'm sure there are those out there (in reality or on TV) that can claim companionship with a broader sense of a communion with nature, something beyond themselves, larger, more spiritual, than a one-on-one experience...
...have you ever just stood somewhere and watched the world happen?...
"alone in a field at twilight, at dusk?"
Alone among mesas
and
witnessed that passage of eons
as ancient waters submerge the landscape and giant icthians escape the receding tides,
receding tides and slow currents
scraping out monuments to that which came before leaving only you, alone a speck among a vast
cosmic ocean of meaningless sand,
and it is there when stripped of all conscience and meaning and desire and hope
that one can finally begin to grasp ones own finality...
and that. right there, actually, is a reason, a purpose, something other than the motions to live for....
and that's what it's all about.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Literary originality
Wherever you stand in time, whatever the contemporary literature is, it will always be a bastard mutt of all the literature that came before it. There are some traits that were intentionally bread in, some unavoidable, some - the best effort is made to breed them out... And there may be a bitch or two not in there yet... But the point is... Your piss & bullshit ain't clean. You had to take something to make it.
Prose of endless struggle
Indian giver altruists colonize the patient generosity of otherwise rational individuals, endlessly molesting, heavy clubs to raw flesh, the will to try - evaporating - until only one choice remains. Defeat or virtue. Blind, unsympathetic and feverishly doubting virtue.
In All the Way. hehehe
So that meaning of life thing I brought up earlier... Stewards of all live, proliferation of life, a return to logic and learning from the world instead of trying to subjugate it... Well, I think we should force a global dystopia in order to cull the radically over populated world... Yes, life as a whole would suffer horribly & immensely with the failure of chemical & nuclear containment; but some would prevail... This cheap, rosy permutation of the apocalypse offered up by shows or films Revolution, Waterworld, Category 6, and even Supervolcano sickens me.
What it seems to me that people don't understand is that if only two or three of the dozens of serious looming instabilities (climate, oil, fresh water, food supply, infrastructure, economy, war, disease, natural disasters, etc.) tip too far. They keep growing, unfettered, fueled by as well as fueling the other teetering instabilities... Soon there after, like any exponential growth graph..... THEY ALL GO, ALL THE WAY!
What it seems to me that people don't understand is that if only two or three of the dozens of serious looming instabilities (climate, oil, fresh water, food supply, infrastructure, economy, war, disease, natural disasters, etc.) tip too far. They keep growing, unfettered, fueled by as well as fueling the other teetering instabilities... Soon there after, like any exponential growth graph..... THEY ALL GO, ALL THE WAY!
Work ethics
So the sandwich I had for lunch made me think. It tasted just like lettuce, tomato & bacon between two slices of bread. What it did not taste like was a BLT. The sandwich tasted like a series of dutifully followed instructions, but instructions without any comprehension of why they are what they are. Something constructed by someone who has never questioned much, if anything, in life. This is an all too common problem these days. If a person does something without understanding the reason or meaning behind it; then nothing that person does will be reasonable nor have any meaning...
Useless and self-degrading labels
I am sick of feelings being used as universal facts. All I dream of is a straight answer; I have an opinion and evidence to back it up AND here are the weak spots in my argument!!! Honesty bitches! Try it, not hiding anything is the most free feeling you can be...
Good & bad are misnomers. These terms only apply to those assigning said value judgements. How can we ( as a species) escape the hubris of this egoism? Ahhhhjh!!!
Oh yeah, all those GLBT, labels are for amateurs... just argue that being human is enough.
The mind is trapped inside a body and confined to experience the world through 8 seances. Gender is a packaging. Embrace your souls, hearts and minds.
Good & bad are misnomers. These terms only apply to those assigning said value judgements. How can we ( as a species) escape the hubris of this egoism? Ahhhhjh!!!
Oh yeah, all those GLBT, labels are for amateurs... just argue that being human is enough.
The mind is trapped inside a body and confined to experience the world through 8 seances. Gender is a packaging. Embrace your souls, hearts and minds.
Adolescent drug use VS. the Pharmaceutical status quo
Copious indulgence in MDMA during adolescence, and it's subsequent neurological/ emotional fallout may very well disrupt the physical and/ or learned pathways of restraint and reward.
Given the far-reaching range of possibilities therein; love, desire, commitment, and a host of other basic and traditional values and emotional archetypes are dissolving as a result of this and other types of cultural diversification becoming more normative.
Ooop. CVS called, my prescription is ready. Gotta go... Need that shit.
Given the far-reaching range of possibilities therein; love, desire, commitment, and a host of other basic and traditional values and emotional archetypes are dissolving as a result of this and other types of cultural diversification becoming more normative.
Ooop. CVS called, my prescription is ready. Gotta go... Need that shit.
Mortal conception of the infinite
I wonder about the concept of a god (s) sometimes. I completely agree that there is a higher level of consciousness. But inherent in that reality is the fact that a lower being, by nature, cannot conceive the wholeness or complexity of a higher being. Given then, that when it comes to our ability to comprehend something completely beyond ourselves, I just don't get was the fuss is all about when it comes to religious conflict. We're all puppets in that sense, build to serve our maker as it were, so why would we do either of the behaviors that are hallmarks of our species; killing each other over details, as well as subjugating our environment to the point of our own detriment. We haven't killed whatever god each of us believes in; we failed it.
the fury
So i am about to post several bits i attempted to post over the last week via mobile but id didn't work. I suppose since there is no linear theme to this blog there won't be any more confusion as per usual. anywho, just a heads up...
Closed Feedback Systems & an Eddie Murphy Character
"What the F*** is a closed feedback system?"
"Dah Erf."
"Thank you Buck Wheat. Yes, The Earth is an excellent example of a closed feedback system. A Closed Feedback System, or CFS 'cuz I'm gonna get damn sick of typing that, is a cycle (or circular path) of some stuff in which none of that stuff can be taken out or added. What you see is what you got. "
"LIKE DAH ERF!!!"
"Yes Buck Wheat, like the Earth." They (the people that employ teachers) don't pay me enough for this shit,
"In a CFS, like the Earth, material cannot be added nor removed (for all intensive purposes we'll leave out a few tons of meteors and man-made satellites), the material just changes forms. A very complex cycle within the earth that can be explained in an oversimplified, but not horribly inaccurate, way is the planet's hydrologic cycle."
"The hydra-what's-it-cycle?"
"Well Sindy*, The basic pattern of movement of a water molecule around & within the Earth (including the atmosphere) is what is referred to as the HYDRO- (Greek for water) - LOGIC (from the Greek logos, "to go") Cycle (not spelling that one out- GOOGLE it)."
"SOH, MIZ TEECHA... HOW DAT LIIK DAH ERF?"
"FIRST., it is not like the earth, it is part of the earth. and the earth is composed of an infinite number of closed, open, circular, linear and web-like systems. The hydro-cycle is just one of them...."
"Bu-"
"SINDY! MOVING ON!,... The hydrologic cycle's main reservoir, its base, is the Ocean. (they're all connected- there's really only one. Tell the fish otherwise.) Water starts in the Ocean, it evaporates into the atmosphere, is held in clouds, condenses and falls as precipitation, lands either back in the ocean, or on land.
When it falls on land; it either drains into rivers (& back to the Ocean), is consumed by animals, plants or aquifers. Animals get the water from plants, atmosphere, rivers and aquifers and then piss the water back into where they got it from. Plants get water from the atmosphere, rivers, or aquifers and then give it back to the same places they got it from. Aquifers just store it underground to be taken out later. And rivers take all the water from the runoff from all the land-based intakes and bring it all back into the Ocean,
where it came from in the first place. A closed circuit...
...Shit. that got a little wordy in the land area of the cycle... so... from sea to air to land to river and back to sea. oooohff."
"You said there were others?"
"You betcha baby! There is the cycle of the earth's crust, nuclear waste, the CIRCLE OF LIFE - OH-OOH-OH-OH-OH-OH! <down Elton! down!>,
<<<<Ahhhh! side note, i realize that the cycle of planetary warming and cooling due to its elliptical orbits around the sun, center of galaxy, etc. prove that the earth is not a closed circuit system, but for the sake of argument (and the planet of which i would like to save, maybe not here but it would be nice - & i would like to, want to bring a child into the world, but only a world i actually believe will be there for them) just let the particulars that i don't need to explain to the people who i don't need to convince otherwise because they already get this slide. I want the 'pop' audience to be able to be both able to grasp this shit and be entertained enough to read it to get to the point... and maybe, just maybe, get the point i am trying to make; GET OVER YOURSELVES! YOU CAN'T-WON'T-SHOULDN'T MATTER IF YOU DON'T LEAVE A PLACE FOR YOUR FUTURE DESCENDANTS TO APPRECIATE OR EVEN REMEMBER YOU, & - FOR THAT MATTER LIVE!!!.
Yeah ALL CAPS, unleash the fury.>>>>>
....cont. from earlier... "So the Earth is composed of many of these systems."
"ehh..."
"SOH HOW DAT MATTAH?"
"Thank you Buck Wheat for cutting off Sindy. Now, that matters because of the nature of a closed feedback system. everything moves around the system in, essentially, a circle. But, like swinging a weight tied to the end of a rope---- the heavier the weight, the hard and faster it will spin, with less and less input on your behalf, as you swing it around. Yup, that fundamental law of Newtonian Physics - INERTIA BITCHES!'
So, the more weight lumped one end of a Closed Feedback System the harder and faster it will cycle.
"BUT HOW DIS GONNA HEP ME? WHAD ID AWWL MEEEEEN? WHAT ABOUT DAH ERF?"
"Seriously Buck Wheat, we get it. The Eart-"
"NO U DONT U DUMB BITH!!! HOO DAH HEWW GONNA SABE ME FROM MY NAN'S SPRINKLA SI-TEM, BEEPH BURGAH EV-Y DAY, AND DAH DAM OWD-MOBEEL!!! HOO DA HEWW DO I GOTTA CLUB WIFF MAH SHOOO?!?!?!?!?
"FINE!!!!
So if you drain all the planets aquifers, melt all its stored ice, heat up the atmosphere, and dam & drain the rivers, and cut down the trees.... emptying all the stores of water but one.... don't be surprised when the one remaining store of water gets really really full and tries often and violently to put some back...
....yes the Ocean. it will fill up. the water will move up the rim of the glass, and a full glass is much easier to spill than an empty one...
how does the glass of water that is the ocean spill onto the land? Rain, Sleet, Snow, and big fucking waves...
...YOU GET IT YET?"
*Sin, Superstorm Sandy, & a Homonym
Consider this next time you hear or see a story about weather/ climate change/ global warming:
Why is it still news that: IF you have a bunch of closed feedback systems all interacting with each and every other system, in that lager system, that is composed of almost all closed feedback systems & subject to the patterns of exponential growth that closed systems typically are, THEN when one or two systems spiral out of balance it is almost guaranteed that all the other systems will follow, spiraling out of control – so far beyond any known tipping point that it is to the edge, or beyond, current comprehension? And why is survival in the face of this reality NOT THE ONLY discussion being had?
sweet dreams
"Dah Erf."
"Thank you Buck Wheat. Yes, The Earth is an excellent example of a closed feedback system. A Closed Feedback System, or CFS 'cuz I'm gonna get damn sick of typing that, is a cycle (or circular path) of some stuff in which none of that stuff can be taken out or added. What you see is what you got. "
"LIKE DAH ERF!!!"
"Yes Buck Wheat, like the Earth." They (the people that employ teachers) don't pay me enough for this shit,
"In a CFS, like the Earth, material cannot be added nor removed (for all intensive purposes we'll leave out a few tons of meteors and man-made satellites), the material just changes forms. A very complex cycle within the earth that can be explained in an oversimplified, but not horribly inaccurate, way is the planet's hydrologic cycle."
"The hydra-what's-it-cycle?"
"Well Sindy*, The basic pattern of movement of a water molecule around & within the Earth (including the atmosphere) is what is referred to as the HYDRO- (Greek for water) - LOGIC (from the Greek logos, "to go") Cycle (not spelling that one out- GOOGLE it)."
"SOH, MIZ TEECHA... HOW DAT LIIK DAH ERF?"
"FIRST., it is not like the earth, it is part of the earth. and the earth is composed of an infinite number of closed, open, circular, linear and web-like systems. The hydro-cycle is just one of them...."
"Bu-"
"SINDY! MOVING ON!,... The hydrologic cycle's main reservoir, its base, is the Ocean. (they're all connected- there's really only one. Tell the fish otherwise.) Water starts in the Ocean, it evaporates into the atmosphere, is held in clouds, condenses and falls as precipitation, lands either back in the ocean, or on land.
When it falls on land; it either drains into rivers (& back to the Ocean), is consumed by animals, plants or aquifers. Animals get the water from plants, atmosphere, rivers and aquifers and then piss the water back into where they got it from. Plants get water from the atmosphere, rivers, or aquifers and then give it back to the same places they got it from. Aquifers just store it underground to be taken out later. And rivers take all the water from the runoff from all the land-based intakes and bring it all back into the Ocean,
where it came from in the first place. A closed circuit...
...Shit. that got a little wordy in the land area of the cycle... so... from sea to air to land to river and back to sea. oooohff."
"You said there were others?"
"You betcha baby! There is the cycle of the earth's crust, nuclear waste, the CIRCLE OF LIFE - OH-OOH-OH-OH-OH-OH! <down Elton! down!>,
<<<<Ahhhh! side note, i realize that the cycle of planetary warming and cooling due to its elliptical orbits around the sun, center of galaxy, etc. prove that the earth is not a closed circuit system, but for the sake of argument (and the planet of which i would like to save, maybe not here but it would be nice - & i would like to, want to bring a child into the world, but only a world i actually believe will be there for them) just let the particulars that i don't need to explain to the people who i don't need to convince otherwise because they already get this slide. I want the 'pop' audience to be able to be both able to grasp this shit and be entertained enough to read it to get to the point... and maybe, just maybe, get the point i am trying to make; GET OVER YOURSELVES! YOU CAN'T-WON'T-SHOULDN'T MATTER IF YOU DON'T LEAVE A PLACE FOR YOUR FUTURE DESCENDANTS TO APPRECIATE OR EVEN REMEMBER YOU, & - FOR THAT MATTER LIVE!!!.
Yeah ALL CAPS, unleash the fury.>>>>>
....cont. from earlier... "So the Earth is composed of many of these systems."
"ehh..."
"SOH HOW DAT MATTAH?"
"Thank you Buck Wheat for cutting off Sindy. Now, that matters because of the nature of a closed feedback system. everything moves around the system in, essentially, a circle. But, like swinging a weight tied to the end of a rope---- the heavier the weight, the hard and faster it will spin, with less and less input on your behalf, as you swing it around. Yup, that fundamental law of Newtonian Physics - INERTIA BITCHES!'
So, the more weight lumped one end of a Closed Feedback System the harder and faster it will cycle.
"BUT HOW DIS GONNA HEP ME? WHAD ID AWWL MEEEEEN? WHAT ABOUT DAH ERF?"
"Seriously Buck Wheat, we get it. The Eart-"
"NO U DONT U DUMB BITH!!! HOO DAH HEWW GONNA SABE ME FROM MY NAN'S SPRINKLA SI-TEM, BEEPH BURGAH EV-Y DAY, AND DAH DAM OWD-MOBEEL!!! HOO DA HEWW DO I GOTTA CLUB WIFF MAH SHOOO?!?!?!?!?
"FINE!!!!
So if you drain all the planets aquifers, melt all its stored ice, heat up the atmosphere, and dam & drain the rivers, and cut down the trees.... emptying all the stores of water but one.... don't be surprised when the one remaining store of water gets really really full and tries often and violently to put some back...
....yes the Ocean. it will fill up. the water will move up the rim of the glass, and a full glass is much easier to spill than an empty one...
how does the glass of water that is the ocean spill onto the land? Rain, Sleet, Snow, and big fucking waves...
...YOU GET IT YET?"
*Sin, Superstorm Sandy, & a Homonym
Consider this next time you hear or see a story about weather/ climate change/ global warming:
Why is it still news that: IF you have a bunch of closed feedback systems all interacting with each and every other system, in that lager system, that is composed of almost all closed feedback systems & subject to the patterns of exponential growth that closed systems typically are, THEN when one or two systems spiral out of balance it is almost guaranteed that all the other systems will follow, spiraling out of control – so far beyond any known tipping point that it is to the edge, or beyond, current comprehension? And why is survival in the face of this reality NOT THE ONLY discussion being had?
sweet dreams
Total Economic Solution, Right Here!
So, when everyone is discussing and pondering solutions to the current economic crisis, this world out of balance, the answer appears to be in the definition of the of the name of the problem...
WHEN DO WE INTRODUCE THE CONCEPT OF ECONOMY TO OUR ECONOMY?
Don't spend money on things you don't need... like triplicate.
WHEN DO WE INTRODUCE THE CONCEPT OF ECONOMY TO OUR ECONOMY?
Don't spend money on things you don't need... like triplicate.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Deities, Pascal's Wager, & Turkey Stuffin'
I like the term deity over god. When you use god some may think you mean God, when in fact you wrote what you meant.
The difference between a god and God is one of an undefined ideology/ theology (we could be discussing Shiva, Allah, Loki, etc) versus The God associated with Jesus and the American Legal/ Political doctrine.
Now I've been raised with the closest association to a faith being that of Christianity. So, out of a culturalized familiarity I tend to default to religious metaphors of that general faith. For example:
If the Devil is in the details who is more pious?
Is it...
... The person who argues, judges, and discriminates because of specific differences in names, places, dates, methods of prayer, etc...
... Or the person who works to find common ground among all doctrines...
i.e. Murder is bad, theft is wrong, do not praise nor follow the word of false "idols"/ other gods = people who say they speak on behalf of a benevolent god more so than the next guy/ gal...?
ooops....
Did organized religion contradict itself in a HUGE way just then?
If any deity is, by the nature of being a deity, universal and equally present in space, and earth and critters and men.... then how is it possible to have a "holy man," i.e. someone who is more holy (a deity is somehow more present in them) than anybody else? Who is to say (or be able to prove that they are more in tune with an evenly distributed, and equally powerful presence?
Seems to me, that by the nature of the assumed truths about the properties of a deity, that no one person can claim nor prove that they know anything more about any aspect of any deity more than anybody else..
Again, if any deity is, by the nature of being a deity, universal and equally present in space, and earth and critters and men.... then how would it be possible for that god to have a personality? an opinion? be able to pass judgment?
If a force (as in a deity) "loves" no one aspect of its creation (as it is also part of every aspect of its creation) more than any other it would seem impossible for it to love anything at all...
... as there is nothing that it would be capable of not loving, thus canceling out the whole concept of love...
... as there would be nothing to compare it too, or weigh it against considering it is spread evenly across all of existence and that there is no room for an opposite to exist.
So because any god is incapable of having any opinion about anything because by its nature has the same opinion of everything, what;s the fuss?
There is nothing for Pascal to wager because a god is not weakened by feeling or value judgement like the humans that depend on that security blanket of "Something is watching over me, and there is a reason for the things I can't explain... a god!!!"
This Turkey Day I'm thankful to not be afraid any more. I just worry about the rest of you.
Ask the scary questions... don't pick the easy answers... save yourselves from yourselves.
The difference between a god and God is one of an undefined ideology/ theology (we could be discussing Shiva, Allah, Loki, etc) versus The God associated with Jesus and the American Legal/ Political doctrine.
Now I've been raised with the closest association to a faith being that of Christianity. So, out of a culturalized familiarity I tend to default to religious metaphors of that general faith. For example:
If the Devil is in the details who is more pious?
Is it...
... The person who argues, judges, and discriminates because of specific differences in names, places, dates, methods of prayer, etc...
... Or the person who works to find common ground among all doctrines...
i.e. Murder is bad, theft is wrong, do not praise nor follow the word of false "idols"/ other gods = people who say they speak on behalf of a benevolent god more so than the next guy/ gal...?
ooops....
Did organized religion contradict itself in a HUGE way just then?
If any deity is, by the nature of being a deity, universal and equally present in space, and earth and critters and men.... then how is it possible to have a "holy man," i.e. someone who is more holy (a deity is somehow more present in them) than anybody else? Who is to say (or be able to prove that they are more in tune with an evenly distributed, and equally powerful presence?
Seems to me, that by the nature of the assumed truths about the properties of a deity, that no one person can claim nor prove that they know anything more about any aspect of any deity more than anybody else..
Again, if any deity is, by the nature of being a deity, universal and equally present in space, and earth and critters and men.... then how would it be possible for that god to have a personality? an opinion? be able to pass judgment?
If a force (as in a deity) "loves" no one aspect of its creation (as it is also part of every aspect of its creation) more than any other it would seem impossible for it to love anything at all...
... as there is nothing that it would be capable of not loving, thus canceling out the whole concept of love...
... as there would be nothing to compare it too, or weigh it against considering it is spread evenly across all of existence and that there is no room for an opposite to exist.
So because any god is incapable of having any opinion about anything because by its nature has the same opinion of everything, what;s the fuss?
There is nothing for Pascal to wager because a god is not weakened by feeling or value judgement like the humans that depend on that security blanket of "Something is watching over me, and there is a reason for the things I can't explain... a god!!!"
This Turkey Day I'm thankful to not be afraid any more. I just worry about the rest of you.
Ask the scary questions... don't pick the easy answers... save yourselves from yourselves.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Morality Thought Experiment Wombat
Question; What is more abhorrent according to your value system? Murder or Suicide?
Better yet, Suicide vs. a Murder Suicide?
Well, what if the Murder Suicide was in the "second degree" so to speak; that is the lives of both were put in reasonably obvious danger, but the actual deaths (both the murder and the murderer's suicide) were precisely unintentional?
Then what if both suicides were in the "second degree?"
(I say " " when talking about suicide in the second degree as it seems a somewhat blatantly redundant term, but given our legal system may actually exist- in which case I'm just full of bullshit when it comes to an accurate legal description)
.... if one chose to put one's life in reasonable danger (smoking cigarettes, jumping out of a plane, swimmingly in booze and sexy things, driving a car, etc.) is that morally "worse" or "better" than if one knowingly did something irresponsible that gravely endangered the lives of themselves and ("more importantly") others..... say driving around a unloading lights-a-flashing school bus w/ a go-cup & cell phone in hand, or perhaps lighting a fire on the living room floor of a first floor apartment, or unregulated and un-protested dumping of seriously scary chemicals into water systems? All of those activities put both the actor as well as many others in extreme risk... in increasing order... so why does the last one seem to be the one least likely to be addressed? The book Silent Spring came out in the 60's, we've well known for some time that dumping the leftovers from making paint, and hairspray, and poison into our backyards kills us and uncounted other forms of life.... Are we just that near sighted, careless, and suicidal? Does it make it worse that we seem to be cool with taking as many other speices down with us? Is this just nuts?
Do you know what the first thing a crazy person says is?
"I'm not crazy."
Get out and write a congressmen, e-mail the white house (easy go to whitehouse.gov and click contact), don't buy toxic crap, encourage others to use less crap, or even go so far as to avoid buying new crap - if its a little old/ used but made to last better/ longer at less than half the price of the new shiny thing, who's to say what the better value is...
oh. and plant sunflowers. they're cool looking, Van Gogh liked them, the Doctor likes them, and they leach heavy metals from the soil.
Better yet, Suicide vs. a Murder Suicide?
Well, what if the Murder Suicide was in the "second degree" so to speak; that is the lives of both were put in reasonably obvious danger, but the actual deaths (both the murder and the murderer's suicide) were precisely unintentional?
Then what if both suicides were in the "second degree?"
(I say " " when talking about suicide in the second degree as it seems a somewhat blatantly redundant term, but given our legal system may actually exist- in which case I'm just full of bullshit when it comes to an accurate legal description)
.... if one chose to put one's life in reasonable danger (smoking cigarettes, jumping out of a plane, swimmingly in booze and sexy things, driving a car, etc.) is that morally "worse" or "better" than if one knowingly did something irresponsible that gravely endangered the lives of themselves and ("more importantly") others..... say driving around a unloading lights-a-flashing school bus w/ a go-cup & cell phone in hand, or perhaps lighting a fire on the living room floor of a first floor apartment, or unregulated and un-protested dumping of seriously scary chemicals into water systems? All of those activities put both the actor as well as many others in extreme risk... in increasing order... so why does the last one seem to be the one least likely to be addressed? The book Silent Spring came out in the 60's, we've well known for some time that dumping the leftovers from making paint, and hairspray, and poison into our backyards kills us and uncounted other forms of life.... Are we just that near sighted, careless, and suicidal? Does it make it worse that we seem to be cool with taking as many other speices down with us? Is this just nuts?
Do you know what the first thing a crazy person says is?
"I'm not crazy."
Get out and write a congressmen, e-mail the white house (easy go to whitehouse.gov and click contact), don't buy toxic crap, encourage others to use less crap, or even go so far as to avoid buying new crap - if its a little old/ used but made to last better/ longer at less than half the price of the new shiny thing, who's to say what the better value is...
oh. and plant sunflowers. they're cool looking, Van Gogh liked them, the Doctor likes them, and they leach heavy metals from the soil.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
The Unity of Religion & Environmental Science, and an Intro to the Meaning of Life
Of monotheistic religions that i am familiar with, they all seem to agree on one thing; whoever their spiritual deity is, it is a thing to be revered or at least shown a little respect.
If whomever the god is, its followers deem it necessary to build great structures of worship, hold great ceremonies, and devote a lot of time and energy into spiritual acts.
So, if followers are willing to go to these lengths, why does everyone seem so reluctant to honestly care for the 'gifts' that said god has bestowed upon them? If you gave your child a car for graduation or a birthday, and then that child immediately and willingly wrapped it around a tree, totaling it, would you (the parent) not be upset? How disrespectful is it for a child to whimsically demolish gifts that you have worked so hard make available to them?
If what I'm saying here makes any sense so far, then it follows that the same respect a child should have for their parent and their parents' labors to provide, a human should have the same relationship of respect for whichever deity the hold sacred.
One more thing I've come to understand about deities is that they are usually credited with the act of creation. Each god, by their nature of being a god, created the universe, Earth, life, and finally people. This is not in opposition of evolution either as a god would have created the process of evolution that lead to the existence of humans, thus still having created man.
So if a god is worthy of worship, created us, created the planet we live on, and created the rest of life that we depend on for fresh water, food, raw materials for shelter, etc.; should we not be grateful for our existence, and all of the things that continue it?
Now that we are in agreement over the issues of where everything came from, and that we as people are dependent upon (and part of) that everything, and that the whole of our known existence is something to be thankful for...
...should we at least try and preserve that existence?
Somehow, humans managed to get to a point where they can recreate the world around them as they see fit; build buildings, dam rivers to make lakes and electricity, use the compressed carbons of all life that came before us as fuel to burn, move mountains for the same purpose... In this way they are much like little tiny gods in their own rights. But they are not as powerful as they have deluded themselves into thinking, humans are still dependent on the planet Earth. That gift (like life itself) from a deity, humans will always be subservient to.
Even though it is not limitless, humans still wield a great deal of power to manipulate things. Should we not then have some accountability for this power? Or gratitude? Or respect? That's not too much to ask, is it?
Alright, where are we? 1. A deity created existence. 2. We are part of and dependent upon that existence. And we like it too. 3. We have the ability to radically modify our surroundings, and with that should follow some responsibility.
So if a god is the creator of all things, and we have the power greatly affect it, does that power/ responsibility we have not make us caretakers, or stewards of said god's creations?
The only place in the universe (that we know of) that has "life" is on this planet. Life is a good thing right? So, given our responsibility to it should we not try to foster life in all its forms, as opposed to threaten it?
Your deity did it best, why would you think to have the hubris that you can do it better? Don't attempt to control life, work with it.
If there was ever a meaning to life, a reason for humans to exist, it is to take care of all the rest of life and ultimately spread life throughout the galaxy. One day, a comet will hit the Earth or the sun will explode, and given that we are the only form of life to figure out a way to travel to other planets, should we not act upon that power and do our best to see that life in all its forms can continue along the grandest timescale?
The old paradigm of endless consumption and personal whimsy is clearly not working out.
So can we change it already?
I say we get the fuck over ourselves and how great we think we are, and to start doing what we were designed to do instead of continuing to feverishly pleasure ourselves in the most unsustainable and superficial ways.
Check back, I'll be continuing this plea for the rest of the blog.
Cheers & Ciao
If whomever the god is, its followers deem it necessary to build great structures of worship, hold great ceremonies, and devote a lot of time and energy into spiritual acts.
So, if followers are willing to go to these lengths, why does everyone seem so reluctant to honestly care for the 'gifts' that said god has bestowed upon them? If you gave your child a car for graduation or a birthday, and then that child immediately and willingly wrapped it around a tree, totaling it, would you (the parent) not be upset? How disrespectful is it for a child to whimsically demolish gifts that you have worked so hard make available to them?
If what I'm saying here makes any sense so far, then it follows that the same respect a child should have for their parent and their parents' labors to provide, a human should have the same relationship of respect for whichever deity the hold sacred.
One more thing I've come to understand about deities is that they are usually credited with the act of creation. Each god, by their nature of being a god, created the universe, Earth, life, and finally people. This is not in opposition of evolution either as a god would have created the process of evolution that lead to the existence of humans, thus still having created man.
So if a god is worthy of worship, created us, created the planet we live on, and created the rest of life that we depend on for fresh water, food, raw materials for shelter, etc.; should we not be grateful for our existence, and all of the things that continue it?
Now that we are in agreement over the issues of where everything came from, and that we as people are dependent upon (and part of) that everything, and that the whole of our known existence is something to be thankful for...
...should we at least try and preserve that existence?
Somehow, humans managed to get to a point where they can recreate the world around them as they see fit; build buildings, dam rivers to make lakes and electricity, use the compressed carbons of all life that came before us as fuel to burn, move mountains for the same purpose... In this way they are much like little tiny gods in their own rights. But they are not as powerful as they have deluded themselves into thinking, humans are still dependent on the planet Earth. That gift (like life itself) from a deity, humans will always be subservient to.
Even though it is not limitless, humans still wield a great deal of power to manipulate things. Should we not then have some accountability for this power? Or gratitude? Or respect? That's not too much to ask, is it?
Alright, where are we? 1. A deity created existence. 2. We are part of and dependent upon that existence. And we like it too. 3. We have the ability to radically modify our surroundings, and with that should follow some responsibility.
So if a god is the creator of all things, and we have the power greatly affect it, does that power/ responsibility we have not make us caretakers, or stewards of said god's creations?
The only place in the universe (that we know of) that has "life" is on this planet. Life is a good thing right? So, given our responsibility to it should we not try to foster life in all its forms, as opposed to threaten it?
Your deity did it best, why would you think to have the hubris that you can do it better? Don't attempt to control life, work with it.
If there was ever a meaning to life, a reason for humans to exist, it is to take care of all the rest of life and ultimately spread life throughout the galaxy. One day, a comet will hit the Earth or the sun will explode, and given that we are the only form of life to figure out a way to travel to other planets, should we not act upon that power and do our best to see that life in all its forms can continue along the grandest timescale?
The old paradigm of endless consumption and personal whimsy is clearly not working out.
So can we change it already?
I say we get the fuck over ourselves and how great we think we are, and to start doing what we were designed to do instead of continuing to feverishly pleasure ourselves in the most unsustainable and superficial ways.
Check back, I'll be continuing this plea for the rest of the blog.
Cheers & Ciao
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
truth in talk?
I would even settle for just an honest public discourse concerning any topic as long as it was qualitative vs. quantitative. This media obsessed with judgement leveed solely on aesthetics and novelty is a contemporary metaphor to the days just before the fall of Rome...
Or has history never repeated itself yet?
Or has history never repeated itself yet?
A thought on capitalism & industry
In order to participate in "the market" the pure buying and selling of things, one must give up the time it takes to produce for oneself (gardening, cooking, maintaining the home, etc). This creates a dependence of those participating in the market on those in the areas of production and service. So, as dependent as those at the bottom may seem to be of the top, the opposite is also true. If the top didn't have the bottom to produce, there would be nothing to buy and sell.
Mittens & the Gold Standard
Part of me wishes Mittens would have won the pres... Obama is a decent guy; but he will neither bungle nor force the social & economical tide that has been inevitably rising since 75 (or 6; whenever Nixon 'temporarily' set aside the gold standard for currency).... At least with Mittens, he stood a good chance, based on his faulty & championed admiration of Reagan's economic policy, of completely gutting this country of any ability or illusion of being able to survive ( much less compete) in the new global marketplace.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Sunday, November 4, 2012
What is Profit?
The other day I was talking to a young man, who seemed almost obsessed with his concepts of 'business' and 'profit.'
Now, I am not opposed to business (or taking care of it), nor profit. But as he began to tell me the importance of getting contacts and followers of some online venture of his, I got the impression that his idea of profit was simply the hoarding of currency.
So much so, that the concept of investing capital back into improving the business had not yet occurred to him.
Granted, he was not much more than 20, with the business experience of a part-time job or two and that of any other freshman who has split an ounce into dime bags and sold them on the quad.
So, I hit with the big Q first, "So kid, how do you determine what your profit is?"
"Money in the bank, duh."
I then ask, "What about the your contacts?"
"That's where the money comes from. They pay to be member of the club."
He is not wrong so, "That's true, but it's not that one dimensional... What is the value of your exposure through these contacts? Don't they bring you more contacts, which then bring you more money... So dose the profit generated from those early contacts add to their value? How do you quantify that?"
And so on, through what I imagine to be a standard business 101 course, a couple PBR's, a joint, Cheeze-its, etc.
By now I'm asking him to consider the "profit"required from natural resources to sustain the nutritional and physical needs of one human life (land to grow food, raise livestock, grow lumber, mine ore, fresh water, etc...) and then equate that into acreage.
So how many acres of land/ water does it take to support one human life (and all its buildings, and tools, and the tools to make those tools) for, say 70 years...
Let's just say, 10 acres (about four city blocks, big place for just yourself). Per person, for their entire life. Multiply that by say 8 billion.
80,000,000,000 acres = 125,000,000 Sq miles.
Area of land on the surface of the Earth, 57,268,900 Sq Miles.
And, that's not including ALL the rest of the life on this planet.
SO, what about profit? How did we get here?
If taking more than you NEED is the definition of profit, that is a troubling thought.
There's just not enough to go around.
What about businesses that profit in the traditional way, but at the same time focus on "using" less and "creating" more. Making money through neo-efficiency; instead of monoculture and production lines why not production webs? The natural world does it best. Just ask TED.
Now, I am not opposed to business (or taking care of it), nor profit. But as he began to tell me the importance of getting contacts and followers of some online venture of his, I got the impression that his idea of profit was simply the hoarding of currency.
So much so, that the concept of investing capital back into improving the business had not yet occurred to him.
Granted, he was not much more than 20, with the business experience of a part-time job or two and that of any other freshman who has split an ounce into dime bags and sold them on the quad.
So, I hit with the big Q first, "So kid, how do you determine what your profit is?"
"Money in the bank, duh."
I then ask, "What about the your contacts?"
"That's where the money comes from. They pay to be member of the club."
He is not wrong so, "That's true, but it's not that one dimensional... What is the value of your exposure through these contacts? Don't they bring you more contacts, which then bring you more money... So dose the profit generated from those early contacts add to their value? How do you quantify that?"
And so on, through what I imagine to be a standard business 101 course, a couple PBR's, a joint, Cheeze-its, etc.
By now I'm asking him to consider the "profit"required from natural resources to sustain the nutritional and physical needs of one human life (land to grow food, raise livestock, grow lumber, mine ore, fresh water, etc...) and then equate that into acreage.
So how many acres of land/ water does it take to support one human life (and all its buildings, and tools, and the tools to make those tools) for, say 70 years...
Let's just say, 10 acres (about four city blocks, big place for just yourself). Per person, for their entire life. Multiply that by say 8 billion.
80,000,000,000 acres = 125,000,000 Sq miles.
Area of land on the surface of the Earth, 57,268,900 Sq Miles.
And, that's not including ALL the rest of the life on this planet.
SO, what about profit? How did we get here?
If taking more than you NEED is the definition of profit, that is a troubling thought.
There's just not enough to go around.
What about businesses that profit in the traditional way, but at the same time focus on "using" less and "creating" more. Making money through neo-efficiency; instead of monoculture and production lines why not production webs? The natural world does it best. Just ask TED.
Aloha!
So, welcome. The idea here is to ask questions. For, I fundamentally believe that we (as a cultural species) are missing the point. There are many facets and issues to consider, that complicate the hell out of things. But there seems, to me, to be a way to find progress without so much destruction. This applies to our social institutions, our use of language and resources. This is about the haves and the have-nots, and what exactly does each have and not have? What is so good about good? What about that which is negatively affected by good? In that way, to examine what makes us prosperous in all aspects of life, and are we doing the right things to get that? And how could one, if one doesn't think so?
Again, the idea here is to ask questions. Then ask questions about those questions. There may not come a clear or defined answer, but in asking questions one can achieve a more dynamic picture of an idea. That's also where you come in; ask your own questions, share differing experiences, or options. Nothing is off-limits, so to speak, but just try not to be rude. Opinionated is good, saying things without having any actual point to endorse, not so much. That's because in addition to flexing that spongy-grey organ between our ears, I'm also here to have fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)